***Yes Warming
Anthropogenic
Warming is real and anthropogenic – scientific consensus proves
Fearnow 14 (Benjamin, Physicist Offers $30,000 Reward To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate
Change, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/02/physicist-offers-30000-reward-to-anyone-who-candisprove-climate-change/)
Climate-change deniers are considered a minute sect of the science community. A “Global
Climate Change” report from NASA finds that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming
trends over the past century “are very likely due to human activities.” The report also notes that a
majority of worldwide scientific organizations have issued public statements endorsing the
effects of man-made global warming.
Warming is indisputably real
Adams 14 (Chris, Ex-EPA chiefs testify global warming is real,
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/06/19/ex-epa-chiefs-testify-global-warmingis-real.html)
Ruckelshaus was the nation’s first EPA administrator, a job he held under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He said the four administrators
“believe there
is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change, but no
legitimate debate over the fact of the Earth’s warming or over man’s contribution.”¶ The hearing
comes two weeks after the Obama administration proposed new rules to substantially reduce carbon pollution, a process that could shutter older coal-fired
power plants and spur development of wind and other alternative-energy sources. The rules face considerable push-back from industry sources and
Republicans in Congress.¶ Republican members of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety sought to poke holes in the scientific consensus on
climate change and its effects, and to talk about how they think the Obama administration overreached in its recent rules and that Americans’ energy bills
would rise if new carbon rules go into effect.¶ Democrats responded with exasperation that issues
that used to have bipartisan
consensus had turned bitterly political, and said the prevailing view among scientists about
the nature of climate change couldn’t be ignored.¶ Christine Todd Whitman, a former governor of New Jersey who was
the EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, said she was frustrated by the debate over whether the EPA had the authority to take the action it
did on carbon pollution.¶ “The issue has been settled,” she said in her prepared testimony. “EPA does have the authority. The law says
so and the Supreme Court has said so twice. The matter should be put to rest.” ¶ The other former Republican EPA administrators who testified were Lee
Thomas, who served under Reagan, and William K. Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush.
Warming is real and anthropogenic—Skeptics are bought off clowns
Prothero 12 (Donald Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College, Lecturer in Geobiology at
CalTech, "How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused," 3/1/12, EBSCO)
How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase
Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200
years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et
al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores,
corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb.
This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey
climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past
1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years
ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Litde Ice Age in the 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the
warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timing of
stick. Other graphs show that
this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an
icecaps are thinning
unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps The polar
and breaking up at an alarming rate. In 2000, my former
graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen
solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),[ 4] but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic
will be ice covered in the summer.[ 5] As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and
Antarctic is thawing
walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The
even faster. In FebruaryMarch 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf -- over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick -- broke up in just a few months, a story -typical of nearly all the
The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial
warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last
10,000 years -- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and
Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers
Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps,
ice shelves in Antarctica.
and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon -- yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of
world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once
remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to the North Slope of Alaska. This is
catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global
warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on
record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are
being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.[ 6] Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have
to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise All that melted ice eventually ends up in the
the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year,
more than ten times the rate of 0.1-0.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually
ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present,
unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that
most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such
as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke
out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.[ 7] Even a small sea level rise might not
drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea
level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of the world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river
deltas) would be drowned. Most of the world's population lives in low-elevation coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, and
If all the glacial ice caps melted
Shanghai. All of those cities would be partially or completely under water with such a sea level rise.
completely (as
they have several times before during past greenhouse episodes in the geologic past), sea level would rise by 65 m (215 feet)! The entire Mississippi Valley would flood, so you
a sea level rise would drown nearly every coastal region under
hundreds of feet of water, and inundate New York City, London and Paris. All that would remain would be
could dock an ocean liner in Cairo, Illinois. Such
the tall landmarks such as the Empire State Building, Big Ben, and the Eiffel Tower. You could tie your boats to these pinnacles, but the rest of these drowned cities would lie deep
people who remain skeptical. One reason is that
have been fed distortions and misstatements by the global warming denialists who cloud or confuse the issue. Let's examine some of these claims in
detail: * "It's just natural climatic variability." No, it is not. As I detailed in my 2009 book, Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs,
geologists and paleoclimatologists know a lot about past greenhouse worlds, and the icehouse planet that has
underwater. Climate Change Critic's Arguments and Scientists' Rebuttals Despite the overwhelming evidence there are many
they
existed for the past 33 million years. We have a good understanding of how and why the Antarctic ice sheet first appeared at that time, and how the Arctic froze over about 3.5
variations in the earth's
orbit (the Milankovitch cycles) controls the amount of solar radiation the earth receives, triggering the shifts
million years ago, beginning the 24 glacial and interglacial episodes of the "Ice Ages" that have occurred since then. We know how
between glacial and interglacial periods. Our current warm interglacial has already lasted 10,000 years, the duration of most previous interglacials, so if it were not for global
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere after they were long
trapped in the earth's crust has pushed the planet into a "super-interglacial," already warmer than any previous warming period. We
can see the "big picture" of climate variability most clearly in ice cores from the EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in
warming, we would be headed into the next glacial in the next 1000 years or so. Instead, our pumping
Antarctica), which show the details of the last 650,000 years of glacial-inters glacial cycles (Fig. 2). At no time during any previous interglacial did the carbon dioxide levels
exceed 300 ppm, even at their very warmest. Our atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are already close to 400 ppm today. The atmosphere is headed to 600 ppm within a few
decades, even if we stopped releasing greenhouse gases immediately.
This is decidedly not within the normal range of
"climatic variability," but clearly unprecedented in human history. Anyone who says this is "normal variability" has never seen the huge amount of
paleoclimatic data that show otherwise. * "It's just another warming episode, like the Medieval Warm Period, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum or the end of the Little Ice Age."
There were numerous small fluctuations of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. But in the case of
the Medieval Warm Period (about 950-1250 A.D.), the temperatures increased only 1°C, much less than we have seen in the current
episode of global warming (Fig. 1). This episode was also only a local warming in the North Atlantic and northern Europe. Global temperatures over this interval did not
Untrue.
warm at all, and actually cooled by more than 1°C. Likewise, the warmest period of the last 10,000 years was the Holocene Climatic Optimum ( 5,000-9,000 B.C.E.) when warmer
and wetter conditions in Eurasia contributed to the rise of the first great civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China. This was largely a Northern
Hemisphere-Eurasian phenomenon, with 2-3°C warming in the Arctic and northern Europe. But there was almost no warming in the tropics, and cooling or no change in the
Southern Hemisphere.[ 8] From a Eurocentric viewpoint, these warming events seemed important, but on a global scale the effect was negligible. In addition, neither of these
warming episodes is related to increasing greenhouse gases. The Holocene Climatic Optimum, in fact, is predicted by the Milankovitch cycles, since at that time the axial tilt of the
earth was 24°, its steepest value, meaning the Northern Hemisphere got more solar radiation than normal -- but the Southern Hemisphere less, so the two balanced. By contrast, not
only is the warming observed in the last 200 years much greater than during these previous episodes, but it is also global and bipolar, so it is not a purely local effect. The warming
that ended the Little Ice Age (from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s) was due to increased solar radiation prior to 1940. Since 1940, however, the amount of solar radiation has been
It's just the sun, or cosmic rays, or volcanic
activity or methane." Nope, sorry. The amount of heat that the sun provides has been
decreasing since 1940,[ 10] just the opposite of the critics' claims (Fig. 3). There is no evidence of an increase in cosmic ray particles during the
past century.[ 11] Nor is there any clear evidence that large-scale volcanic events (such as the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, which changed
global climate for about a year) have any long-term effects that would explain 200 years of warming and carbon dioxide increase. Volcanoes erupt only 0.3 billion
tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, but humans emit over 29 billion tonnes a year,[ 12] roughly 100 times as much. Clearly, we have a bigger effect. Methane is a
more powerful greenhouse gas, but there is 200 times more carbon dioxide than methane, so carbon dioxide
is still the most important agent.[ 13] Every other alternative has been looked at and can be ruled out. The only clear-cut
relationship is between human-caused carbon dioxide increase and global warming. * "The climate records since 1995 (or 1998) show cooling." That's
simply untrue. The only way to support this argument is to cherry-pick the data.[ 14] Over the short term, there
dropping, so the only candidate remaining for the post-1940 warming is carbon dioxide.[ 9] "
was a slight cooling trend from 1998-2000, but only because 1998 was a record-breaking El Nino year, so the next few years look cooler by comparison (Fig. 4). But since 2002,
the overall long-term trend of warming is unequivocal. All of the 16 hottest years ever
recorded on a global scale have occurred in the last 20 years. They are (in order of hottest first): 2010, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2003,
2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000.[ 15] In other words, every year since 2000 has been on the Top Ten hottest years list. The rest of the top
16 include 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Only 1996 failed to make the list (because of the short-term cooling mentioned already). * "We had record snows in the winter of
2009-2010, and also in 2010-2011." So what? This is nothing more than the difference between weather (short-term seasonal changes) and climate (the long-term average of
weather over decades and centuries and longer). Our local weather tells us nothing about another continent, or the global average; it is only a local effect, determined by short-term
atmospheric and oceano-graphic conditions.[ 16] In fact, warmer global temperatures mean more moisture in the atmosphere, which increases the intensity of normal winter
snowstorms. In this particular case, the climate change critics forget that the early winter of November-December 2009 was actually very mild and warm, and then only later in
January and February did it get cold and snow heavily. That warm spell in early winter helped bring more moisture into the system, so that when cold weather occurred, the snows
were worse. In addition, the snows were unusually heavy only in North America; the rest of the world had different weather, and the global climate was warmer than average.
Also, the summer of 2010 was the hottest on record, breaking the previous record set in 2009. * "Carbon dioxide is good for plants, so the world will be better off." Who do they
think they're kidding? The Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by oil and coal companies and conservative foundations[ 17]) has run a series of shockingly stupid ads
concluding with the tag line "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life." Anyone who knows the basic science of earth's atmosphere can spot the gross inaccuracies in
this ad.[ 18] True, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale, as they have for millions of years. But the whole point of the global warming evidence (as shown from ice
cores) is that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown off balance by our production of too much of it, way in excess of what plants or the oceans can handle.
As a consequence, the oceans are warming[ 19, 20] and absorbing excess carbon dioxide making them more acidic. Already we are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs
("bleaching") and extinctions in many marine ecosystems that can't handle too much of a good thing. Meanwhile, humans are busy cutting down huge areas of temperate and
tropical forests, which not only means there are fewer plants to absorb the gas, but the slash and burn practices are releasing more carbon dioxide than plants can keep up with.
There is much debate as to whether increased carbon dioxide might help agriculture in some parts of the world, but that has to be measured against the fact that other traditional
"breadbasket" regions (such as the American Great Plains) are expected to get too hot to be as productive as they are today. The latest research[ 21] actually shows that increased
carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we depend upon today) are not going to flourish in a greenhouse world. It is difficult to
know if those who tell the public otherwise are ignorant of basic atmospheric science and global geochemistry, or if they are being cynically disingenuous. * "I agree that climate is
changing, but I'm skeptical that humans are the main cause, so we shouldn't do anything." This is just fence sitting. A lot of reasonable skeptics deplore the right wing's rejection of
the reality of climate change, but still want to be skeptical about the cause. If they want proof, they can examine the huge array of data that points directly to human caused global
warming.[ 22] We can directly measure the amount of carbon dioxide humans are producing, and it tracks exactly with the amount of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Through carbon isotope analysis, we can show that this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
coming directly from our burning of fossil fuels, not from natural sources. We can also measure the drop in oxygen as it combines with the increased carbon
levels to produce carbon dioxide. We have satellites in space that are measuring the heat released from the planet and can actually see
the atmosphere getting warmer. The most crucial evidence emerged only within the past few years: climate models of the greenhouse effect
predict that there should be cooling in the stratosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere above 10 km or 6 miles in elevation), but
warming in the troposphere (the bottom layer below 10 km or 6 miles), and that's exactly what our space probes have
measured. Finally, we can rule out any other suspects (see above): solar heat is decreasing since 1940, not increasing, and there are no measurable increases in cosmic
rays, methane, volcanic gases, or any other potential cause. Face it -- it's our problem. Why Do People Continue to Question the Reality of Climate Change? Thanks to all the noise
and confusion over climate change, the general public has only a vague idea of what the debate is really about, and only about half of Americans think global warming is real or
that we are to blame.[ 23] As in the evolution/creationism debate, the scientific community is virtually unanimous on what the data demonstrate about anthropogenic global
Oreskes[ 24] surveyed all peer-reviewed papers on
climate change published between 1993 and 2003 in the world's leading scientific journal, Science, she found that there were 980 supporting the idea of human-induced
global warming and none opposing it. In 2009, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman[ 25] surveyed all the climate scientists who were familiar with the
data. They found that 95-99% agreed that global warming is real and human caused. In 2010, the prestigious Proceedings of the National
warming. This has been true for over a decade. When science historian Naomi
Academy of Sciences published a study that showed that 98% of the scientists who actually do research in climate change are in agreement over anthropogenic global warming.[
This is a rare degree of
agreement within such an independent and cantankerous group as the world's top scientists. This is the same degree of scientific consensus that scientists
have achieved over most major ideas, including gravity, evolution, and relativity. These and only a few other topics in science can
26] Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change as well.
claim this degree of agreement among nearly all the world's leading scientists, especially among everyone who is close to the scientific data and knows the problem intimately. If it
were not such a controversial topic politically, there would be almost no interest in debating it since the evidence is so clear-cut. If the climate science community speaks with one
why is there still any debate at all? The answer has been revealed by a number of investigations
the money trail. Originally, there were no real "dissenters" to the idea
of global warming by scientists who are actually involved with climate research. Instead, the forces with vested interests in denying global climate change
(the energy companies, and the "free-market" advocates) followed the strategy of tobacco companies: create a smokescreen of confusion
and prevent the American public from recognizing scientific consensus. As the famous memo[ 27] from the tobacco lobbyists said "Doubt is our product." The denialists
generated an anti-science movement entirely out of thin air and PR. The evidence for this PR conspiracy has been well documented in numerous
sources. For example, Oreskes and Conway revealed from memos leaked to the press that in April 1998 the right-wing Marshall Institute, SEPP (Fred Seitz's
lobby that aids tobacco companies and polluters), and ExxonMobil, met in secret at the American Petroleum Institute's headquarters in
voice (as in the 2007 IPCC report, and every report since then),
by diligent reporters who got past the PR machinery denying global warming, and uncovered
Washington, D.C. There they planned a $20 million campaign to get "respected scientists" to cast doubt on climate change, get major PR efforts going, and lobby Congress that
right-wing institutes and the energy lobby beat the bushes to find scientists -any scientists -- who might disagree with the scientific consensus. As investigative journalists and scientists have documented over and over
again,[ 28] the denialist conspiracy essentially paid for the testimony of anyone who could be
useful to them. The day that the 2007 IPCC report was released (Feb. 2, 2007), the British newspaper The Guardian reported that the conservative American
Enterprise Institute (funded largely by oil companies and conservative think tanks) had offered $10,000 plus travel expenses to scientists
who would write negatively about the IPCC report.[ 29] In February 2012, leaks of documents from the denialist Heartland Institute revealed
that they were trying to influence science education, suppress the work of scientists, and had paid off many prominent climate deniers, such as Anthony
Watts, all in an effort to circumvent the scientific consensus by doing an "end run" of PR and political pressure. Other leaks have shown 9 out of 10 major climate deniers
are paid by ExxonMobil.[ 30] We are accustomed to hired-gun "experts" paid by lawyers to muddy up the evidence in the case they are fighting, but this is
extraordinary -- buying scientists outright to act as shills for organizations trying to deny scientific reality. With this kind of money, however,
global warming isn't real and is not a threat. The
you can always find a fringe scientist or crank or someone with no relevant credentials who will do what they're paid to do.
Fishing around to find anyone with some science background who will agree with you and dispute a scientific consensus is a tactic employed by the creationists to sound
"scientific". The NCSE created a satirical "Project Steve,"[ 31] which demonstrated that there were more scientists who accept evolution named "Steve" than the total number of
scientists who
actually do research in climate change are unanimous in their insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat. Most scientists I know
"scientists who dispute evolution". It may generate lots of PR and a smokescreen to confuse the public, but it doesn't change the fact that
and respect work very hard for little pay, yet they still cannot be paid to endorse some scientific idea they know to be false. The climate deniers have a lot of other things in
common with creationists and other anti-science movements. They too like to quote someone out of context ("quote mining"), finding a short phrase in the work of legitimate
scientists that seems to support their position. But when you read the full quote in context, it is obvious that they have used the quote inappropriately. The original author meant
something that does not support their goals. The "Climategate scandal" is a classic case of this. It started with a few stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia. If you read the complete text of the actual emails[ 32] and comprehend the scientific shorthand of climate scientists who are talking casually to each other, it is
clear that there was no great "conspiracy" or that they were faking data. All six subsequent investigations have cleared Philip Jones and the other scientists of the University of East
there is no reason to believe
that the entire climate science community is secretly working together to generate false information and mislead
the public. If there's one thing that is clear about science, it's about competition and criticism, not conspiracy and
collusion. Most labs are competing with each other, not conspiring together. If one lab publishes a result that is not
clearly defensible, other labs will quickly correct it. As James Lawrence Powell wrote: Scientists…show no
evidence of being more interested in politics or ideology than the average American. Does it make sense to believe that tens of thousands
Anglia of any wrongdoing or conspiracy.[ 33] Even if there had been some conspiracy on the part of these few scientists,
of scientists would be so deeply and secretly committed to bringing down capitalism and the American way of life that they would spend years beyond their undergraduate degrees
working to receive master's and Ph.D. degrees, then go to work in a government laboratory or university, plying the deep oceans, forbidding deserts, icy poles, and torrid jungles,
all for far less money than they could have made in industry, all the while biding their time like a Russian sleeper agent in an old spy novel? Scientists tend to be independent and
resist authority. That is why you are apt to find them in the laboratory or in the field, as far as possible from the prying eyes of a supervisor. Anyone who believes he could
organize thousands of scientists into a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting.[ 34] There are many more traits that the climate deniers share with the creationists
and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth. They pick on small disagreements between different labs as if scientists can't get their story straight, when in reality there is
always a fair amount of give and take between competing labs as they try to get the answer right before the other lab can do so. The key point here is that when all these competing
labs around the world have reached a consensus and get the same answer, there is no longer any reason to doubt their common conclusion. The anti-scientists of climate denialism
will also point to small errors by individuals in an effort to argue that the entire enterprise cannot be trusted. It is true that scientists are human, and do make mistakes, but the great
power of the scientific method is that peer review weeds these out, so that when scientists speak with consensus, there is no doubt that their data are checked carefully Finally, a
powerful line of evidence that this is a purely political controversy, rather than a scientific debate, is that the membership lists of the creationists and the climate deniers are highly
overlapping. Both anti-scientific dogmas are fed to their overlapping audiences through right-wing media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Just take a look at
the "intelligent-design" cre-ationism website for the Discovery Institute. Most of the daily news items lately have nothing to do with creationism at all, but are focused on climate
denial and other right-wing causes.[ 35] If the data about global climate change are indeed valid and robust, any qualified scientist should be able to look at them and see if the
prevailing scientific interpretation holds up. Indeed, such a test took place. Starting in 2010, a group led by U.C. Berkeley physicist Richard
Muller re-examined
all the temperature data from the NOAA, East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, and the Goddard Institute of Space Science sources. Even though
Muller started out as a skeptic of the temperature data, and was funded by the Koch brothers
and other oil company sources, he carefully checked and re-checked the research himself. When the
GOP leaders called him to testify before the House Science and Technology Committee in spring 2011, they were expecting him to discredit the temperature data. Instead,
Muller shocked his GOP sponsors by demonstrating his scientific integrity and telling the
truth: the temperature increase is real, and the scientists who have demonstrated that the climate is changing are right (Fig. 5). In the fall of
2011, his study was published, and the conclusions were clear: global warming is real, even to a right-wing skeptical scientist. Unlike the hired-gun scientists who play political
games, Muller did what a true scientist should do: if the data go against your biases and preconceptions, then do the right thing and admit it -- even if you've been paid by sponsors
who want to discredit global warming. Muller is a shining example of a scientist whose integrity and honesty came first, and did not sell out to the highest bidder.[ 36] * Science
and Anti-Science The conclusion is clear: there's science, and then there's the anti-science of global warming denial. As we have seen, there is a nearly unanimous consensus
among climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real and that we must do something about it. Yet the smokescreen, bluster and lies of the deniers has created enough
doubt so that only half of the American public is convinced the problem requires action. Ironically, the U.S. is almost alone in questioning its scientific reality. International polls
taken of 33,000 people in 33 nations in 2006 and 2007 show that 90% of their citizens regard climate change as a serious problem[ 37] and 80% realize that humans are the cause
of it.[ 38] Just as in the case of creationism, the U.S. is out of step with much of the rest of the world in accepting scientific reality. It is not just the liberals and environmentalists
who are taking climate change seriously. Historically conservative institutions (big corporations such as General Electric and many others such as insurance companies and the
military) are already planning on how to deal with global warming. Many of my friends high in the oil companies tell me of the efforts by those companies to get into other forms
of energy, because they know that cheap oil will be running out soon and that the effects of burning oil will make their business less popular. BP officially stands for "British
Petroleum," but in one of their ad campaigns about 5 years ago, it stood for "Beyond Petroleum."[ 39] Although they still spend relatively little of their total budgets on alternative
forms of energy, the oil companies still see the handwriting on the wall about the eventual exhaustion of oil -- and they are acting like any company that wants to survive by getting
into a new business when the old one is dying. The Pentagon (normally not a left-wing institution) is also making contingency plans for how to fight wars in an era of global
climate change, and analyzing what kinds of strategic threats might occur when climate change alters the kinds of enemies we might be fighting, and water becomes a scarce
commodity. The New York Times reported[ 40] that in December 2008, the National Defense University outlined plans for military strategy in a greenhouse world. To the
Pentagon, the big issue is global chaos and the potential of even nuclear conflict. The world must "prepare for the inevitable effects of abrupt climate change -- which will likely
come [the only question is when] regardless of human activity." Insurance companies have no political axe to grind. If anything, they tend to be on the conservative side. They are
simply in the business of assessing risk in a realistic fashion so they can accurately gauge their future insurance policies and what to charge for them. Yet they are all investing
heavily in research on the disasters and risks posed by climatic change. In 2005, a study commissioned by the re-insurer Swiss Re said, "Climate change will significantly affect
the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences."[ 41] Some people may still try to deny scientific reality, but big businesses like oil and
insurance and conservative institutions like the military cannot afford to be blinded or deluded by ideology. They must plan for the real world that we will be seeing in the next few
decades. They do not want to be caught unprepared and harmed by global climatic change when it threatens their survival. Neither can we as a society.
Anthropogenic > Natural
Humans are the biggest CO2 emitter—anthropogenic warming outweighs the
natural
Borenstein ’12 (Seth Borenstein, Associated Press May 31, 2012 “Climate Change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million
milestone: Christian Science Monitor http://ww”.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-passes-400-parts-permillion-milestone/(page)/2)
The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main
global warming pollutant. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400
parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating
pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon
dioxide. It now stands globally at 395. So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the
world will follow soon. "The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble." Carbon
dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years . Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from
decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million. For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban
. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused
the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say. It's been at least 800,000 years — probably
areas, where levels are skewed
more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said. Until now. Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic.
drop a bit in the summer, when
plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said. So the yearly average for those northern stations
likely will be lower and so will the global number. Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395
parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said. The Arctic is the leading
indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist. "This is
the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said. Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and
Butler said it was "a troubling milestone." "It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist
who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world." Ronald
Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in
hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said. Tans said the readings show how much the
Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week. The
They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will
agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas
levels. "The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders — with a few
honorable exceptions — are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former Vice President Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an
email. "History will not understand or forgive them." But political dynamics in the United States mean there's no possibility of significant restrictions on man-made greenhouse
gases no matter what the levels are in the air, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute. "These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron
Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by
climate scientists and the United Nations. He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot. Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and
2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.
Consensus
Human induced global warming’s happening now – consensus is on our side and
numerous studies prove
Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, 2008 [Richard, Global Warming: Looking Beyond
Kyoto, Edited by Ernesto Zedillo, “Anthropogenic Climate Change?,” p.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
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
novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The
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
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
satellite data
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 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
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
percent.”
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'
uncertain-but 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¶ 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,
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
See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is downward.
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
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
warm more in winter, and at night. Such
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 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.
AT Solar Variations
Best empirical data compilation confirms – sun isn’t causing global warming.
Nuccitelli 12 (Dana, environmental scientist, MA in physics and climate researcher, 9/4/12, “Solar Activity and Climate: Is the Sun Causing
Global Warming?”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm)
It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the
energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these
effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this
argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go
through the calculations for ourselves. Direct solar effect The Sun's largest influence on the Earth's surface temperature is through
incoming solar radiation, also known as total solar irradiance (TSI). Changes in TSI can be converted into a radiative forcing, which
tells us the energy imbalance it causes on Earth. This energy imbalance is what causes a global temperature change. The solar
radiative forcing is TSI in Watts per square meter (W-m-2) divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry, and multiplied by 0.7 to
account for planetary albedo (Meehl 2002). The albedo factor is due to the fact that the planet reflects approximately 30% of the
incoming solar radiation. This is a very straightforward and easy to understand formula - the larger the change in solar irradiance, the
larger the energy imbalance it causes, and thus the larger the radiative forcing. Studies have reconstructed TSI over the past 300 years.
Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005) compared a flux transport model with geomagnetic activity and cosmogenic isotope records and to
derive a reconstruction of TSI since 1713. Satellites have directly measured TSI since 1978. As you can see, over the past 32 years,
TSI has remained unchanged on average. In the early 20th century, from about 1900 to 1950 there was an increase in TSI from about
1365.5 to 1366 W-m-2. The change in global temperature in response to a radiative forcing is: Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's
average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter
(°C/[W-m-2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing. So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate
sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which
corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase
in TSI since 1900 using the formulas above. Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley's reconstruction puts the change in TSI since 1900 at
about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we'll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2. with a most
likely value of 0.15°C We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth's
surface temperature warmed by about 0.4°C. Over that period, humans increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by
about 20 parts per million by volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of: with a most likely value of 0.22°C.
the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor
forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the
early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming.
Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global
warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more
like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming
over that period. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El
Therefore,
Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They
found that since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the
data set (Table 1, Figure 3). Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the
temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only
account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Note
that this multiple linear regression technique it makes no assumptions about various solar effects. Any solar effect (either direct or
indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet
[UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that
solar
activity has played a very small role in the recent observed global warming. Indirect Solar Effects
Ultraviolet Radiation It has also been proposed that ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which varies more than other solar irradiance
wavelengths, could amplify the solar influence on the global climate through interactions with the stratosphere and atmospheric ozone.
Shindell et al. (1999) examined this possibility, but found that while
this UV variability has a significant
influence over regional temperatures, it has little effect on global surface temperatures. "Solar
cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean
anthropogenic ozone
depletion (via chlorofluorocarbon emissions) may have reduced the impact of UV
variability on the climate, and may have even offset it entirely. "Another consideration is that upper
surface temperature is small (0.07 K for December–February)." Moreover, Shindell et al. found that
stratospheric ozone has decreased significantly since the 1970s as a result of destruction by halogens released from
ozone decrease, which has been much larger than the modeled solarinduced ozone increases, may have limited the ability of solar irradiance changes to affect
climate over recent decades, or may have even offset those effects." Galactic cosmic rays Henrik
chlorofluorocarbons. This
Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark
1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if solar
magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. So an
in
order for this theory to be plausible, Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive
trend. Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend. Cosmic rays must
increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), thus causing the planet to warm. Thus
successfully seed low-level clouds. Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend. Fortunately we have empirical
observations with which to test these requirements. Solar magnetic field Solar magnetic field strength correlates strongly with other
solar activity, such as TSI and sunspot number. As
is the case with these other solar attributes, solar
magnetic field has not changed appreciably over the past three decades (Lockwood 2001).
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and
has shown no significant trend over that period. GCR Cloud Seeding Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of GCRs
in cloud formation. Kazil et al. (2006) found: "the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not
entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover" Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found: "we
estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the
globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of
ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays." Kristjansson et al. (2008) found: "no
statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters
and GCR" Calogovic et al. (2010) found: "no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."
Kulmala et al. (2010) also found "galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric
aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well." Low-Level
Cloud Cover Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris
et al. (2007) found "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large
discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series
averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997.
Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported
enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature
record." So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover. Inability to explain other
the galactic
cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain the cooling of the upper atmosphere, greater
warming at night, or greater warming at higher latitudes. These are fingerprints of the
increased greenhouse effect, the major mechanism of anthropogenic global warming.
Dansgaard-Oeschger Events Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O, a.k.a.
Bond) events could be causing the current global warming. D-O events are rapid climate
fluctuations that occur quasi-periodically with a 1,470-year recurrance time and which,
according to Singer, are "likely caused by the sun." However, there is significant debate as to the cause of
these D-O events, with changes in solar output being just one possibility (NOAA Paleoclimatology). Regardless, the most
obvious flaw in this argument is that the planet wasn't warming 1,470 years ago. The
previous warm event was the Medieval Warm Period approximately 1,000 years ago. Bond et
observations In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory,
al. (1999) added further evidence that the timing of D-O events disqualifies them from being responsible for the current warming, by
showing that the most recent D-O event may have contributed to the Little Ice Age (LIA): "evidence from cores near Newfoundland
confirms previous suggestions that the Little lce Age was the most recent cold phase of the 1-2kyr cycle" And a study by Rahmstorf
(2003) also concludes that the LIA may be the most recent cold phase of the D-O cycle, and his research suggests that the 1,470-year
periodicity is so regular that it's more likely due to an orbital cycle than a solar cycle. "While the earlier estimate of ±20% [Schulz,
2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the 11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much higher precision would point more
to an orbital cycle. The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the
1,470-year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery." However, according to
Braun et al. (2005), D-O events could be caused by a combination of solar cycles and freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean.
But their study also concludes that D-O events are not expected to occur during the Holocene (the current geologic epoch). "the 1,470year climate response in the simulation is restricted to glacial climate and cannot be excited for substantially different (such as
Holocene) boundary conditions...Thus, our mechanism for the glacial ,1,470-year climate cycle is also consistent with the lack of a
clear and pronounced 1,470-year cycle in Holocene climate archives."
The bottom line is that regardless of
whether or not the D-O cycles are triggered by the Sun, the timing is clearly not right for
this cycle to be responsible for the current warming. Particularly since solar output has not
increased in approximately 60 years, and has only increased a fraction of a percent in the
past 300 years, as discussed above. Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming
on D-O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003. So the planet isn't warming, but it's warming due to
the D-O cycles? It's quite clear that in reality, neither of these contradictory arguments is even remotely correct. Inability to explain
empirical observations Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there
are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example,
if global warming were due
to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and
more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at
night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night,
which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect. Conservation of Energy Huber and Knutti (2011)
have published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance.
They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget, and summarize
their methodology: "We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up
estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake
Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95%
uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."
Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to
various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave
radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat
content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters. Figure 6 is a similar graphic to that
presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only
(blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray). In Figure 7, Huber and Knutti break down the
anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the
1850s (Figure 7b), 1950s (7c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual
(7d). Solar and volcanic activity are the main natural forcings included in the Huber and Knutti study. Both are slightly positive since
1850, and account for approximately 0.2°C of the observed 0.8°C surface warming over that period. Since 1950, the volcanic forcing
has been negative due to a few significant eruptions, and has offset the modestly positive solar forcing, such that the net natural
external forcing contribution to global warming over the past 50 years is approximately zero (more specifically, the authors estimate
the natural forcing contribution since 1950 at -10 to +13%, with a most likely value of 1%). The
authors also note that
they chose a reconstruction with high variability in solar irradiance, so if anything they may
have overestimated the natural contribution to the observed warming. "Even for a reconstruction
with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." Other
Attribution Studies A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of
greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind, Foster & Rahmstorf, and Huber & Knutti. And
they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly
in recent decades (Figure 8). It's not the Sun As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar
influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century,
and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,
“That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to
hammer in a new one.”
like those studies,
Negative correlation between solar activity and warming.
Cook 12 - Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia (John, “Solar Activity and Climate: Is the Sun Causing
Global Warming?”, 12/17/12; < http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warmingintermediate.htm>)//Beddow
As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate
over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures
rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30
years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend,
so
that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." In fact, a number of
independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960,
over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global
warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends
concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that from 1979 to 2010,
solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data
set (Table 1, Figure 2). Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature
data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it
can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per
decade) from 1979 to 2005. A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the
contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And
like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent
decades (Figure 3).
CO2 Key – Extinction
Unmitigated carbon emissions cause extinction.
Romm 12 (Joe, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, 3/2/2012, “Science: Ocean Acidifying So
Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself,” http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-sofast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feeditself/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogre
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major
extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the
first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. “What we’re doing today really stands out,”
said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past
ocean acidification events was not wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if
industrial carbon emissions
continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral reefs, oysters, salmon.” 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.“ And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that
carbon dioxide is “driving fish crazy” and threatening their survival. Here’s more on the new study: The oceans act like a
sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil
carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if
CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that
corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.
Peer-Reviewed Framing
Prefer our evidence because it’s peer-reviewed—proves its legitimacy
Lewandowsky, 11 (Stephen, Professor of Cognitive Studies at the University of Western Australia, 6/20/11, “Climate change denial and the
abuse of peer review,” http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552)
In a similar inversion of normal practice, most climate deniers avoid scrutiny by sidestepping the peerreview process that is fundamental to science, instead posting their material in the internet or
writing books. Books may be impressively weighty, but remember that they are printed because a
publisher thinks they can make money, not necessarily because the content has scientific value.
Fiction sells, even if dressed up as science. During peer review, by contrast, commercial interests
are removed from the publication decision because journals are often published by not-for-profit
professional organizations. Even if private publishers are involved, they make their profit primarily via university
subscriptions, and universities subscribe to journals based on their reputation, rather than based on individual publication decisions.
Very occasionally a contrarian paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal, which segments of the
internet and the media immediately hail as evidence against global warming or its human causes, as if a single paper somehow
nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings. What are we to make of that handful of contrarian papers? Do they make a
legitimate if dissenting contribution to scientific knowledge? In some cases, perhaps. But in many other cases, troubling
ethical questions arise from examination of the public record surrounding contrarian papers.
AT Warming Inevitable
Emissions are reversible but the window is closing.
Fiona Harvey is an environmental correspondent for Guardian, “World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns,” 11/9/2011,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change
The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient
buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating
dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure. Anything built from now on
that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the
world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If
this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the
results are likely to be disastrous. "The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said.
"I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists
tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever." If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which
scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing
80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to
reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing. If current trends continue, and we go on building
high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be
swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at
all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations . Birol's warning comes
at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from
late November. "If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of
warming] will be closed forever," said Birol.
Now key time for climate—warming isn’t inevitable yet
ANI, 11 (Asian News International, "UN climate chief calls for urgent action to halt global warming," 1128-11, l/n, accessed 2-13-12, mss)
The United Nation's top official on climate change, Christiana Figueres, has sounded alarm bells and called
for urgent action to halt global warming. Speaking at a curtain-raiser media briefing in Durban on Sunday, a day ahead of
the official opening of the COP 17 conference, Figueres said there were two very important backdrops to the next
fortnight's negotiations. "The first has to do with a growing momentum for action... and the other is the new
research and the findings (on climate change) that are sounding alarm bells for urgent action." Figueres, the
executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said recent findings all warned of
rising danger levels. These included reports by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). " The
World Meteorological Organisation has put out a report that the atmosphere has reached record levels of
greenhouse gasses. "The IPCC just adopted... its report on extreme weather events, and it has concluded
that hot days are becoming hotter and will occur more often," she said. On the Kyoto Protocol, Figueres, responding to
a question, said governments had come to COP 17 "fully aware" of the importance of this treaty and the expiry of its current
commitment period at the end of next year. "I believe that there will be very serious effort here in Durban to move into a second
commitment period," she said. Figueres said that finding a solution to climate change required "nothing short of
the most compelling energy, industrial and behavioural revolution that humanity has ever seen". Asked
whether she thought the Durban conference could defer a decision on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, Figueres
replied: "In principle they could do that, but I don't see any interest in doing that." Many observers believe COP 17 is unlikely to agree
on a second commitment period, and say that in this regard laying a foundation for it to happen is the likely outcome. Some say this
could take up to 2020. Scientists warn that any delay would make restricting warming to an average global
increase of 2 degree C, or less, extremely difficult if not impossible. Anything higher than two degrees is
likely to cause extreme changes to the world's weather patterns. A recent assessment by Unep, titled "Bridging the
Emissions Gap", warns that pledges by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall way short of what was required. (ANI)
AT Cyclical
Warming is unprecedented – cycles can’t account for 21st century warming levels
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011 (“Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural
Variability?,” https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-9.2.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The
late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th
century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is
consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid
increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the
warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond
to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate
models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of
greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming
that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When
human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that
which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes,
differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El
Niño.¶ Variations in the Earth’s climate over time are caused by natural internal processes, such as El Niño, as well as changes in
external influences. These external influences can be natural in origin, such as volcanic activity and variations in solar output, or
caused by human activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions, human-sourced aerosols, ozone depletion and land use change. The role
of natural internal processes can be estimated by studying observed variations in climate and by running climate models without
changing any of the external factors that affect climate. The effect of external influences can be estimated with models by changing
these factors, and by using physical understanding of the processes involved. The combined effects of natural internal variability and
natural external factors can also be estimated from climate information recorded in tree rings, ice cores and other types of natural
‘thermometers’ prior to the industrial age.¶ The natural external factors that affect climate include volcanic activity and variations in
solar output. Explosive volcanic eruptions occasionally eject large amounts of dust and sulphate aerosol high into the atmosphere,
temporarily shielding the Earth and reflecting sunlight back to space. Solar output has an 11-year cycle and may also have longer-term
variations.
Human activities over the last 100 years, particularly the burning of fossil fuels,
have caused a rapid¶ ¶ increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Before the industrial age, these gases had remained at near stable
concentrations for thousands of years. Human activities have also caused increased
concentrations of fine reflective particles, or ‘aerosols’, in the atmosphere, particularly during the
1950s and 1960s.¶ Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for
relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed
major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during
which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity.
During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources
cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid
warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other
factors.¶ Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate
change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take
into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, as shown in Figure 1, models are able to simulate the observed
20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from
sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable
in the 20th-century climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations. The
human influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the
past half century.¶ An important source of uncertainty arises from the incomplete knowledge of some external factors, such as human
sourced aerosols. In addition, the climate models themselves are imperfect. Nevertheless, all
models simulate a pattern
of response to greenhouse gas increases from human activities that is similar to the
observed pattern of change. This pattern includes more warming over land than over the
oceans. This pattern of change, which differs from the principal patterns of temperature
change associated with natural internal variability, such as El Niño, helps to distinguish the
response to greenhouse gases from that of natural external factors. Models and observations also both
show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another
‘fingerprint’ of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been
responsible for the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed. In addition, differences in
the timing of the human and natural external influences help to distinguish the climate responses to these factors. Such considerations
increase confidence that human rather than natural factors were the dominant cause of the global warming observed over the last 50
years.¶ Estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last one to two millennia, based on natural ‘thermometers’ such as
tree rings that vary in width or density as temperatures change, and historical weather records, provide additional evidence¶ ¶ that the
20th-century warming cannot be explained by only natural internal variability and natural external forcing factors. Confidence in these
estimates is increased because prior to the industrial era, much of the variation they show in Northern Hemisphere average
temperatures can be explained by episodic cooling caused by large volcanic eruptions and by changes in the Sun’s output. The
remaining variation is generally consistent with the variability simulated by climate models in the absence of natural and humaninduced external factors. While
there is uncertainty in the estimates of past temperatures, they show
that it is likely that the second half of the 20th century was the warmest 50-year period in
the last 1300 years. The estimated climate variability caused by natural factors is small
compared to the strong 20th-century warming.
***No Warming
Adaptation
We’ll adapt—empirics
Goklany 12 (Indur M., science and technology policy analyst for the US Department of the Interior, Assistant Director of Programs, Science,
and Technology Policy, represented the US at the IPCC, rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC
First Assessment Report, PhD in electrical engineering, 8/28/12, “Is Climate Change the Number One Threat to Humanity?”
http://goklany.org/library/Goklany_WIREs.pdf)
Greater economic development, i.e., net GDP per capita, should translate into higher adaptive capacity
because an increase in economic resources ought to increase access to both the technologies and the human
capital needed to cope with change, whether that change is due to global warming or any other agency.
41,48 In addition, several factors that advance human capital—e.g., educational attainment, improved health, expenditures for health
and research 49 —are also correlated with increases with GDP per capita. 41,48 This may partly be due to the fact
economic development and human capital reinforce each other and partly because factors that enhance one
also enhance the other. 41,48 Moreover, if existing technologies are inadequate for coping with change,
wealthier societies have a greater capacity to research, develop, and deploy needed new technologies.
A case in point is the world’s response to HIV/AIDS. Once a mysterious new disease that spelled almost certain death
for its victims, it is now a disease that is manageable, particularly in the wealthier world. The effort to tame
this disease was spearheaded by, and accomplished at considerable cost to, the wealthier nations, who then
have made the fruits of this exercise available to poorer countries (Ref. 43, p. 21; Ref. 48, pp. 67–68). Arguably, this
was enabled by the greater wealth and human capital available to the wealthier countries. This would be consistent with the notion that
wealthier societies are more resilient to adversity in general. Another important factor contributing to adaptive capacity that is often
ignored in impact assessments is, as noted, secular technological change (Ref. 33, Chapter 17; Refs 9, 41, 43). Long ‐ term
projections that neglect economic development and secular technological change generally overstate future
negative impacts on critical aspects of human well ‐ being, often by an order of magnitude or more. 43,48
For example, the FTA’s malaria study assumed static adaptive capacity between baseline and projection years (1990–2085). 19
Applying the same assumption to project U.S. deaths in 1970 from various water ‐ related diseases—dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid,
other gastrointestinal disease, malaria—using data from 1900 implies freezing death rates at 1900 levels. But, in fact, from 1900–1970
they declined by 99.6%–100.0%. 43 Similarly, because of the increase in adaptive capacity globally, global death rates from extreme
weather events have declined by 98% since the 1920s. 50 Simplistic projections that do not fully account for economic and
technological development are the major reason why highly publicized projections from The Limits to Growth and The Population
Bomb , for instance, failed the reality test. 43,48
Not Anthropogenic
Cosmic Rays
Global warming is not anthropogenic – cosmic rays affect earth’s temperatures
Schingnitz 14 (Cora Lee, Scientists question man-made global warming, http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/scientists-question-man-madeglobal-warming/article_6efa109c-fd7f-11e3-9fe0-001a4bcf6878.html)
Elementary knowledge of geology shows
us that the earth has been subject to extreme variations in climate since its birth so many
eons ago. The issue that Mr. Esch was addressing was the extent to which human activity influenced the phenomenon. You belittled the substance
Mr. Francisco Villa must know that no one is disputing the fact of climate change.
of his letter by suggesting that the ratio between those supporting anthropomorphic causes and the deniers is 97 to 3. Some research suggests that there
are 20 times as many scientists who question the science of man-made global warming as those who signed off on it.¶ There were 52 scientists who
authored the media hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I have identified more than a thousand scientists from all
over the globe who take issue with that report including many current and former UN IPCC scientists. ¶ Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin: “I view
Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,”¶ Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University: “The corruption within the IPCC…
the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC
that it is no longer a credible agency.”¶ NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein “Any reasonable scientific analysis must
conclude the basic theory wrong!!” ¶ Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin: “Please remain calm: The Earth
will heal itself – Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about
governments or their legislation. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth
routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” ¶ Brazilian Geologist Geraldo LuísLino: “ Hundreds of
billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global
Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been
forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in
the elementary school textbooks.”¶ Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid: “My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a
physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this
field.”¶ Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma: “I write to expose the ignorance exhibited by WWU geology faculty, the most egregious example of
pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science.Ӧ I have a list of
more than a thousand scientists who question the anthropomorphic theory. Israeli astrophysicist NirShaviv mapped the path that our solar system travels
through the spiral arms of the galaxy, and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer plotted 500 years of climate change. The pair of scientists discovered an exact
correlation. Apparently the
inflow of cosmic rays affects variations in earth’s temperatures. ¶ This little
speck of cosmic dust called earth travels with its paltry star through an insignificant galaxy
into a vast and glorious, endless universe of space and time. What do we know, we who are the “quintessence of
dust” – William Shakespeare.
Consensus
No anthropogenic warming and no impact – scientific consensus flows our way.
Taylor 2/13 (James, Forbes magazine contributor on energy and environmental issues, citing a survey published by Organization Studies, a
peer-reviewed academic journal, 2/13/13, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/)
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming
crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Don’t look now, but maybe
a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers
believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in
the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077
respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that
future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as
earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here
and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. According to the newly
published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group
“express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.” The authors
of the survey report, however, note that the
overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each
of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist
respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they
believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they
strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their
personal lives.” Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate
change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’
consider climate change to be a smaller public risk
with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is
settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate
change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the
‘real’ cause of climate change is
unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is
overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public
risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that
the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.” The
final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as
being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical
with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.” Taken together, these four
skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global
warming is human caused and a serious concern. The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of
respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other
group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is
overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less
likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto
Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.” The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists”
model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on
their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC
modeling is accurate.” Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably
alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe
scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical
scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted
climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or
somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’ Another interesting aspect of this new
human caused and a serious concern.
survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member
scientists. We
now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are
skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and
suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe. People who look behind the selfserving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among
scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted
global warming crisis, but these skeptical
scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Taken
together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who
believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
Empirics
Empirical evidence proves—global warming isn’t anthropogenic
Contescu 12 (Lorin, 600 MILLION YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE; A CRITIQUE ¶ OF THE
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ¶ HYPOTHESIS FROM A TIME-SPACE PERSPECTIVE,
http://www.geoecomar.ro/website/publicatii/Nr.18-2012/01_lorin_BT.pdf)
Thus, all possible (but not necessarily probable) large scale disasters are predicted, based on
all sort of climate models and on catastrophic events of the past, none of them caused by
anthropogenic warming. Thus, while the goals to reduce anthropogenic warming were
honorable, the means to do so were execrable. To justify both means and ends, Dr. Schneider declares: "The
problem scientists face in trying to communicate complex and controversial issues with governmental policy implication is
formidable. On the one hand, our loyalty to the scientific method requires that we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, meaning all the caveats, ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, as human beings we would like to see the world a better place,
which to many of us means reducing the risks of unprecedented rapid climate change. That means offering scary scenarios, inserting
few caveats and getting lots of media coverage. To me the prospect of global warming has been sufficiently compelling to deserve
everyone's attention, even with the uncertainties admitted upfront" (Schneider, 1990). Unfortunately
the scary
scenarios were many, the caveats almost non-existent and the media coverage for doomsday
scenarios too many.
Warming is natural—empirics
Lupo No Date (Anthony, Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made,
http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/34/50144.pdf)
First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life
and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been
more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today. Second, they claim that climate is
stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true. Climate
change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has
been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on
earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when
planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder. Third, they point to recent model projections that
have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. One should be careful when looking at
model projections. After all, these models are crude representation of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes
and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degree scenario that is thrown around the media as it if were the
mainstream prediction is an extreme scenario. Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but
even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output. No one advocates
destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our environment for future generations. At the same
time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts. My research leads me to believe that we
will not be able to
state conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We
simply don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact
on climate change.
Seismic Activity
Seismic Activity is an alt cause to warming
Idso et. Al 11 – (Craig D., Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, Susan Crockford, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor,
Indur Goklany, Joseph D’Aleo, Madhav Khandekar,”Interim Report: Climate Change Reconsidered”, The Heartland Institute, p.46, September 2011,
KTOP)
O. Molchanov (2010) of
the Russian Academy of Sciences‘ Institute of the Physics of the Earth,
a case for the hypothesis that, at least partially, global climate
changes and corresponding activity indices such as the ENSO phenomenon are induced by
similar variations in seismicity. Molchanov (1) calculates the cumulative annual seismic
energy released by large earthquake events originating from depths of 0 to 38 km, based on data archived
by the U.S. Geological Survey for the 35-year time interval of 1973–2008 for various
earthquake activity zones spread across the tropical and western Pacific—including the Chilean
headquartered in Moscow, Russia, makes
subduction zone; the Tonga-Kermadec zone; the Sunda, Philippine, and Solomon Sea zones; and the Mariana, Japan, and KurilKamchatka zones—and (2) compares
the then-evident periodicity of seismic energy production
with that of sea surface temperature oscillations that occurred over the same 35-year period within
the Niño zones 1+2 (0–10°S, 90–80°W), 3 (5°N–5°S, 150–90°W), and 4 (5°N–5°S, 160°E–150°W). It was first
determined that the “climate indices show expected ENSO variation” and “amazingly,” as
Molchanov describes it, the earthquake indices demonstrate “similar quasi-ENSO variations.” So the
next question was obviously: which is the action and which is the reaction? From a number of other factors, the
Russian researcher concludes it is “more probable” that earthquake activity is “forcing the
ENSO variation in the climate” than vice versa. In concluding his paper, Molchanov states, “trends
in the climate and seismic variations are similar to each other” and “it is rather probable
that the climate ENSO effect is at least partially induced by seismicity with a time lag of about 1.5
years,” leaving it up to others to further study and debate the issue.
Solar Variations
Not anthropogenic—solar variations cause warming—mars proves
National Post 7 (2/7/07“Look to Mars for the Truth on Global Warming”,
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0/)
Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists
realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now
laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries. "One explanation could be that Mars is
just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its
first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more
and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give
up its climate secrets. NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of
the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory
is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a
greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. "Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline
consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar
irradiance." The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions,
is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar
irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions. "It is no secret that
increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of
large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's
industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a
misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very
notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically
substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the
atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
Alt Cause
They can’t solve developing countries emitting CO2—means they can’t prevent
largest emissions
Lefeber 12 (Rene, DOCTOR CHAIR IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THE THE UNIVERSITY OF
AMSTERDAM, 8/24/12, “Polar Warming: An Opportune Inconvenience”,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151241)
The single biggest environmental threat for the Polar Regions, however, is global warming.
Global warming is addressed by the international community through the regulation of the
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that have an anthropogenic origin
(mitigation).91 The temperature in the Polar Regions rises faster than anywhere else on Earth.
The causes are not yet fully understood, but it is presumed that specific regional features, such as the observed decrease in the power
This is
caused, amongst others, by the deposit of smut in the Polar Regions which was released into
the atmosphere by the emission of black carbon (or soot). Developing countries are the main
source of emissions of black carbon in the 21st century. The emissions of industrialized
countries have been significantly reduced in the second halve of the last century. Public
health considerations were the main reason for the implementation of various measures, such
as the use of catalysts in cars, to achieve emission reductions of black carbon. Black carbon is a greenhouse gas
under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Climate Change
Convention), but it is not subject to the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol to that
Convention (Art. 3.1 and Annex A). Furthermore, developing countries are not subject to the
Kyoto Protocol emission targets even though these countries are now the main source of
contemporary emissions of this greenhouse gas
of snow and ice to reflect sunlight (albedo effect), contribute significantly to the relative fast rise of the temperature.
Climate = Cooling
The globe is cooling, not warming – prefer the most accurate and recent studies
Taylor 6/25 James is a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment &
Climate News. He writes about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. He has presented
environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio
programs. His environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. He studied
atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. He obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.
“Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-datashow-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most
accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm
the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data
are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA
established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly
uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so
uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began
NOAA has finally made the USCRN
temperature readings available. According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not
rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by
approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming
of the twentieth century. Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year
cooling period does present some interesting facts. First, global warming is not so dramatic
and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time
compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later,
scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrating the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word
“monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the
independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not
USCRN data are entirely
consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past
17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm
this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also. Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S.
temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past
year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our
planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent
U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder
than they were in 2005. Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of
reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming
alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record.
Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are. Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future,
to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant. Of course, to
global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.
monotonic. Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the
The earth is cooling in the status quo, not warming
Idso et. Al 11 – (Craig D., Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, Susan Crockford, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon,
Mitch Taylor, Indur Goklany, Joseph D’Aleo, Madhav Khandekar,”Interim Report: Climate Change Reconsidered”, The Heartland
Institute, p.82, September 2011, KTOP)
In a paper titled “A strong bout of natural cooling in 2008” published in Geophysical Research Letters, Perlwitz
et al. (2009)
discuss the “precipitous drop in North American temperature in 2008, commingled with a
decade-long fall in global mean temperatures.” The authors begin their narrative by noting there has been
“a decade-long decline (1998–2007) in globally averaged temperatures from the record heat of 1998,”
citing Easterling and Wehner (2009). In
further describing this phenomenon, they note U.S.
temperatures in 2008 “not only declined from near-record warmth of prior years, but were
in fact colder than the official 30-year reference climatology (-0.2°C versus the 1971–2000 mean) and
further were the coldest since at least 1996.” With respect to the geographical origin of this
“natural cooling,” as they describe it, the five researchers point to “a widespread coolness of the tropicalwide oceans and the northeastern Pacific,” focusing on the Niño 4 region, where they report
“anomalies of about -1.1°C suggest a condition colder than any in the instrumental record
since 1871.” The researchers then push ahead in search of the cause of the global and U.S.
coolings that sparked their original interest, seeking out what connects them with other more primary
phenomena, the anomalous and significant oceanic coolings. Perlwitz et al. first discount volcanic
eruptions, noting “there were no significant volcanic events in the last few years.” Next, they write that solar forcing “is also
unlikely,” because its radiative magnitude is considered to be too weak to elicit such a response. And
these two castaway
causes thus leave them with “coupled ocean-atmosphere-land variability” as the “most
likely” cause of the anomalous coolings. In regard to Perlwitz et al.‘s dismissal of solar forcing, however, the jury is
still out with respect to the interaction of the solar wind with the influx of cosmic rays to Earth‘s atmosphere and their subsequent
impact on cloud formation, which may yet prove to be substantial (as discussed earlier in this chapter). And with respect to their final
point, the
suite of real-world ocean-atmosphere-land interactions is highly complex and also
not fully understood. Indeed, there may even be important phenomena operating within
this realm of which the entire scientific community is ignorant. Some of those phenomena may
be strong enough to compensate for anthropogenic-induced increases in greenhouse gas
emissions, so that other natural phenomena dictate the ever-changing state of Earth‘s climate
The earth is cooling now – recent satellite data proves
Taylor 11 – managing editor of Environment & Climate News, Senior Fellow for The Heartland Institute, bachelors degree from
Dartmouth College and law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law, (James M., “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In
Global Warming Alarmism,” Forbes,7/27/11, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-holdin-global-warming-alarmism/?partner=yahoofeed)//PC
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more
heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the
peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur
than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a
principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave
Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict
multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy
lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release.
“There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans .” In
addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA
satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer
models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate. Scientists
on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions
of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether
carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds.
Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases
in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data
have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus
clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted . The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent
with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not
increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected
by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than
alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years
and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist
computer models have predicted. In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide
emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping
into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist
computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict. When objective
NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between
alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take
notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
CO2 Not Key
CO2 doesn’t cause warming
Lewis, ‘7 (Richard, Institute of Economic Affairs, Global Warming False Alarms,
www.globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf)
The cornerstone of the global warming theory is that the CO2 content of the
atmosphere in the pre-industrial period at 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) was over 25 per
cent lower than the 370 ppmv of today. It has however been claimed by Professor Zbignieuw Jaworowski of
Warsaw University, who has been involved in glacier studies for 40 years, that the figure for the 19th century is wrong. It is
based on the analysis of greenhouse gases in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. The flaws in this evidence, he says, are
as follows: First there are chemical and physical processes, which have taken place within the ice cores which decrease the
concentrations of all greenhouse gases they contain. It appears that there are leaks of these gases from the ice cores into the
drilling liquid used in the boreholes and through cracks in the ice sheeting into the atmosphere. Second, there has been
manipulation of the data and biased interpretation of it. In any case meticulous analysis of the abundant 19th century
measurements of CO2 shows that its average atmospheric concentration before 1900 was 335 ppmv. Further recent work on
tree leaves, the frequency of the pores in the skin of which provide an accurate means of measuring CO2 density in the
atmosphere on a scale of centuries, show that the concentration nearly 10,000 years ago was 348 ppmv, or about the same as in
1987. A study by Dutch scientists of Holocene era deposits in Denmark, (to which Professor Jaworowski referred in
his statement to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transport) thus discredited the much–touted ice core
estimates. The authors of it stated bluntly “Our results contradict the concept of relatively stabilised Holocene CO2
concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution”. . Their tree leaf studies confirm earlier criticism of the ice
To put the whole matter in a longterm context it is worth pointing out that fifty million years ago the CO2 concentration
of 2000 ppmv was almost six times higher than it is today but the air temperature was
only 1.5 degrees higher.
core research and demolish the very basis of the global warming case.
Prefer empirics to models- They are wrong and outdated- no risk of temperature
spike or runaway warming as a result of CO2
Lewis, ‘7 (Richard, Institute of Economic Affairs, Global Warming False Alarms)
The assumption of both the climate modellers and the IPCC is that greenhouse gases
are growing exponentially, that is to say that they are growing at a constant percentage
rate. This amounts to saying that the trend is towards an absolute increase in the quantity of GHGs emitted every year
compared with the previous year. This assumption is based on the further assumptions that world
population is growing exponentially and that everyone on the planet wants the existing
American (energy intensive) lifestyle. These assumptions are both hopelessly out of date. UN
projections of future (2050) world population have declined from 15 billion in 1980 to 9 billion. Besides, all the evidence shows
that, as standards of living rise, the number of births falls. In most European countries, indeed, the birth rate is well below
replacement level, so the long-term prospect there and probably elsewhere is one of falling population. Besides, since the 1950s,
carbon dioxide emissions per capita have become constant or actually declined. Thus the
climate modellers and
the IPCC assumption of an exponential growth of CO2 emissions of 1 per cent per year
has been behind the times for over thirty years. Yet the error is hugely important because it builds into the
climate computer models, right from the start, the likelihood of a runaway greenhouse warming effect - given a constant
relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature. However that assumption is disputable, as we have
seen from the past history of greenhouse gases on our planet and also for reasons given below. This bias has been compounded
by the models’ and the IPCC’s projection of GDPs in the developing world using market exchange rates (MEX), which, as a
study by world-class statisticians Castles and Henderson proved, is totally misleading. Using MEX grossly underestimates the
real incomes of developing countries. The correct basis for international income comparisons is purchasing power parity (PPP).
The effect of the error was to project that the GDP of developing countries would increase by a factor of 65 between 1990 and
2100. Indeed the 100-year growth rates of the most conservative scenarios of the IPCC were in many instances higher than
observed in any country in history. This shows that the economic grasp of the IPCC is of a very low order.
Warming Inevitable
We’re already passed the tipping point – it’s irreversible.
McPherson 12 – Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at University of Arizona (Guy
R., “We’re Done”, 6/22/12; http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/item/8363-guy-mcpherson-weredone)
As I pointed out in this space a few years ago, I concluded in 2002 that we had set into motion climate-change processes
likely to cause our own extinction by 2030. I mourned for months, to the bewilderment of the three people who noticed.
And then, shortly thereafter, I was elated to learn about a hail-Mary pass that just might allow our persistence for a few more
generations: Peak oil and its economic consequences might bring the industrial economy to an overdue close, just in time. Like
Pandora with her vessel, I retained hope. No more. Stick a fork in us. We’re done, broiled beyond We're Donewishful thinking. It
seems we’ve experienced a lethal combination of too much cheap oil and too little wisdom. Yet again, I’ve begun
mourning. It’s no easier the second time. As always, I’m open to alternative views — in fact, I’m begging for them, considering the
gravity of this particular situation — but the supporting evidence will have to be extraordinary. By the way, irrationally invoking Al
Gore doesn’t count as evidence. Ditto for unsubstantiated rumors about global cooling. A small dose of critical thinking
might be required, rather than the ability to repeat lines touted by neo-conservatives and their owners in the
fossil-fuel industries. Before you launch into the ridicule I’ve come to expect from those who comment anonymously from a
position of hubris and ignorance in the blogosphere, I invite you to fully consider the information below. I recommend setting aside
normalcy bias and wishful thinking as you peruse the remainder of this brief essay. (While you’re at it, go ahead and look up the word
“peruse.” It probably doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’ll make it easy: Here’s a link to the definition.) We know Earth’s
temperature is nearly one degree Centigrade higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution .
And 1 C is catastrophic, as indicated by a decades-old cover-up. Already, we’ve triggered several positive
feedbacks, none of which were expected to occur by mainstream scientists until we reached 2 C above
baseline global average temperature. We also know that the situation is far worse than indicated by recent
data and models (which are reviewed in the following paragraphs). We’ve known for more than a decade what happens when the
planes stop flying: Because particulates were removed when airplanes were grounded, Earth warmed by more than 1 C in the three
days following 11 September 2001. In other words, Earth’s temperature is already about 2 C higher than the industrial-revolution
baseline. And because of positive feedbacks, 2 C leads directly and rapidly to 6 C, acidification-induced death
of the world’s oceans, and the near-term demise of Homo sapiens. We can’t live without life-filled
oceans, home to the tiny organisms that generate half the planet’s oxygen while comprising the base of the
global food chain (contrary to the common belief that Wal-Mart forms the base of the food chain). So much for the wisdom of the
self-proclaimed wise ape. With completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the
horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as will be obvious when most of the world’s planes are grounded. Without
completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as
described below. Joseph Heller, anybody? I’ve detailed the increasingly dire assessments. And I’ve explained how we’ve pulled
the trigger on five positive-feedback events at lower global average temperature than expected, while also
pointing out that any one of these five phenomena likely leads to near-term human extinction. None of these
positive-feedback events were expected by scientists until we exceed 2 C warming above the pre-industrial baseline. My previous
efforts were absurdly optimistic, as demonstrated by frequent updates (for example, here, here, and here, in chronological
order). Yet my frequent writing, rooted in scientific analyses, can barely keep up with increasingly terrifying information about
climate change. Every day, we have more reliable knowledge about the abyss into which we have plunged .
Consider, for example, the International Energy Agency’s forecast of business-as-usual leading to a 6 C warmer
planet by 2035. Malcolm Light, writing for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, considers one of the many positive feedbacks
we’ve triggered in one planetary region and reaches this conclusion: “This process of methane release will accelerate
exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on
earth before the middle of this century.” Please read that sentence again. Light is a retired earth-systems scientist. As
nearly as I can distinguish, he has no hidden agenda, though he believes geo-engineering will save us (an approach that
would take several years to implement, and one that we’d almost certainly FUBAR). Forecasts by the International Energy
Agency and the Arctic Methane Emergency group match the recent trend of increasingly dire assessments based on collection and
interpretation of more data and increasingly powerful models. If these forecasts are close to accurate, we’ve only a
requiem to write for human beings on Earth. It’s time to modify Keynes’ famous line thusly: “In the short
run, we’re all dead.” For those of us living in the interior of a large continent, much less on a rock-pile in the desert, I’d give
us until 2020 at the latest. Carpe diem, reveling in the one life we get.
Warming inevitable-even if emissions cut to zero
Maharjan 13 (Keshav Dr. of Agricultural Economics Methodologies to Assess the Impact of Climate Change in Agriculture
www.springer.com)
Since the initial assessment of response to different controlled variables is based on the
controlled experiment, such models have limitations of Isolation from the variety and
variability of factors and conditions that affect production at the field condition (Adams et al.
1998). Thus, these types of models have limitation on properly understanding the effects of a
wide range of variables associated with global warming (Schlenker and Roberts 2008). In
addition, though it is unequivocal that global warming is inevitable in the coming century,
even if emissions of greenhouse gases is stabilized at current level, there exists debate and
uncertainty on the extent¶ of warming as well as other related changes (IPCC 2007; Rosegrant et al. 2008). ¶
Similarly. due to huge cost involved in installing the experiment setup. application¶ of such models in the
case of developing countries is very limited.
US Not Key
US CO2 levels are stagnant—other countries are the bulk
Taylor 12 (James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment &
Climate News, 1/24/12, “U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Remain Below 2000 Levels”, http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2012/01/24/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-remain-below-2000-levels ht)
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions remain below 2000 levels and are likely to remain so until at least the
year 2030, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s just-releasedpreview of its Annual Energy Outlook 2012.
The EIA annual report provides further evidence that EPA’s economy-killing restrictions on carbon dioxide
emissions are completely unnecessary, even if global warming were a serious problem. Halting global
emissions at year 2000 levels would certainly avert the scary scenarios frequently asserted by
environmental activist groups and the media. The United States has done so. The rest of the world has
not. China, which emits more carbon dioxide by far than any other nation, has more than doubled its
carbon dioxide emissions since 2000 and is likely to continue its steep emissions rise for the foreseeable
future. China emits more carbon dioxide than the entire Western Hemisphere. If the U.S., beyond merely
freezing the level of its emissions, fully eliminated all carbon dioxide emissions today, the mere growth in Chinese emissions
over the next 10 years would more than compensate for the complete elimination of U.S. emissions.
China, moreover, has repeatedly and emphatically stated that it will not accept limits on its emissions
regardless of what the United States and other nations do. The global warming debate, at least as far as the asserted
need for the United States to impose dramatic, economy-killing carbon dioxide restrictions, has been rendered moot.
Models Are Wrong
No warming – models are wrong, feedbacks are negative and its cyclical
Evans 11 (David, doctor in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian
Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian government, designing a carbon accounting system,
“Climate models are fundamentally flawed as they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to
carbon dioxide,” 3/23, http://www.ted.com/conversations/2533/climate_models_are_fundamental.html)
The core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, it
ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify
the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist
air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide. This is the core of the issue. All the disagreements spring from
this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere. There is
simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Weather balloons had been measuring
the atmosphere since the 1960’s. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of
moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up. Weather balloons have found no hot-spot.
Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they
greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. There are now several
independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon
dioxide by dampening the warming. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate
official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Global temperature is also measured by satellites,
which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the
global temperature has leveled off. So what is really going on with the climate? The earth has been in a warming trend since the Little
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and
cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. Having just finished a warming phase,
expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
Ice Age around 1680.
Their warming evidence skewed – urban heat island
Evans 12 (David has a PhD in electrical engineering, worked from 1999 to 2006 for the Australian
Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian government, designing a carbon accounting systemFinancial Post, "Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science.", 7 Apr. 2011, infotrac)
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to
the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system
behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and
now we can prove it. But the alarmists
say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming
due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary
temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality. They
keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in
2001, and now 0.15C per decade—yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These
people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon
dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth. One way they conceal is in the way
they measure temperature. The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air
conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet
engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot
cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating
nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by
volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial
heating source. Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias.
The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global
temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer
results and not mention the satellite results?
AT GHGs – Cooling
Greenhouse Gases are illusory – best studies conclude they cause cooling
Ashworth 6/18 Bob is a chemical engineer and has presented over 50 technical papers on fuels and fuel related subjects.
Relating to the subject of global warming, he has written two papers, "CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global
Warming" and "No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global Warming". He is a member of the American Geophysical
Union. He is a Past Advisor to the University of Pittsburgh International Conference on Coal Conversion. He was Session Chairman,
Coal Gasification, Liquefaction and Conversion to Electricity, Fifth International Conference, University of Pittsburgh, August 1978.
He gave a guest presentation, "Production of Methanol via Wood Gasification, to Companhia Energética de Sao Paulo (CESP), and
the Technical Institute of Sao Paulo, Brazil, November 1978. He was Session Chairman, Industrial Wood Utilization Workshop,
"Wood Gasification", Mitre Corporation/U.S. DOE, April 1979. He also gave a guest presentation to the National Coal Board on coal
gasification for combined cycle power generation, Leatherhead, England, April 1979. He holds 16 U. S. patents, several of which have
been filed and allowed in other countries. ClearStack is working to commercialize two of the patents, a three-stage oxidation
technique that reduces sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury and a dry scrubber that removes nitrogen and sulfur oxides from
flue gas. In 2001, Governor Paul Patton commissioned him a Kentucky Colonel for his work on clean coal technology. “No such thing
as Greenhouse Gases.”
http://www.energycentral.com/generationstorage/environmentalemissionsandcarbonmanagement/articles/2926/No-Such-Thing-asGreenhouse-Gases
It seems persons trying to rid the planet of our conventional fuels; coal, oil and natural gas, will go
to great lengths of completely lying. First of all, so-called but misnamed "greenhouse" gases cool the
earth - they don't warm it! Also, so-called "green energy" is not green at all! Any mass
between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and
feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace -- you will feel cooler!
Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When
a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of
people feel cooler, but perhaps not the IPCC scientists. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any
dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling as well. Why is this? If there were no atmosphere, all radiant
energy from the sun would hit the earth. However, with an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun's rays are
the sun, most
absorbed or reflected away from earth by striking the gas molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the
earth is cooler because of its atmosphere. Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling
off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However this insulating effect is minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket
science is required here, just common sense. Scientific
cover at night (more
proof confirms common sense. Everyone knows that cloud
insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there
are no clouds. However this insulating effect is minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just
common sense. Scientific proof confirms common sense. The cooling effect of water vapor in the stratosphere was proved following
the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Atmospheric scientists studied the effect of water vapor on temperature in the wake of the attacks. The
Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks and this
presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of the earth without airplanes and their contrails. Dr. Travis, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin along with Dr. Carleton, a geologist at Penn State University, looked at how
temperatures for those three days compared to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed
maximum and
minimum temperature data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the contiguous
(48 states) United States for the period 1971-2000. It was found that the average daily temperature
range between highs and lows was around 1.1 oC higher during September 11-14 with air traffic
grounded compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 with normal air traffic. The data proved that stratospheric water vapor
trails have a net cooling effect and therefore all other so-called greenhouse gases must have a similar effect because the IPCC says
water vapor is the worst "greenhouse gas". IPCC
and NASA scientists tried to discredit this analysis after
it was made; what else is new about them, their approach is to manipulate or disregard data
to fit their own nefarious goals. An experiment was performed to study the effect of rising and falling levels of humidity
on soil temperature and it was discovered that the addition of moisture to the atmosphere exerts a significant negative feedback
(cooling effect). The experiment showed the same result as the analysis of the 9-11 data. The data was taken over 38 days so the first
thing done was to find the 38 day mean dew point and divide the days up between those that fell above the mean -- the "humid" days - and those that fell below the mean -- the "arid" days. Then the data was averaged as shown on the curves on the graph above. One
can readily see the hotter day time temperatures for the arid days (red line) compared to the cooler humid days (blue line).
The
cooling effect of carbon dioxide because of its relatively low concentration (some 400 ppmv),
compared to water vapor (~1 to 2% in the atmosphere) that you can measure, has a very slight cooling effect but the
effect is so small it cannot be measured. Most of the misnamed "green" technologies being touted are
not green at all and have their own set of environmental problems of killing many birds,
bats, butterflies and fish.
***Warming Impacts
Warming Bad – Generic
Climate change causes extinction and functions as a threat multiplier
Sawin Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 (Janet, “Climate
Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77)
As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to "an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a
global nuclear war." Since then, hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate around the world. A growing number of international leaders
now warn that
climate change is, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, " the most severe problem that we are
facing today —more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with
ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters
could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations , fomenting
diplomatic and trade disputes. In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's
natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival
of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and
incite violent conflict. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And these
impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed
changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to
polar bears. Mountain glaciers are shrinking at ever-faster rates, threatening water supplies for millions of people and plant and animal species. Average global sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters (810 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by
Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, concludes that
climate change is the "single most important long term issue that
the planet faces ." It warns that if average global temperatures increase more than two degrees Celsius—which will likely occur in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual—
the world will reach the "point of no return, " where societies may be unable to cope with
the accelerating rates of change. Existing threats to security will be amplified as climate
change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies, agricultural productivity,
human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and economies, and patterns
of international migration . Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine
efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms,
droughts, disease, and other stressors. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability
and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, in turn, could lead to military confrontations over
distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime . ► Rising
temperatures, droughts, and floods, and the increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already
limited global food supply, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal
unrest
use of food as a weapon . Even the modest warming experienced to date has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity, with a 10 percent decrease in corn
yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of
shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live
or the
in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration,
threatening international stability. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate.
Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and
resources. The parallels with terrorism are compelling. Traditional responses to security threats cannot address the root of such problems, and related impacts could persist even if global emissions are cut
dramatically over coming decades because of the significant lag time between cause and effect. As with terrorism, we know that changes will occur, but not when or where they will strike, nor how damaging and
costly they will be. Climate change already claims more lives than does terrorism: according
to the World Health Organization, global climate
change now accounts for more than 160,000 deaths annually . By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September
11th, or the 2004 Madrid bombings, it could be too late to respond.
problem.
Fortunately, we already have the means to address the
In order to prevent dangerous climate change,
we will need to invest
in preventive measures—just as the U.S. is spending heavily on homeland security to
reduce the risk of terrorism. The Kyoto Protocol is a first step in a comprehensive security program. That measure, which binds its signatories to reduce their emissions, entered into force this February—but without
the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is a small but crucial step in the direction of a more stable climate; the next step is to form a broad global consensus around the need
to shift to a clean, efficient energy system based increasingly on
renewable energy sources like wind and
solar
power . And to be effective, the consensus must include the world's largest emitters—including the United States and China. The global market for renewable energy exceeded $25 billion in 2004, and these
technologies are already reducing emissions in countries such as Germany and Spain, while providing new jobs and significant business and economic opportunities. Dramatically expanding investments in renewable
energy and efficiency will ensure not only a cleaner, healthier future, but a more secure world as well. Burgeoning markets for clean energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuels, and rising
le when political will and the right policies unite to ensure that energy markets work efficiently. Policy initiatives
that would speed the development of a more energy-efficient and climate-friendly global economy include: Enact standards and market incentives that
demand for "green buildings" and fuel-efficient vehicles show what is possib
promote more-efficient buildings, vehicles, and appliances to dramatically increase energy conservation and efficiency. Despite major advances since the first oil crisis, significant potential for improvement remains
in both industrial and developing nations. Set
aggressive targets and provide market incentives for the rapid and large-
scale introduction of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation , heating and cooling, and
transportation. Internalize the full costs—environmental, health, and security—of energy production and use, and replace subsidies for mature, polluting fuels and technologies with targeted incentives for renewable
technologies that sunset as they become competitive. Establish national market-based cap and trade systems for carbon, with meaningful long-term targets that incorporate gradually declining caps.
Climate change is bad – laundry list
Howard 14 (Brian Clark, 5 Dire Warnings From Bipartisan Report on Climate Change's Economic
Impact, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140624-bipartisan-report-risky-businessclimate-change-science/)
Called "Risky Business," the 56-page report says risks
posed by climate change over the next century
include extensive property damage from catastrophic flooding and sea-level rise and severe
disruption of agriculture in the American corn belt and Southeast. But it also said there is still time to
act.¶ "If we continue on our current path, many regions of the U.S. face the prospect of serious economic effects from climate change,"
the report says. "However, if we choose a different path—if we act aggressively to both adapt to the changing climate and to mitigate
future impacts by reducing carbon emissions—we can significantly reduce our exposure to the worst economic risks from climate
change, and also demonstrate global leadership on climate."¶ As an example of how businesses might address climate-related risks,
report co-chair and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he's moving one of his media company's key computer centers
from lower Manhattan, which is at increased flooding risk, to upstate New York. ¶ "I want to sleep at night," he said at a Tuesday press
conference.¶ Report co-chair Tom Steyer, the retired founder of Farallon Capital Management, said that investors need to "get to a
place where the calculation of a value of a company includes how they are handling this problem." ¶ The report's GOP contributors
were moderates, including Bloomberg and former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz, and follows a series of recent warnings
from groups that included middle-of-the-road Republicans.¶ Last month, 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals released
a report calling climate change "a catalyst for conflict" that may lead to instability and disrupt global networks of trade and resources.¶
But global warming remains a politically polarized issue. Gallup's March 2014 poll found that just 42 percent of Republicans think
most scientists believe global warming is occurring, compared with 82 percent of Democrats. ¶ A report released in late May by the
conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that the administration's new rule would cost $51 billion annually by 2030
and lead to a loss of 224,000 jobs.¶ Here are five of the rmost dire warnings from Tuesday's report:¶ 1. A lot of coastal property and
infrastructure is at risk.¶ The report warns that within
the next 15 years, higher sea levels and storm surges
will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the eastern seaboard and
the Gulf of Mexico by somewhere between $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane
rates and severity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total
annual price tag for all coastal storms to $35 billion.¶ "If we stay on our current climate path," the report
says, "some homes and commercial properties with 30-year mortgages in places in Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey,
Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana and elsewhere could quite literally be underwater before the note is paid off." ¶ 2. Farms face
a significant decrease in crop yields.¶ Because of climate change, some
midwestern and southern counties
could see a decline in agricultural yields of more than 10 percent over the next 5 to 25 years,
with a 1-in-20 chance of yield losses of more than 20 percent.¶ The report notes that food systems tend to be resilient and that
higher temperatures may increase yields in the northern Great Plains. Still, there will be "risks for the individual farming
communities" in the Midwest and South; such areas are likely to experience disruption. ¶ 3. Energy costs are set to rise.¶ Rising
temperatures will likely require
construction of up to 95 gigawatts of new power generation
capacity over the next 5 to 25 years—roughly 200 coal or natural gas-fired power plants—thanks to increased
cooling loads. That expansion will cost ratepayers up to $12 billion per year.¶ "Demand for electricity
for air conditioning will surge in those parts of the country facing the most extreme temperature increases," the report warns,
"straining regional generation and transmission capacity and driving up costs for consumers."¶ 4. Expect more extreme heat.¶
Heat waves will become more likely in the next decades, especially in the Southwest, Southeast, and upper Midwest. This will
threaten human health, labor productivity, and energy systems. ¶ "By
the middle of this century, the average
American will likely see 27 to 50 days over 95°F each year—two to more than three times the average
annual number of 95°F days we've seen over the past 30 years," the report warns. "By the end of this century, this
number will likely reach 45 to 96 days over 95°F each year on average."¶ The report warns that by
the end of the century, generally cool states like Oregon, ¶ Washington, and Idaho could each have more days above 95°F each
year than Texas has at present.¶ 5. Extreme weather will be the "new normal."¶ The report warns that "the 'outlier' 1-in-100
year event today will become the 1-in-10 year event as the Earth continues to warm" and that "over time the extremes
will become the 'new normal.'"¶ A warmer atmosphere will lead to stronger and more
unpredictable storms. It will also make dry areas dryer and wet areas wetter.
Warming is the only existential risk
Deibel ’07—Prof IR @ National War College (Terry, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft,” Conclusion: American Foreign
Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of
a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global
warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three
what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near
certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed
scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In
legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find
evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast
international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports
decades now, and
shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally
alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland
are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been
accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature
“Earth’s warming climate is estimated to
contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease
spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is
measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”;
slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it
breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will
reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels,
only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the
we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in
more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species
extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the
Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to
a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the
southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
newspaper stories quoted above show,
Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its
latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6
percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on
positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age
transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring
Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
“humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing
Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says
physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn
everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the
Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During
ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the
Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet .
Global warming is the post-Cold War
era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported
scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military
challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United
States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
Climate change is irreversible we must err on the side of preventing it
Cass R. Sunstein—Professor in the Department of Political Science and at the Law School of the
University of Chicago—2007 (“Worst-Case Scenarios”, Harvard University Press)
Most worst-case scenarios appear to have an element of irreversibility. Once a species is lost, it is lost forever. The special concern for endangered
species stems from the permanence of their loss (outside of Jurassic Park). One of the most serious fears associated with genetically modified organisms
greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for centuries, the
problem of climate change may be irreversible, at least for all practical purposes. Transgenic crops can impose
is that they might lead to irreversible ecological harm. Because some
irreversible losses too, because they can make pests more resistant to pesticides. If we invest significant wealth in one source of energy and neglect
others, we may be effectively stuck forever, or at least for a long time. One objection to capital punishment is that errors cannot be reversed. 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.
In this light, we might
identify an Irreversible Harm Precautionary Principle, applicable to a subset of risks.' 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.' 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 .
People often take steps to avoid courses of action that are burdensome rather than literally impossible to reverse.
Warming Bad – Biodiversity
Warming destroys biodiversity—Leads to extinction
Hansen 2011 - is member of the National Academy of Sciences, an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and at Columbia’s Earth Institute, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies (James E, “Storms of my Grandchildren”)
As long as the total movement of isotherms toward the poles is much smaller than the size of the habitat, or the ranges in which the
animals live, the effect on species is limited. But now the movement is inexorably toward the poles and totals
more than one hundred miles over the past several decades. If greenhouse gases continue to
increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century
to at least seventy miles per decade. Species at the most immediate risk are those in polar climates
and the biologically diverse slopes of alpine regions. Polar animals, in effect, will be pushed off the planet. Alpine
species will be pushed toward higher altitudes, and toward smaller, rockier areas with thinner air ; thus, in effect, they will also be
pushed off the planet. A few such species, such as polar bears, no doubt will be "rescued" by human beings, but survival in zoos or
managed animal reserves will be small consolation to bears or nature lovers. Earth's history provides an invaluable perspective about
what is possible. Fossils in the geologic record reveal that there have been five mass extinctions
during the past five hundred million years— geologically brief periods in which about half or
more of the species on Earth disappeared forever. In each case, life survived and new species developed over
hundreds of thousands and millions of years. All these mass extinctions were associated with large and
relatively rapid changes of atmospheric composition and climate. In the most extreme extinction,
the "end-Permian" event, dividing the Permian Triassic periods 251 million years ago, nearly all life on Earth— more than 90
percent of terrestrial and marine species—was exterminated. None of the extinction events is understood in
full. Research is active, as increasingly powerful methods of "reading the rocks" are being developed. Yet enough is now
known to provide an invaluable perspective for what is already being called the sixth mass extinction, the human-caused destruction of species. Knowledge of past extinction events can inform us about
potential paths for the future and perhaps help guide our actions, as our single powerful species threatens all others,
and our own. We do not know how many animal, plant, insect, and microbe species exist today. Nor do we know the rate we are
driving species to extinction. About two million species—half of them being insects, including butterflies—have been cataloged, but
more are discovered every day. The order of magnitude for the total is perhaps ten million. Some biologists estimate that when all the
microbes, fungi, and parasites are counted, there may be one hundred million species. Bird species are documented better than most.
Everybody has heard of the dodo, the passenger pigeon, the ivory-billed woodpecker—all are gone—and the whooping crane, which,
so far, we have just barely "saved." We are still losing one or two bird species per year. In total about 1 percent of bird species have
disappeared over the past several centuries. If the loss of birds is representative of other species, several
thousand species are becoming extinct each year. The current extinction rate is at least one
hundred times greater than the average natural rate. So the concern that humans may have
initiated the sixth mass extinction is easy to understand. However, the outcome is still very much up in the air,
and human-made climate change is likely to be the determining factor. I will argue that if we continue on a business-asusual path, with a global warming of several degrees Celsius, then we will drive a large fraction
of species, conceivably all species, to extinction. On the other hand, just as in the case of ice sheet stability, if we
bring atmospheric composition under control in the near future, it is still possible to keep human-caus ed extinctions to a moderate
level.
Warming Bad – Disease
Global Warming Spreads New Versions of the World’s Deadliest Diseases
Yale 12 (Yale Daily News, 4/11/12, http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/apr/11/global-warming-may-intensify-disease/)
There may be more to fear from global warming than environmental changes. According
to several leading climate scientists and
public health researchers, global warming will lead to higher incidence and more intense versions of
disease. The direct or indirect effects of global warming might intensify the prevalence of tuberculosis,
HIV/AIDS, dengue and Lyme disease, they said, but the threat of increased health risks is likely to further motivate the public to
combat global warming. “The environmental changes wrought by global warming will undoubtedly result in major
ecologic changes that will alter patterns and intensity of some infectious diseases,” said Gerald Friedland,
professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at the Yale School of Medicine. Global warming
will likely cause major population upheavals, creating crowded slums of refugees , Friedland said. Not only do
areas of high population density facilitate disease transmission, but their residents are more likely to be
vulnerable to disease because of malnutrition and poverty, he said. This pattern of vulnerability holds for both tuberculosis and
HIV/AIDS, increasing the incidence of both the acquisition and spread of the diseases, he explained. He said these potential effects are not surprising,
global warming may
increase the infection rates of mosquito-borne diseases by creating a more mosquito-friendly habitat.
Warming, and the floods associated with it, are like to increase rates of both malaria and dengue , a debilitating
viral disease found in tropical areas and transmitted by mosquito bites, said Maria Diuk-Wasser, assistant professor of
epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. “The direct effects of temperature increase are an
increase in immature mosquito development, virus development and mosquito biting rates, which increase
contact rates (biting) with humans. Indirect effects are linked to how humans manage water given increased
uncertainty in the water supply caused by climate change,” Diuk-Wasser said. Global warming may affect other
diseases in even more complicated ways, Diuk-Wasser said. The effect of global warming on the incidence of Lyme disease, a ticksince tuberculosis epidemics historically have followed major population and environmental upheavals. By contrast,
borne chronic disease, is more difficult to examine and measure, though she said it will probably increase. “One possible way in which temperature may
limit tick populations is by increasing the length of their life cycle from two to three years in the north, where it is colder,” she said. “Climate change
could be reverting that and therefore increasing production of ticks. The transmission of the Lyme bacterium is so complex, though, that it is difficult to
‘tease out’ a role of climate change.” Diuk-Wasser added, however, that scientists do find an effect of climate change on the distribution of Lyme disease
in their data, but are not yet sure of the reasons behind such results. While the study of global warming itself is relatively new, research on the impact of
global warming on disease is an even more recent endeavor that draws on the skills and expertise of a wide variety of scientists and researchers. “The
field is multi-sourced, and recently interest has been evolving among climatologists, vector biologists, disease epidemiologists, ecologists, and
policymakers alike,” said Uriel Kitron, professor and chair of the environmental studies department at Emory University. Kitron said that in order to
mitigate the effects of global warming on disease, the public must turn its attention to water management and an increased understanding of the
connecting between “global processes and local impact.” Diuk-Wasser said that raising awareness about the public health effects of global warming
might aid climate control efforts, because it made the potential impact of global warming more personal. “There’s been a great interest in climate
advocacy groups to look for negative effects of climate change on health, since studies have found that this motivates people to adopt measures to curb
climate change,” Diuk-Wasser said. The Yale Climate and Engery Institute recently won a grant to study the direct and indirect effects of climate change
on dengue transmission in Colombia.
Warming Bad – Economy
Warming collapses the global economy via extreme weather events
Brown, Director and Founder of the global institute of Environment in the U.S., 2008 [Lester E. Brown, “Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to
Save Civilization”]
Rising seas are not the only threat that comes with
elevated global temperatures. Higher surface
water temperatures in the tropical oceans mean more energy radiating into the
atmosphere to drive tropical storm systems, leading to more-destructive storms. The
combination of rising seas, more powerful storms, and stronger storm surges can be
devastating. " Just how devastating this combination can be became evident in late August 2005, when Hurricane
Katrina came onshore on the U.S. Gulf Coast near New Orleans. In some Gulf Coast towns, Katrina's powerful 28-foot-high
storm surge did not leave a single structure standing. New Orleans survived the initial hit but was flooded when the inland
levees were breached and water covered everything in large parts of the city except for the rooftops, where thousands of
people were stranded. Even in August 2006, a year after the storm had passed, the most damaged areas of the city remained
without water, power, sewage disposal, garbage collection, or telecommunications. With advance warning of the storm and
official urging to evacuate coastal areas, 1 million or so evacuees fled northward into Louisiana or to neighboring states of
Texas and Arkansas. Of this total, some 290,000 have not yet returned home and will likely never do so. These storm
Katrina was the most financially
destructive hurricane ever to make landfall anywhere. It was one of eight hurricanes that hit the southeastern
evacuees are the world's first large wave of climate refugees.''
United States in 2004 and 2005. As a result of the unprecedented damage, insurance premiums have doubled, tripled, and
even in some especially vulnerable situations gone up 10-fold. This enormous jump in insurance costs is lowering coastal real
estate values and driving people and businesses out of highly exposed states like Florida.s9 The devastation caused by
Katrina was not an isolated incident. In the fall of 1998, Hurricane Mitch-one of the most
powerful storms ever to come out of the Atlantic, with winds approaching 200 miles per hour-hit the east coast of
Central America. As atmospheric conditions stalled the normal northward progression of the storm, some 2 meters of
rain were dumped on parts of Honduras and Nicaragua within a few days. The deluge collapsed homes, factories, and
schools, leaving them in ruins. It destroyed roads and bridges. Seventy percent of the crops and much of the topsoil in
Honduras were washed away-topsoil that had accumulated over long stretches of geological time. Huge mudslides destroyed
villages, burying some local populations. The storm left 11,000 dead. Thousands more, buried or washed out to sea, were
never found. The basic infrastructure – the roads and bridges in Honduras and Nicaragua – was largely destroyed. President
Flores of Honduras summed it up this way: "Overall, what was destroyed over several days took us 50 years to build." The
damage from this storm, exceeding the annual gross domestic product of the two countries,
set their economic development back by 20 years. In 2004, Japan experienced a record 10 typhoons
(hurricanes) that collectively caused $10 billion worth of losses. During the same season, Florida was hit by 4 of the 10 most
costly hurricanes in U.S. history. These 4 hurricanes together generated insurance claims of $22 billion.62 Against this
backdrop, insurance
companies and reinsurance companies are finding it difficult to
calculate a safe level of premiums, since the historical record traditionally used to calculate insurance fees is no longer a
guide to the future. For example, the number of major flood disasters worldwide has grown over the last several decades,
increasing from 6 major floods in the 1950s to 26 in the 1990s.63 Insurers are convinced that with higher temperatures and
more energy driving storm systems, future losses will be even greater. They are concerned about whether the
industry can remain solvent under this onslaught of growing damages. So, too, is Moody's Investors Service, which has
several times downgraded the creditworthiness of some of the world's leading reinsurance companies over the last six years.
Thomas Loster, a climate expert at Munich Re, a leading reinsurance company, says the overall balance of natural catastrophes is now "dominated by weather-related disasters, many of them exceptional and extreme. We need to stop this dangerous
experiment humankind is conducting on the Earth's atmosphere. "65 Munich Re has published a list of natural disasters with
Insured losses of $1 billion or more. The first one came in 1983, when Hurricane Alicia struck the United States, racking up
$1.5 billion in insured losses. Of the 58 natural catastrophes with $1 billion or more of insured losses recorded through the
end of 2006,3 were earthquakes, including the devastating 2004 earthquake-related Asian tsunami; the other 55 were
weather-related-storms, floods, hurricanes, or wildfires. During the 1980s, there were 3 such events; during the 1990s, there
were 26; and between 2000 and 2006 alone there were 26.66 Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the two largest events in terms of
total damage were Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which took down A(l.OOO homes and racked up $30 billion worth of damage,
and the flooding of China's Yangtze River basin in 1998, which also cost an estimated $30 billion, a sum comparable to the
value of China's rice harvest. Part of the growing damage toll is due to greater urban and industrial development in coastal
areas and river floodplains. But part is due to more-destructive storms. In the West, the regions most vulnerable to more
powerful storms currently are the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States and the Caribbean countries. In the East, it is
East and Southeast Asia, including China, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Viet Nam, that are likely to bear the brunt of
the powerful storms crossing the Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh and the east coast of India are particularly
vulnerable. Western Europe, traditionally experiencing a heavily damaging winter storm perhaps once in a century, had its
first winter storm to exceed $1 billion in 1987-one that caused $3.7 billion of destruction, $3.1 billion of which was covered
by insurance. Since then, Western Europe has had nine major winter storms with insured losses ranging from $1.3 billion to
As the climate changes, more extreme weather events are expected.
Andrew Dlugolecki, a consultant on climate change and its effects on financial institutions, notes
that damage from atmospherically related events has increased by roughly 10 percent
a year. "If such an increase were to continue indefinitely," he notes, "by 2065 storm
damage would exceed the gross world product. The world obviously would face
bankruptcy long before then." Few double-digit annual growth trends continue for several decades, but
Dlugolecki's basic point is that climate change can be destructive, disruptive, and very costly.69
If we allow the climate to spin out of our control, we risk huge financial costs. In a late
2006 report, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern projected that the long-term
costs of climate change could exceed 20 percent of gross world product (GWP). By
comparison, the near-term costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize
climate, which Stern estimates at 1 percent of GWP, would be a bargain.7°
$5.9 billion.68
Warming Bad – Methane
Warming triggers permafrost melting that causes methane release—extinction
Pearce, environmental consultant and BEMA environment journalist of the year, 2007 [Fred, With speed and violence: why
scientists fear tipping points in climate change, p. 76-7]
One of my favorite films is Dr. Strangelove. It was made back
in 1964, when the biggest global threat was
nuclear Armageddon. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, and starring Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove, a wheelchair-bound
caricature of Henry Kissinger, the film was a satire of the military strategy known as Mutual Assured Desttuction-or MAD, for
short. The plot involved the Soviet Union's building the ultimate defense, a doomsday device in the remote wastes of Siberia. If
Russia were attacked, the device would shroud the world in a radioactive cloud and destroy all human and animal life on earth.
Unfortunately, the Soviet generals forgot to tell the Americans about this, and, needless to say, Dr. Strangelove and the American
military attacked. The film ends with a deranged U.S. officer (played by Slim Pickens) sitting astride a nuclear bomb as it is
released into the sky above Siberia. The end of the world is nigh, as the credits roll. Now our most feared global
Armageddon is climate change. But reason to fear truly does lurk in the frozen bogs of
western Siberia. There, beneath a largely uninhabited wasteland of permafrost, lies what might reasonably
be described as nature's own doomsday device. It is primed to be triggered not by a nuclear
bomb but by global warming. That device consists of thick layers of frozen peat
containing tens of billions of tons of carbon. The entire western Siberian peat bog covers approaching 400,000
square miles-an area as big as France and Germany combined. Since its formation, the moss and lichen growing at
its surface have been slowly absorbing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.
Because the region is so cold, the vegetation only partially decomposes, forming an everthickening frozen mass of peat beneath the bog. Perhaps a quarter of all the carbon absorbed by soils and
vegetation on the land surface of Earth since the last ice age is right here. The concern now is that as the bog begins to
thaw, the peat will decompose and release its carbon. Unlike the tropical swamps of Borneo. which are
degrading as they dry out, and producing carbon dioxide, the Siberian bogs will degrade in the wet as the permafrost melts. In
fetid swamps and lakes devoid of oxygen, that
will produce methane. Methane is a powerful and fast-acting
quickly enough in such
quantities, it would create an atmospheric tsunami, swamping the planet in warmth. But
greenhouse gas, potentially a hundred time more potent than carbon dioxide. Released
we have to change tense here. For "would create," read "is creating."
Warming Bad – Middle East War
Warming causes middle east instability and war – it’s a threat multiplier
Broder 11 (John, Writer for Green from the New York Times, “Climate Change Drives Instability, U.N. Official Warns,”
2/15/11, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/climate-change-drives-instability-u-n-official-warns/)
The United Nations’ top climate change official said on Tuesday that food shortages and rising
prices caused by climate disruptions were among the chief contributors to the civil unrest
coursing through North Africa and the Middle East. In a speech to Spanish lawmakers and military leaders,
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations climate office, said that climate
change-driven drought, falling crop yields and competition for water were fueling conflict
throughout Africa and elsewhere in the developing world. She warned that unless nations took aggressive
action to reduce emissions causing global warming such conflicts would spread, toppling
governments and driving up military spending around the world. “It is alarming to admit that if the
community of nations is unable to fully stabilize climate change, it will threaten where we can
live, where and how we grow food and where we can find water,” said Ms. Figueres, a veteran Costa Rican
diplomat and environmental advocate. “In other words, it will threaten the basic foundation – the very stability
on which humanity has built its existence.” Rising food prices were a factor in the January riots that unseated
Tunisia’s longtime president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, although decades of repression and high unemployment also fed the revolution.
The link between food and resource shortages and Egypt’s revolution is less clear. But Ms. Figueres said that long-term trends
in arid regions did not look promising unless the world took decisive action on climate change. She
said that a third of all Africans now lived in drought-prone regions and that by 2050 as many as 600 million Africans would face water
shortages. “On a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead to falling agricultural
production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity,” she said in her address. “In Africa, crop yields
could decline by as much as 50 percent by 2020. Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such
situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance of already fragile states.”
She said that rising sea levels, more frequent and severe natural disasters, pandemics, heat waves and
widespread drought could lead to extensive migrations within countries and across national
borders. Military leaders around the world, including those in the United States, have warned that such effects of a
changing climate can serve as “threat multipliers,” adding stresses to nations and regions that
already face heavy burdens of poverty and social insecurity. “All these factors taken together,” Ms. Figueres
concluded, “mean that climate change, especially if left unabated, threatens to increase poverty and
overwhelm the capacity of governments to meet the basic needs of their people, which could well
contribute to the emergence, spread and longevity of conflict.”
Warming Bad – Ocean Acidification
Warming causes ocean acidification – leads to extinction.
Romm 12 (Joseph J., physicist and climate expert, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progres, 3/2/12, “Science: Ocean Acidifying so fast that it threatens humanity’s ability to feed
itself”, http://earthlawcenter.org/news/headline/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanitys-ability-to-feed-itself/)
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than
they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of
carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic
record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. “What we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a
paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not
wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if
industrial carbon emissions continue at the
current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral reefs, oysters, salmon.” James Zachos, a
paleoceanographer at University of California, Santa Cruz, with a core of sediment from some 56 million years ago, when the oceans underwent
acidification that could be an analog to ocean changes today. That’s the news release from a major 21-author Science paper, “The Geological Record of
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
Ocean Acidification” (subs. req’d). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the
mass extinction.
A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and
“remain for thousands of years.“ And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that carbon dioxide is “driving fish
crazy” and threatening their survival. Here’s more on the new study: The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the
gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans
too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building. That is what is happening now. In
a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million
years when the oceans changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years ago. In the
early 1990s, scientists extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica found a layer of mud from this period wedged between thick deposits of
white plankton fossils. In a span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon doubled atmospheric concentrations, pushed average
global temperatures up by about 6 degrees C, and dramatically changed the ecological landscape. The result: carbonate plankton shells littering the
seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown layer of mud. As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifers, a group of single-celled organisms that live at
the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that organisms higher in the food chain may have also disappeared, said study co-author Ellen Thomas, a
paleoceanographer at Yale University who was on that pivotal Antarctic cruise. “It’s really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species
over less than 20,000 years,” she said. “It’s usually on the order of a few percent over a million years.” During this time, scientists estimate, ocean pH—a
measure of acidity–may have fallen as much as 0.45 units. (As pH falls, acidity rises.) In the last hundred years, atmospheric CO2 has risen about 30
percent, to 393 parts per million, and ocean pH has fallen by 0.1 unit, to 8.1–an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says
Hönisch. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that pH may fall another 0.3 units by the end of the century,to 7.8, raising the
possibility that we may soon see ocean changes similar to those observed during the PETM. More
catastrophic events have
shaken earth before, but perhaps not as quickly. The study finds two other times of
potential ocean acidification: the extinctions triggered by massive volcanism at the end of
the Permian and Triassic eras, about 252 million and 201 million years ago respectively. But
the authors caution that the timing and chemical changes of these events is less certain. Because most ocean sediments older than 180 million years have
been recycled back into the deep earth, scientists have fewer records to work with. During the end of the Permian, about 252 million years ago, massive
volcanic eruptions in present-day Russia led to a rise in atmospheric carbon, and the extinction of 96 percent of marine life. Scientists have found
evidence for ocean dead zones and the survival of organisms able to withstand carbonate-poor seawater and high blood-carbon levels, but so far they have
been unable to reconstruct changes in ocean pH or carbonate. At the end of the Triassic, about 201 million years ago, a second burst of mass volcanism
doubled atmospheric carbon. Coral reefs collapsed and many sea creatures vanished. Noting that tropical species fared the worst, some scientists question
if global warming rather than ocean acidification was the main killer at this time. The effects of ocean acidification today are overshadowed for now by
other problems, ranging from sewage pollution and hotter summer temperatures that threaten corals with disease and bleaching. However, scientists
trying to isolate the effects of acidic water in the lab have shown that lower pH levels can harm a range of marine life, from reef and shell-building
organisms to the tiny snails favored by salmon. In a recent study, scientists from Stony Brook University found that the larvae of bay scallops and hard
clams grow best at pre-industrial pH levels, while their shells corrode at the levels projected for 2100. Off the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the death of oyster
larvae has recently been linked to the upwelling of acidic water there. In parts of the ocean acidified by underwater volcanoes venting carbon dioxide,
scientists have seen alarming signs of what the oceans could be like by 2100. In a 2011 study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea, scientists writing in
the journal Nature Climate Change found that when pH dropped to 7.8, reef diversity declined by as much as 40 percent. Other studies have found that
clownfish larvae raised in the lab lose their ability to sniff out predators and find their way home when pH drops below 7.8. “It’s not a problem that can
be quickly reversed,” said Christopher Langdon, a biological oceanographer at the University of Miami who co-authored the study on Papua New Guinea
reefs. “Once
a species goes extinct it’s gone forever. We’re playing a very dangerous game.”
Warming Bad – Phytoplankton
CO2 kills plankton—they’re key to ocean life
Cheng, PhD, associate professor at University of Texas, 2007 [Victoria, Keystone Species Extinction Overview, July, Arlington
Institute, http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/species-extinction/443]
Plankton is a blanket term for many species of microorganisms that drift in open water and make up the base of the aquatic
food chain. There are two types of plankton, phytoplankton and zooplankton. Phytoplankton make their own food through the
process of photosynthesis, while zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. Zooplankton are in turn eaten by larger animals. In this way
these tiny organisms sustain
all life in the oceans. According to the NASA, phytoplankton populations in
declined by as much as 30% since 1980.[4] While the cause of this decline remains
uncertain, there are several theories. One theory points to global warming as the main cause.[5]
Phytoplankton require nutrients obtained from the bottom of the ocean to reproduce. At
the Earth’s poles, ocean water is colder at the surface than down in the depths. Therefore
water from the bottom of the ocean rises to the top, carrying with it essential nutrients from
the ocean floor. However, as the water near the surface becomes warmer due to climate
change, less water rises from the bottom, resulting in less nutrients for the phytoplankton. This
consequently hinders their reproduction processes.Another theory suggests that carbon dioxide emissions
are causing this decline in plankton population. The ocean has always absorbed a significant amount of
the northern oceans have
carbon dioxide, but in recent years its capacity for this pollutant may not have been able to keep up with the level of human
output. Recent studies suggest that the carbon
dioxide the ocean absorbs is turned into carbonic acid,
which lowers the pH level of the ocean.[6] This acidification is highly corrosive to sea animals
that form shells, including pteropods, which are a type of zooplankton. Pteropods are a
food source for countless larger animals such as salmon and cod. If they are unable to
survive in an acidic ocean, then the entire ocean system will be threatened.
That causes extinction
Craig, Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law, 2003 (McGeorge Law Review, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155 Lexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial
ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism
values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and
dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More
generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the
elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements."
n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the
planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining
the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to
keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity,
"indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly
dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness
among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem
functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have
strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the
biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of
marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine
wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for
conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such
arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect
anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about
causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving
marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine
ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if
ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
we kill the
Warming Bad – Rainforest
CO2 emissions devastate rainforest ecosystems
Adams, Assistant Professor in Ecology at Rutgers University, and Zeng, associate professor of meteorology at University of
Maryland and an affiliate at the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, 2007 [Jonathan and Ning, Vegetation-Climate
Interaction: How Vegetation Makes the Global Environment, p.215]
However, it is important to bear in mind that the plants themselves are generally bigger
when they are C02fertilized, and the extra amount lost to hungry insects in these experiments actually works out to be less as a percentage
of the total leaf area. Also, insects which have to eat more leaf material to extract enough
protein are generally placed in a difficult situation: it takes a lot of work for the insect
to digest the extra material, and the insect may also have to take in extra amounts of
poisons the host plant produces in the process of consuming more leaf. The insect may
also have to spend more time feeding out on the leaf exposed to enemies when it
cannot get enough protein. In fact, the evidence is that overall with C02 fertilization the advantage is tipped in
favor of the plant, against the insect. It seems that insects on C02-fertilized plants not only consume a
smaller proportion of leaf tissue, they grow more slowly and die more often. Most
species in the world are herbivorous insects, and it is rather frightening to consider what
effects this sort of change might have on insect biodiversity in the tropics and
elsewhere. It is quite possible that a large change in nutrient content will push many species
over the edge into extinction. It is widely considered by ecologists that a large part of
the reason so many species of tropical trees can coexist in the tropical rainforests is
that selective insect herbivores prevent each tree species from becoming too
abundant. If we start to see these specialized herbivores dropping out of existence because of a direct C02 effect,
many tropical trees may go extinct because the most competitive species among them
are no longer so closely density-limited and can now push the others out.
Extinction
Takacs, Professor of Environmental Humanities at the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy at Cal State, 1996 [David,
The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise, pp. 200-201]
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and
Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same
point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It
is likely that
destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid
changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable
climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the
extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in
which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead
to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different
particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields
will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of
pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will
continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity
will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It
might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As
ecosystem services
falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower
life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will
bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter.
Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century not with a bang but a whimper.14
Warming Bad – Resource Wars
Global warming causes global resource wars
Klare 6, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, 2006 [Michael, The Coming Resource Wars, 3/10,
Institute for America’s Future, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php]
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 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."
That goes nuclear
Caldwell 3, PhD, former director of research and development at the US Army’s Electromagnetic Environmental
Test Facility 2003 (Joseph, The End of the World, and the New World Order: The Likelihood of Global Nuclear War,
http://www.foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm)
It would
appear that global nuclear war is inevitable, for several reasons. A major
factor is the “politics of envy” – the desire for the “have-nots” of the world to destroy
what the “haves” have. The gap between the industrialized “west” and the rest of the world is widening, and the
hatred and envy are growing as the poorer nations realize that they will never catch up. Each year, millions more
human beings are born into direst poverty, overcrowding, misery and hopelessness.
The realization is dawning that it is global industrialization that is the root cause of human misery, and the motivation to
With the proliferation
of plutonium from nuclear reactors, terrorists and rogue nations will soon have the
capability to produce thousands of suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, and deliver them to
any cities in the world. As mentioned earlier, no missiles or airplanes or submarines are
required. Another reason why global nuclear war appears inevitable is the fact that
nuclear war “dominates” all other proposed solutions as a means of stopping the
ongoing species extinction. No other alternative accomplishes this. As long as this situation holds, it is just a
bring that inhumane system to an end is growing as fast as the global human population.
matter of time until the global-nuclear-war solution is implemented, since continuing on the present course leads to a “dead”
planet. It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First, human
poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more desperately poor people on the
planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor people
continues to soar. The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war
is motivated by
resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to acquire the land, water, energy, or
other resources possessed by another. With each passing year, crowding and misery
increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels.
AT Adaptation
Adaptation fails – warming is just too extreme.
Stabinsky 12 (Doreen, Professor at College of the Atlantic USA, compiled for WWF International Global Climate and Energy Initiative,
November 2012“Tackling the Limits to Adaptation: An International Framework to Address ‘Loss and Damage’ From Climate Change Impacts”,
http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/Doha_COP_18/tackling_the_limits_lr.pdf)
When mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by responsible countries is insufficient to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system”, 22 countries are forced to undertake disaster risk reduction and adaptation measures to prevent
permanent loss and damage. There are, however, limits to how far disaster risk reduction and adaptation
can reduce loss and damage. In the case of disaster risk reduction, some types of disasters will increase in
frequency and severity (see Box 1 on the latest intergovernmental panel on climate Change (IPCC) findings regarding
extreme events), overwhelming both risk reduction measures and generally the ability of most
developing countries to cope with the impacts of those disasters. Moreover, loss and damage from extreme
events extend beyond immediate losses of property and life. In St. Lucia, damage from hurricane Tomas was estimated at about 34%
of total gdp. 23 Such devastating impact has a serious effect on long-term prospects for sustainable
development. 24 Adaptation to 2°C of warming will be more difficult than for 1.5° c . Adapting to 4° c or 6° c of warming may
be impossible. Moreover, given the changing nature of the global climate, adaptation will always be
insufficient, requiring a continuous learning process towards a constantly moving boundary. The
greater the warming, the more loss and damage that can be anticipated from the adverse effects of
climate change. Similarly, the less support for adaptation in terms of finance, technology and capacity, the more loss and
damage will result. A country’s level of development will also affect how its population experiences loss and damage, as poverty and
related socio-economic and infrastructure weaknesses exacerbate the impacts and adverse effects of climate change. But a country’s
lack of development or status of development is not an excuse for inaction by the global community to help them respond to severe
climate loss and damage. There are very real limits to how far human systems and ecosystems can adapt
to most of the slow-onset processes identified in UNFCCC decision 1/CP.16. This is true
particularly for rises in temperature and sea levels, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity,
salinization and desertification. Because such processes progress and increase their impact over
time – and often at large scale, adaptation gradually becomes less possible. As temperatures and
sea levels rise, territory will become uninhabitable and unproductive. s oil moisture levels will
decrease to the point that cultivation of crops is no longer viable in entire regions. Groundwater
sources in coastal areas will become too saline to be used as drinking water. Adaptation will become
impossible on low-lying islands, in settlements close to sea level, and in the most arid regions. This will lead to permanent loss of
lands, livelihoods and cultural resources. 26 Permanent loss and damage from slow-onset disasters will go far beyond economic loss –
livelihoods will be lost, territory will have to be abandoned, and migrants from non-productive lands will lose their homes, culture and
community.
***AT Warming Impacts
AT Agriculture
Adaptation solves ag impact
Mendelsohn and Dinar 11 (Robert Menelsohn and Ariel Dinar, economist at Yale University, 2011, Handbook on
Climate Change and Agriculture,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vMyaQ_DWu2wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA355&dq=%22warming%22+%22impact%22+%2
2agriculture%22&ots=b6GyLcnPs&sig=Zx6J6fZmUkRRygVjFmDBnPpKgMQ#v=onepage&q=%22warming%22%20%22impact%22%20%22agriculture%22&f=fals
e, PZ)
Climate change is threatening agricultural production in various world regions and the livelihoods of millions of poor rural people arc at risk, especially
in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007; Parry et al.. 2004). Large
potential damages have been predicted by many agronomy
studies (Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994; Parry et al.. 2004: IPCC, 2007). However, these studies assume that farmers will not adapt
to the new climate conditions . In contrast, studies that account for adaptation suggest smaller damages
(Mendelsohn et al., 1994: Mendelsoha and Dinar 2003: Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006; Fleischer et al.. 2008; Seo and Mcndelsohn, 2007; Wang et aL,
2009). There is a growing body of farm adaptation studies that identify what adaptation strategies farmers might make to mitigate potential damage.
Specifically, farmers
might invest in irrigation (Mendelsohn and Dinar, 2003: Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006; Mendelsohn and Seo, 2007),
they might switch crop species (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn. 2008a: Seo and Mendelsohn, 2008b) or they might switch
livestock species (Seo and Mendelsohn 2007). Irrigation is the adaptation strategy that has received most attention in the literature. Several studies
estimate separate response functions for rained and irrigated farms. These studies reveal that farmers who irrigate are less sensitive to
climate changes (Schlenker at al., 2005: Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2008a: Seo and Mendelsohn, 2008a). This type of analysis captures the
effect of irrigation but it assumes that irrigation is exogenous. We claim that irrigation and the use of other technologies are likely to be sensitive to
climate conditions and will change as climate changes. The fact that irrigation is not exogenous but a choice farmers make has already been established in
the literature (see Caswell and Zilberman, 1986; Dinar and Yaron, 1990: Negri and Brooks. 1990: Dinar and Zilberman. 1991: Dinar et al., 1992). Our
unique contribution is showing that the decision of adopting a technology is also a function of climate conditions.
Tech advancements prevent their ag impact
Carpenter 2011 (Information Systems For Biotechnology, Consultant for ISB , “Impacts of GE Crops on Biodiversity” June
2011 www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-Crops-Biodiversity.pdf, PZ)
The potential impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops on biodiversity has been a topic of interest both in general as well as specifically in the context
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In a recent review, I took a biodiversity lens to the substantial body of literature that exists on the potential
impacts of GE crops on the environment, considering the impacts at three levels: the crop; farm; and landscape scales 1 . Overall, the review finds that
currently commercialized
GE crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced
adoption of conservation tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use, and use of more environmentally
benign herbicides. Increasing yields also alleviate pressure to convert additional land into agricultural use. Knowledge gained over the past 15
years that GE
crops have been grown commercially indicates that the impacts on biodiversity are positive on
balance. By increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing use of more
environmentally friendly herbicides, and facilitating adoption of conservation tillage, GE crops have
contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability . Previous reviews have also reached the general conclusion that
GE crops have had little to no negative impact on the environment. Most recently, the U.S.
National Research Council released a comprehensive assessment of the effect of GE crop adoption on farm sustainability in the U.S.
that concluded, “[g]enerally, [GE] crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment
than non-[GE] crops produced conventionally”7. GE crops can continue to decrease pressure
on biodiversity as global agricultural systems expand to feed a world population that is
expected to continue to increase for the next 30 to 40 years . Due to higher income elas- ticities of demand and
population growth, these pressures will be greater in developing countries. Both current and pipeline technology hold great potential in this regard. The
potential of currently commercialized GE crops to increase yields, decrease pesticide use,
and facilitate the adoption of conservation tillage has yet to be realized, as there continue to be countries
where there is a good technological fit, but they have not yet approved these technolo- gies for commercialization. In addition to the potential benefits of
expanded adoption of current technology, several pipeline technologies offer additional promise of alleviating
the impacts of
agriculture on biodiversity. Continued yield improvements in crops such as rice and wheat are expected with insect resistant and
herbicide tolerant traits that are already com- mercialized in other crops. Technologies such as drought tolerance and salinity tolerance would alleviate the
pressure to convert high bio- diversity areas into agricultural use by enabling crop production on suboptimal soils. Drought tolerance technology, which
allows crops to withstand prolonged periods of low soil moisture, is anticipated to be commercialized within five years .
The technology has
particular relevance for areas like sub-Saharan Africa, where drought is a common occurrence and access to
irrigation is limited. Salt tolerance addresses the increasing problem of saltwater encroach- ment on freshwater resources. Nitrogen use
efficiency technology is also under development, which can reduce run-off of nitrogen
fertilizer into surface waters. The technology promises to decrease the use of fertilizers while maintaining yields, or increase yields
achievable with reduced fertilizer rates where access to fertilizer inputs is limited. The technology is slated to be commercialized within the next 10 years.
AT Biodiversity
Warming improves biodiversity.
Goklany 12 (Indur M., science and technology policy analyst for the US Department of the Interior, Assistant Director of Programs, Science,
and Technology Policy, represented the US at the IPCC, rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC
First Assessment Report, PhD in electrical engineering, 8/28/12, “Is Climate Change the Number One Threat to Humanity?”
http://goklany.org/library/Goklany_WIREs.pdf)
Despite concerns about the ecological impacts of warming,
the FTA studies suggest that it may actually reduce
existing stresses on ecosystems and biodiversity through 2085–2100. Table 4, provides FTA results for 2085–2100
regarding the variation in three specific ecological indicators across the different IPCC scenarios. 23,25 One indicator is the net biome
productivity (a measure of the terrestrial biosphere’s net carbon sink capacity). The second indicator is the area of cropland (a crude
measure of the amount of habitat converted to human use; the lower it is, the better is it for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems).
Such land conversion to agriculture is perhaps the single largest threat to global terrestrial biodiversity. 114,115 The third indicator is
the global loss of coastal wetlands relative to 1990 levels. The table shows that biosphere’s sink capacity under each
scenario would be higher in 2100 than in the base year (1990), largely due to higher CO 2
concentrations and because these effects were not projected to be overridden by the negative
effects of higher temperatures over that period. For the same reasons, global sink capacity would be higher for the
A1FI and A2 scenarios. Partly for the same reasons and its lower population compared to other scenarios, the amount of cropland in
2100 would be lowest for the A1FI world. This is followed by the B1 and B2 worlds. [Levy et al. did not provide cropland estimates
through 2100 the warmest (A1FI) scenario would have the least habitat
loss and, therefore, pose the smallest risk to terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems, while the B2
scenario would pose the greatest risk to habitat, biodiversity and ecosystems. Regarding coastal wetlands, although
losses due to sea level rise (SLR) are substantial, the contribution of global warming to total
losses in 2085 are smaller than losses due to subsidence from other man ‐ made causes. 23 Table 4
for the A2 scenario.] Thus,
shows that wetland losses are much higher for the A1FI and A2 scenarios than for the B1 and B2 scenarios. This is, however, due
mainly to the assumption that the first two scenarios would have higher non ‐ climate change related subsidence (Ref. 23, p. 76) but
this assumption is questionable. 9
AT Disease
Warming wont cause diseases
Bell 11 - a professor of architecture and holds an endowed professorship in space architecture at the
University of Houston. An internationally recognized commentator on scientific and public policy issues,
Bell has written extensively on climate and energy policy and has been featured in many prominent
national and international newspapers, magazines, and television programs (Larry, “Climate of Corruption:
Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax” http://books.google.com/books?id=CS8uzm3cvUC&dq=%22warming+%22+impacts+on+%22coral+reefs%22+exaggerated&lr=&source=gbs_na
vlinks_s , PZ)
Okay, let’s try examining the threat of global warming causing really nasty tropi cal diseases to spread, just as An Inconvenient Truth
dramatically warns. That should warrant some fear. Well, maybe not. At least Paul Reiter, a medical entomologist and
professor at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, doesn’t think so . He is one of the scientists featured in the film The Greatest
Global Warming Swindle, produced by WAG-TV in Great Britain in response to the Gore movie. Dr. Reiter was also a contributory
author of the IPCC 2001 report who resigned because he regarded the processes to be driven by agenda rather than science. He later
threatened to sue the IPCC if they didn’t remove his name from the report he didn’t wish to be associated with.4’ Professor
Reiter’s career has been devoted primarily to studying such mosquitoborne diseases as malaria, dengue,
yellow fever, and West Nile virus, among others. He takes special issue with any notion that global warming is spreading
such ill nesses by extending the carriers to formerly colder locales where they didn’t previ ously exist. In reference to statements in An
Inconvenient Truth that the African cities of Nairobi and Harare were founded above the mosquito line to avoid malaria, and that now
the mosquitoes are moving to those higher altitudes, Dr. Reiter comments, “Gore is completely wrong here—malaria has
been documented at an altitude of 8,200 feet—Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 4,920 feet. The
new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the 30 so-called new
diseases Gore references are attributable to global warming . None:’44 Although few people seem to realize it,
malaria was once rampant through. out cold parts of Europe, the US, and Canada, extending into the 20th century. It was
one of the major causes of troop morbidity during the Russian/Finnish War of the 1940s, and an earlier
massive epidemic in the 1920s went up through Siberia and into Archangel on the White Sea near the Arctic Circle. Still, man’
continue to regard malaria and dengue as top climate change dangers—far more dangerous than sea level rise.
AT Extinction
Warming’s not an existential risk – adaptation, mitigation, geoengineering, and
empirically no runaway.
Muller 12 (Jonatas, writer on ethics and existential risks, 2012, “Analysis of Existential Risks”,
http://www.jonatasmuller.com/x-risks.pdf)
A runaway global warming, one in which the temperature rises could be a self- reinforcing
process, has been cited as an existential risk. Predictions show that the Arctic ice could melt completely within a
few years, releasing methane currently trapped in the sea bed (Walter et al. 2007). Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide. Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have been involved in two extinction events on this planet, 55
million years ago in the Paleocene– Eocene Thermal Maximum, and 251 million years ago in the Permian–Triassic extinction event.
The fact that similar global warmings have happened before in the history of our planet is a
likely indication that the present global warming would not be of a runaway nature.
Theoretical ways exist to reverse global warmings with technology, which may include
capturing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, deflecting solar radiation, among other
strategies. For instance, organisms such as algae are being bioengineered to convert atmospheric greenhouse gases into biofuels
(Venter 2008). Though they may cause imbalances, these methods would seem to prevent global
warming from being an existential risk in the worst case scenario, but it may still produce
catastrophic results.
No extinction
NIPCC 11 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC.
8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html)KG
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the
next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m
± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of
these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35%
of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical
rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and
climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened
before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic
communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived
(Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier'
category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic
responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can
exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record
when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to highlatitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher
than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the
magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as
they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel
ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard,
they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In
concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in
assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the
magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates
remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."
AT Methane
No risk of methane – if bursts occur, scientists agree they won’t be catastrophic.
Schiermeier 08 – science and policy expert, studies climate, oceanography, fisheries, and earth science, cartographer, graduate in
geography, stats, and econ from University of Munich, writer for Nature international weekly journal of science (Quirin, “Fears
surface over methane leaks”, 9/26/08, http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080926/full/455572a.html)//Beddow
Preliminary data from two Arctic cruises suggest that rising temperatures are already causing substantial
amounts of methane to be released from beneath the ocean floor. But catastrophic gas leaks, like those
believed to have occurred 55 million years ago, are unlikely, scientists say. In the past few weeks, scientists aboard
the British research ship James Clark Ross have discovered more than 250 plumes of methane bubbling up along the continental
margin northwest of Svalbard. The findings add to a similar discovery by a Russian team in August, that reported elevated methane
concentrations near the Lena River delta, as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study (ISSS). The findings have provoked alarmist
media reports predicting massive methane bursts that could accelerate global warming. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse
gas than carbon dioxide, although it is present in much lower concentrations in the atmosphere. But the phenomenon is
probably not new. The scientists believe that methane has been released in the region for at least 15,000
years. "What we're now seeing certainly did not start in the last year or so," says geophysicist Graham Westbrook of the University
of Birmingham, UK, who led the British team. "We have observed increased methane concentrations in the Laptev
Sea during several expeditions since the mid-1990s," says Igor Semiletov, who oversees the ISSS methane programme
aboard the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi. "But the data set is extremely limited. Whether what we're seeing
in the region is of any relevance for the global climate is mere speculation ." Semiletov says that the scientists did
measure higher concentrations of dissolved methane this summer compared to summer sampling in 2003 and 2004 (N. Shakhova and
I. Semiletov J. Mar. Sys. 66, 227–243; 2007). At one ice-covered site in the mere 50-metre shelf water, they detected methane
bubbling at the surface, indicating that at least some of the gas released at the seabed is escaping into the atmosphere before being
consumed by bacteria in the water column. Geologists think that billions of tonnes of methane lie beneath the sub-sea permafrost in
some parts of the shallow Siberian shelf, although estimates vary widely. The hydrocarbon — trapped there either as a gas, or bound
in solid ice-like structures called methane hydrates — is a remnant from the last ice age when the sea level was about 100 metres
lower. The big fear is that the methane could escape as a result of the permafrost becoming porous, possibly
from an increased influx of freshwater from the relatively warm Lena River. "The risk is real," says HansWolfgang Hubberten, a permafrost expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in
Potsdam, Germany. "But there's no reason to panic. Claims that gas hydrates are on the brink of
dissociating in a big way should be taken with a large pinch of salt." Thermal modelling suggests that the
marine permafrost in the region is relatively stable. However, drillings conducted in 2005 revealed that the permafrost
may have slightly warmed and thinned (V. Rachold et al. Eos 88, 149–156; 2007). Even so, says Hubberten, it is likely that the
observed emissions come from 'new' methane produced by increased bacterial activity in thawing soil, rather than from degradation of
ancient gas hydrates.
AT Natural Disasters
Warming doesn’t cause natural disasters—UN report proves
Michaels 13 (Patrick J., Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute and senior fellow in research and
economic development at George Mason University 4/18/13, “The Climate Horror Picture Show, Brought to You by Dodgy Science”,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-horror-picture-show-brought-you-dodgy-science)
Pop quiz. Who wrote this: “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized
losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change ”? a) Someone who does not know
how to write b) The Koch Brothers c) The Cato Institute d) The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Well, it’s obviously “a”, and not likely to be “b”, as Charles Koch writes very clearly. Nor would such a poorly constructed sentence
have gotten by the Cato editors (“c”). Which leaves “d.” That’s right, it’s in a recent report on “climate extremes” from
our pals at the UN . Of course they couldn’t come right out and say it, so it’s up to others to translate to
common English: any trends in weather-related losses are not related to dreaded global warming. But that
hasn’t stopped the $3.5 billion per year U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Instead, their draft “National Assessment”
of climate change in the United States flogs more “extreme” climate in just about every one of the 30 chapters in this 1200-page
doorstop. The USGCRP is just about every organization that consumes an oodle of the multibillion dollar pie. It therefore considers its
pronouncements to be the consensus of climate scientists. So does the IPCC. They can’t both be right. One thing that’s apparent in the
new Assessment is that federal funding is awarded preferentially to those who thrive in a data-free environment. Weather-related
damages are not increasing, as percentage of GDP. When you produce more stuff (increasing GDP), there’s more stuff to get hit by
bad weather. The “Transportation” chapter of this climate horror picture show asserts that pernicious climate change is “reducing the
reliability and capacity of the U.S. transportation system”. Really? But, here is reality: Does this look like reduction in capacity? Does
this? Or is this related to global warming? The fact of the matter is the vast balance of evidence is that the current
National Assessment is an incredible exaggeration of the effects of climate change on the United States. So
why was it done? Consider the “mission statement” of the USGCRP: “Thirteen Agencies, One Mission: Empower the Nation with
Global Change Science”. The operative word is “empower,” which is the purpose of the Assessment. It is to provide cover for a
massive regulatory intrusion, and concomitant enormous costs in resources and individual liberty. History tells us that when scientists
willingly endorse sweeping governmental agendas fueled by dodgy science, bad things soon happen.
AT Ocean Acidfication
Carbon Emissions boost Ocean Growth – Tests disprove Ocean Acidification
Middleton, 09 – Geoscientist and BS in Earth Sciences (11/13/09, Dave Middleton, Debunk House,
“Ocean Acidification… Another Nail in a Junk Science Coffin,”
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ocean-acidification-another-nail-in-a-junk-science-coffin/)
In other words… Anthropogenic CO2 emissions help feed the critters that build coral reefs.
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (CO2, bicarbonate, etc.) are consumed by shell building organisms to
build shells (bicarbonate) and photosynthesis in the photic zone (CO2). DIC constitute about 97% of
the carbon in the oceans . Dissolved Organic Carbon (non-colloidal bits of carbohydrates,
proteins, etc.) are the mostly the product of photosynthesis. DOC can come from land or, marine
sources. This is consumed by sponges which secrete food for reef building organisms. Both
DIC and DOC are part of the carbon cycle. Anthropogenic carbon emissions (primarily CO2)
constitute about 3% of the Earth’s carbon budget (~6 Gt/yr). More CO2 in the atmosphere
leads to something called “CO2 fertilization.” In an enriched CO2 environment, most plants
end to grow more. The fatal flaw of the infamous “Hockey Stick” chart was in Mann’s misinterpretation
of Bristlecone Pine tree ring chronologies as a proxy for temperature; when in fact the tree ring growth was
actually indicating CO2 fertilization as in this example from Greek fir treesEnriched atmospheric CO2
“feeds” reefs in two ways: 1) Enhanced photosynthesis for the symbiotic algae; and 2) More
DOC to feed the sponges that also feed reef builders as the result of enhanced
photosynthesis of land and marine vegetation. Coral reefs can only grow in the photic zone
of the oceans because zooxanthellae algae use sunlight, CO2, calcium and/or magnesium to
make limestone. The calcification rate of Flinders Reef has increased along with atmospheric CO2
concentrations since 1700 Flinders Reef calcification rate has increased along with atmospheric CO2 since
1700. As the atmospheric CO2 concentration has grown since the 1700′s coral reef extension rates have
also trended upwards. This is contrary to the theory that increased atmospheric CO2 should
reduce the calcium carbonate saturation in the oceans, thus reducing reef calcification. It’s a
similar enigma to the calcification rates of coccoliths and otoliths. In all three cases, t he theory or model
says that increasing atmospheric CO2 will make the oceans less basic by increasing the
concentration of H+ ions and reducing calcium carbonate saturation. This is supposed to
reduce the calcification rates of carbonate shell-building organisms. When, in fact, the
opposite is occurring in nature with reefs and coccoliths – Calcification rates are generally
increasing. And in empirical experiments under laboratory conditions, otoliths grew (rather than
shrank) when subjected to high levels of simulated atmospheric CO2. In the cases of reefs and
coccoliths, one answer is that the relatively minor increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple of
hundred years has enhanced photosynthesis more than it has hampered marine carbonate geochemistry.
However, the otoliths (fish ear bones) shouldn’t really benefit from enhanced photo-respiration. The fact
that otoliths grew rather than shrank when subjected to high CO2 levels is a pretty good
indication that the primary theory of ocean acidification has been tested and falsified . In the
field of geology, when we falsify a hypothesis or a theory, we trend to start looking for a new hypothesis or
theory. That’s why we rely very heavily on Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. In
the junk science of ocean acidification and anthropogenic global warming, it appears that
the process is to simply discard any data that deviate from the ruling theory.
Natural adaptation and forces disprove Ocean Acidification Impacts
Anthony, 7 – Dr. J. Floor Anthoni the Director of Sea Friends (2007, Dr J Floor Anthoni, Seafriends,
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#conclusion CS)
It is an important message that I want you to take home and keep in the back of your mind whenever you
read about marine science or planet science. It is a message for scientists too. Dead planet thinking: most
oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force,
every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer.
But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing
circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We
may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea. Opening with these thoughts, the
(bio)chemistry of the sea is so complicated and unknown that the scare for acidic oceans is
entirely unjustified. It is true that humans should act from a position of humility and prudence, adjusting
to nature while never exploiting more than 30% of the environment but we have gone far over that limit.
Today nature is adjusting to us and we cannot change that without a much smaller human population and
much less waste (CO2 is part of human waste). Well, that is not going to happen. So we have to accept that
nature is now changing. An important part of that is an increase of the life-bringing gas carbondioxide.
With higher CO2 levels, plants will produce more. Hopefully the world will become warmer
too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will
become more productive too, adjusting to the new scenario. There will be no 'tipping points'
but there could be some unexpected and unforeseen surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to
major changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by fossil fuel will be relatively
small. As far as the science of ocean acidification goes, there are some major errors and
conflicts, and the amount of missing knowledge is much larger than what we know. Scientists
have uncritically accepted the findings of the IPCC with critically low 'pre-industrial' levels of CO2, but
has anyone tried to grow plants and seedlings at 180ppmv CO2?
Ocean Acidification has no Impact, Myriad of Reasons
Monckton, 10-The Right Honourable The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Deputy Leader of the UK
Independence Party, Served as the the secretary for the Centre for Policy Studies’ economic, forward
strategy, health and employment study groups (1/5/10, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount
Monckton of Brenchley, Science and Public Policy Institute, “’ACID TEST: The Global Challenge Of
Ocean Acidification’ – A New Propaganda Film By The National Resources Defense Council Fails The
Acid Test Of Real World Data,” Science and Public Policy Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change. CS)
Our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the
oceans. Paper after paper after learned paper in the peer-reviewed literature makes that quite plain. Idso
cites some 150 scientific sources, nearly all of them providing hard evidence, by measurement and
experiment, that there is no basis for imagining that we can acidify the oceans to any extent
large enough to be measured even by the most sensitive instruments. And, as Richard Feynman
used to say, no matter how elegant your theory, no matter how smart you are, if experiment proves you
wrong then you need another theory. Why can’t rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans?
First, because it has not done so before. During the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, there
was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today: yet that is when the calcite
corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, there was again
20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate aragonite corals first came into being.
Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same problem of scale as “global
warming”. Just as the doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century will scarcely change
global mean surface temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place, so it
will scarcely change the acid-base balance of the ocean, because there is already 70 times as much
CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Even if all of the additional CO2 we emit
were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it might in theory cause a 3 very little warming) but in
the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the oceans would rise by little more
than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change. Thirdly, to imagine that CO2 causes “ocean
acidification” is to ignore the elementary chemistry of bicarbonate ions. Quantitatively, CO2 is
only the seventh-largest of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so
that in any event its effect on that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different
from all the other substances in that it acts as the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it
does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the oceans at all. Fourthly, as Professor Ian
Plimer points out in his excellent book Heaven and Earth (Quartet, London, 2009), the oceans slosh
around over vast acreages of rock, and rocks are pronouncedly alkaline. Seen in a geological
perspective, therefore, acidification of the oceans is impossible.
No harm from CO2 or Acidification – May be Beneficial
Idso, 10 - the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, PhD in Geography from ASU (1/5/2010, Dr. Craig D. Idso, Science and Public Policy
Institute, “’ACID TEST: The Global Challenge Of Ocean Acidification’ – A New Propaganda Film By The
National Resources Defense Council Fails The Acid Test Of Real World Data,” Science
and Public Policy Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. CS)
The ocean chemistry aspect of this theory is rather straightforward; but it is not as solid as model
projections or the NRDC make it out to be. In another evaluation of the consequences of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment for seawater acidity, for example, Loaiciga (2006) found that a
doubling of CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm would increase seawater acidity by lowering its pH by
only 0.19 unit. Thus, Loaiciga concluded that on a global scale and over the time scale
considered (hundreds of years), there should not be “accentuated changes in seawater acidity”
as a result of projected increases in the air’s CO2 concentration. In addition, with more CO2 in the
air, additional weathering of terrestrial carbonates is likely to occur, which would increase
delivery of Ca2+ to the oceans and partly compensate for the CO2-induced decrease in
oceanic calcium carbonate saturation state (Riding, 1996). And as with all phenomena involving
livingorganisms, the introduction of life into the ocean acidification picture greatly
complicates things. A number of interrelated biological phenomena, for example, must also be
considered; and when they are, it becomes much more difficult to draw such sweeping negative
conclusions as portrayed by the NRDC in their film. In fact, as demonstrated in the following paragraphs,
these considerations even suggest that the rising CO2 content of Earth’s atmosphere may well be
a positive phenomenon, enhancing the growth rates of corals and helping them to better
withstand the many environmental stresses that truly are inimical to their well-being, such as
storm damage, sea-level rise, extreme temperatures, human-induced damage resulting from
mining, dredging, fishing and tourism, as well as intensified pollution due to an over-abundance of
nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and particulates arising from agricultural and other enterprises.
CO2 absorption in Oceans increases Calcification and increases Growth
Idso, 10 - the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, PhD in Geography from ASU (1/5/2010, Dr. Craig D. Idso, Science and Public Policy
Institute, “’ACID TEST: The Global Challenge Of Ocean Acidification’ – A New Propaganda Film By The
National Resources Defense Council Fails The Acid Test Of Real World Data,” Science
and Public Policy Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. CS)
Over sixty years ago, Kawaguti and Sakumoto (1948) illustrated the importance of photosynthesis in the
construction of coral reefs. Specifically, they analyzed numerous data sets recorded in earlier publications,
demonstrating that coral calcification rates are considerably higher in the daylight (when
photosynthesis by coral symbionts occurs) than they are in the dark (when the symbionts lose carbon via
respiration). A number of more modern studies have also demonstrated that symbiont
photosynthesis enhances coral calcification (Barnes and Chalker, 1990; Yamashiro, 1995); and they
have further demonstrated that long- term reef calcification rates generally rise in direct
proportion to increases in rates of reef primary production (Frankignoulle et al., 1996; Gattuso et
al., 1996, 1999). In fact, the work of Muscatine (1990) suggests that “the photosynthetic activity of
zooxanthellae is the chief source of energy for the energetically expensive process of
calcification” (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Consequently, if an anthropogenic-induced increase in the
transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the world’s oceans, i.e., hydrospheric CO2 enrichment,
were to lead to increases in coral symbiont photosynthesis – as atmospheric CO2 enrichment does for
essentially all terrestrial plants (Kimball, 1983; Idso, 1992; Idso and Idso, 1994) – it is likely that coral
calcification rates would also increase. Another consequence of this phenomenon is that more
robustly growing zooxanthellae may take up more of the metabolic waste products of the coral host, which,
if present in too great quantities, can prove detrimental to the health of the host, as well as the health of the
entire coral plant-animal assemblage (Yonge, 1968; Crossland and Barnes, 1974). There are also a
number of other substances that are known to directly interfere with calcium carbonate
precipitation; and they too can be actively removed from the water by coral symbionts in
much the same way that symbionts remove host waste products (Simkiss, 1964). More importantly,
perhaps, a greater amount of symbiont-produced photosynthates may provide more “fuel” for the active
transport processes involved in coral calcification (Chalker and Taylor, 1975), as well as more raw
materials for the synthesis of the coral organic matrix (Wainwright, 1963; Muscatine, 1967; Battey and
Patton, 1984). Finally, the photosynthetic process helps to maintain a healthy aerobic or oxic
environment for the optimal growth of the coral animals (Rinkevich and Loya, 1984; Rands et al.,
1992); and greater CO2-induced rates of symbiont photosynthesis would enhance this important
“environmental protection” activity. 7 In light of these several observations and their logical implications,
with ever more CO2 going into the air, driving ever more CO2 into the oceans, increasingly
greater rates of coral symbiont photosynthesis would be expected to be observed, all else
being equal. And this phenomenon, in turn, should increasingly enhance all of the many positive
photosynthetic-dependent phenomena described above and thereby increase coral calcification
rates. Furthermore, it should increase these rates well beyond the point of overpowering the
modest negative effect of the purely chemical consequences of elevated dissolved CO2 on
ocean pH and calcium carbonate saturation state. However, arriving at these conclusions is not as simple
as it sounds.
Coral Reefs not sensitive to Ocean Acidification
Idso, 10 - the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, PhD in Geography from ASU (1/5/2010, Dr. Craig D. Idso, Science and Public Policy
Institute, “’ACID TEST: The Global Challenge Of Ocean Acidification’ – A New Propaganda Film By The
National Resources Defense Council Fails The Acid Test Of Real World Data,” Science
and Public Policy Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. CS)
According to one scientist appearing in the NRDC film, "coral reefs are particularly sensitive to
ocean acidification," and in a dire prediction he further opines that we are presently in "the last decade in
which we can do something about this problem." As ever more pertinent evidence accumulates, however,
the true story appears to be just the opposite of this prediction. Herfort et al. (2008), for
example, note that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the abundance
of HCO3- (bicarbonate) ions and dissolved CO2; and they report that several studies on marine
plants have observed "increased photosynthesis with higher than ambient DIC [dissolved inorganic carbon]
concentrations," citing the works of Gao et al. (1993), Weis (1993), Beer and Rehnberg (1997), Marubini
and Thake (1998), Mercado et al. (2001, 2003), Herfort et al. (2002) and Zou et al. (2003). To further
explore this subject, and to see what it might imply for coral calcification, the three researchers employed a
wide range of bicarbonate concentrations "to monitor the kinetics of bicarbonate use in both photosynthesis
and calcification in two reef-building corals, Porites porites and Acropora sp." This work revealed that
additions of HCO3- to synthetic seawater continued to increase the calcification rate of
Porites porites until the bicarbonate concentration exceeded three times that of seawater,
while photosynthetic rates of the coral's symbiotic algae were stimulated by HCO3- addition until they
became saturated at twice the normal HCO3- concentration of seawater.
AT Phytoplankton
Recent Evidence Indicates that Warming Helps Arctic Phytoplankton
Myslewski 12 (Rik Myslewski, San Francisco Correspondent/writer for The Register, “Global warming helps Arctic algae
suck CO2” June 8th, 2012, Online @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/phytoplankton_bloom/ ht)
There's good news for folks worried that atmospheric CO2 levels in the Arctic have passed 400ppm for the first time: a
vast CO2sucking phytoplankton bloom has been discovered beneath Arctic ice – and it may thank global
warming for its presence. "This wasn't just any phytoplankton bloom," Stanford University marine scientist
Kevin Arrigo toldThe Christian Science Monitor. "It was literally the most intense phytoplankton bloom I've
ever seen in my 25 years of doing this type of research." Arrigo's research, conducted in the Chukchi Sea last year
as part of NASA's ICESCAPE Arctic-research expedition, is discussed in the online issue of the journal Science in a report entitled
"Life Blooms Under Arctic Ice". The massive under-ice bloom discovered during ICESCAPE was
thoroughly unexpected. The meager amount of phytoplankton in that area's open waters had led
scientists to believe that under-ice phytoplankton would be even more rare. Not so. Due to the recent
thinning of the Arctic ice sheets, enough light is now able to penetrate below the ice, enabling
phytoplankton to thrive. According to Don Perovich of the US Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, ponds of meltwater form on the surface of the ice sheet, acting as "skylights" that
let light reach the phytoplankton below. These skylights don't have to let the light travel far: since satellite observations
began in 1979, summer ice has declined by about 45 per cent due to global warming, wind patterns, and pollution. Perovich told the
Monitor that much of the melt-season sea ice is now no more than around six feet thick, and has little or
no snow cover. No snow cover, more melting; more melt ponds, more skylights; more sunlight, more
phytoplankton. The amount of phytoplankton blooming beneath the ice, the theory goes, is so great
that it contributes to the lack of blooms in open water – the under-ice blooms simply eat up all the
available nutrients before they have a chance to make it out to the open ocean. The huge amount of CO2
photosynthesized by the phytoplankton, in fact, may help explain why the ocean is absorbing more of that
greenhouse gas than calculations would otherwise indicate: even though the amount of dissolved CO2
in Arctic waters is below predicted levels, that carbon is finding another home in the photosynthetic systems
of the phytoplankton.
AT Rainforests
Warming wont affect rainforests or the Amazon
Bell 1/1/11 - a professor of architecture and holds an endowed professorship in space architecture at the
University of Houston. An internationally recognized commentator on scientific and public policy issues,
Bell has written extensively on climate and energy policy and has been featured in many prominent
national and international newspapers, magazines, and television programs (Larry, “Climate of Corruption:
Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax” http://books.google.com/books?id=CS8uzm3cvUC&dq=%22warming+%22+impacts+on+%22coral+reefs%22+exaggerated&lr=&source=gbs_na
vlinks_s , PZ)
An ultimately embarrassing assertion in the ¡PCC’s 2007 AR4 report was that 40 per cent of the Amazon rain forest in South America
is endangered by global warming. Those findings were based upon numbers taken from a non-peer-reviewed
paper written by a freelance green activist journalist and published by the WWF . The paper warned that “up
to 40 percent of the Amazon forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction of precipitation . . . It is
more probable that forests will he replaced by ecosystems . . . such as tropical savannas.” The disaster would be triggered, according
to the IPCC’s assessment, by a slight drop in the rainfall rates expected for a warming world. The original claim was based upon a
WWF study, “Global Review of Forest Fires’ written “to secure essential policy reform at national and international levels to provide
a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires:’ The 40 percent figure was taken from a letter
published in the journal Nature, which related to harmful logging activities.55 Although the global warming—rain forest
endangerment connection has been debunked by serious scientists , the IPCC has yet to retract or amend the claim.
NASA-funded analyses of satellite imagery over past decades indicate that in fact the rain forests are
remarkably resilient to droughts. Even during a 100-year dry season peak in 2007, the jungles appeared
basically unaffected. Arindam Samanta of Boston University, lead author of a recent study based on
satellite data from NASA’S Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer. or MODIS, remarked, “We found no big
differences in the greenness level of these forests between drought and non drought years Sangram Gangul)
author of another study at the NASA-affiliated Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, added, “Our results certainly do not
indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfa1I.”
Forests are resilient
CBD Technical 09 (Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change, "Part 1.1: Definitions and of
Related to Resilience", http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf)
Forests are engineering resilient in the sense that they may recover, after a period of time, from a
catastrophic disturbance to their original, pre-disturbance state maintaining, more-or-less, the original
species composition. The main ecosystem states of interest are defined by the dominant floristic (tree) composition and stand
structure. However, it is also useful to consider the question of ecological resilience with respect to the capacity of a
forest to continue to provide certain (most or all) ecosystem goods and services, even if the forest
composition and structure are permanently altered by disturbances. Resilience is an emergent property of
ecosystems that is conferred at multiple scales by genes, species, functional groups of species (see definition
below), and processes within the system (Gunderson 2000, Drever et al. 2006). Maintaining or restoring forest
resilience is often cited as a necessary societal adaptation to climate change ( e.g., Millar et al. 2007, Chapin et al.
2007). Drever et al. (2006) noted the importance of clarifying the questions: resilience of what and resilience to what? Here, the “of
what” are particular characteristics of forest ecosystems (e.g., carbon sequestration, water use/yield), and the “to what” are
environmental and human-caused disturbances, especially climate change. For example, an individual species’ physiological
tolerances may be exceeded by natural environmental change or human-caused events. Consequently, the species composition of a
forest may change while other ecosystem characteristics persist
AT Water Shortage
Global warming reduces water shortages – precipitation, empirics, and adaptation.
Goklany 12 (Indur M., science and technology policy analyst for the US Department of the Interior, Assistant Director of Programs, Science,
and Technology Policy, represented the US at the IPCC, rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC
First Assessment Report, PhD in electrical engineering, 8/28/12, “Is Climate Change the Number One Threat to Humanity?”
http://goklany.org/library/Goklany_WIREs.pdf)
The possibility of water shortages leading to droughts and hunger are recurring themes in the climate change literature. 31,33
However, several global impact studies indicate that warming may reduce net global PAR for water stress.
Deaths from droughts are probably the best indicator of the socioeconomic impact of such water shortages.
However, since the 1920s despite a more ‐ than ‐ tripling of the global population, deaths and death rates
from droughts have declined by 99.97% and 99.99%, respectively. 50 Yet another concern is access to safer water.
But between 1990 and 2008, although global population increased 27%, the percentage of global population with such access
increased from 76.8% to 86.8%. This translates into an additional 1.8 billion people gaining access to safer water over this period.
in Sub ‐ Saharan Africa the
population with access to improved water sources increased from 48.9% to 59.7% from 1990–2008, which
translates into 240 million additional people. Such improvements attest to the fact that despite any
warming, climate ‐ sensitive indicators of human well ‐ being can and have advanced. That is, human
adaptive responses have more than offset any possible deterioration from warming. Regarding the future,
110,111 Simultaneously, 1.3 billion more people got access to improved sanitation. Even
Figure 5 provides estimates of the global PAR for water stress in 2085 from the FTA water resources analysis. 21 It displays changes
in PAR due to climate change alone and total PAR after climate change. Despite totally ignoring autonomous adaptations which,
therefore, overestimates net adverse impacts, the FTA study indicates that warming could, as previously noted, reduce
net global PAR for water stress. 78 This occurs because warming should increase global precipitation,
and although some areas may receive less precipitation, other, more populated areas are, serendipitously,
projected to receive more. Other studies, e.g., Oki and Kanae’s review of global freshwater impact studies, also suggest a
net decline in water stress due to warming 112 . Similarly, Alcamo et al. 26 found that by 2050, relative to current
conditions, water stress would increase in 62%–76% of total global river basin area but decrease in 20%–29% under the A2 and B2
scenarios. However, in only 10% of the area would climate change be the principal cause of the increasing stress. In the other 90%, it
would be higher water withdrawals. On the other hand, climate change would be the major factor in most of the area (approximately
50–80%) experiencing decreasing stress. More recently, van Vuuren et al. 34 found that net PAR for water stress would decline in
2100 under a scenario corresponding to a global temperature increase of 3.5 °C above the 1960 ‐ 1990 average. This analysis also
ignored changes in adaptive capacity which, as noted, overestimates increases in the water ‐ stressed
population while underestimating declines. Using a similar methodology, Arnell et al.’s (2011) 113 results also show
that the net increase in the water ‐ stressed population from 2000 to 2100 would be dominated by non ‐
climate change factors by at least three to one (relative to warming). They also show that climate change
may not increase the net water ‐ stressed population through 2100 (relative to “no climate change”) .
Similarly, even after mitigation to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C, the net water ‐ stressed population may be
higher relative to the “no climate change” case. Equally importantly, mitigation may actually increase the net water ‐
stressed population over the unmitigated climate change scenario.
AT Water Wars
There’s no statistical precedent for water wars and adaptation and cooperation
solve – star this card
Katz, 11 David Katz, faculty member at the University of Haifa's Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, where
he teaches courses in environmental and resource economics, water management, and economic and political geography. He also
serves as an adjunct lecturer at Tel Aviv University's Recanati School of Management and Porter School for Environmental Studies,
where he teaches courses on economics of the environment and natural resources and on corporate environmental strategy. “ HydroPolitical Hyperbole: Examining Incentives for Overemphasizing the Risks of Water Wars,” written in Global Environmental Politics,
February 2011 http://www.bupedu.com/lms/admin/uploded_article/eA.726.pdf Accessed 6/23/12 BJM
Critiques of the Water War Hypothesis A number critiques have been leveled against both the theory and the empirical evidence
behind the water wars hypothesis. One critique of the environmental security literature, of which much of the published material on
water wars is guilty, is that warnings and threats of future violence are often considered as evidence. 28
Statements from the 1980s that the next war in the Middle East will be over water have already proven
false. Research has shown, however, that even the more general predictions of imminent water wars that are based
on comments by officials may be suspect. Leng, for instance, found no correlation between the frequency of
threats of war and the onset of war. 29 Examining conºict and cooperation over water resources, Yoffe and colleagues
noted over 400 incidents of water-related verbal exchanges by political figures between 1948 and 1999 that
were conflictual in nature, but only 37 instances of violent conflict of varying levels of intensity . Thirty of
these were from the Middle East, none were more recent than 1970, none were all-out wars, and in none was
water the central cause of conflict. 30 Proponents of water war scenarios often premise their dire
conclusions on the fact that water is essential for life and non-substitutable. 31 Yet water for basic needs
represents a small share of total water use, even in arid countries. 32 Economists and others point out that over 80
percent of world freshwater withdrawals are for the agricultural sector, a relatively low-value use and one
in which large gains in efficiency could be made by changes in irrigation techniques and choice of crops.
Thus, economic critiques of the water war hypothesis stress that the value of water that would be gained from military
conºict is unlikely to outweigh the economic costs of military preparation and battle, much less the loss of
life. 33 Some authors have even questioned the empirical basis for the conclusion that freshwater is
increasingly scarce, 34 an assumption on which the water war hypothesis relies. Such a “cornucopian” view claims that people
adapt to scarcity through improvements in technology, pricing, and efficiency—rendering water less scarce,
not more so. Perhaps the strongest case against the likelihood of water wars is the lack of empirical evidence of
precedents. Wolf found only one documented case of war explicitly over water, and this took place over 4500
years ago. 35 Moreover, he could document only seven cases of acute conflict over water . Yoffe and colleagues also
found that armed conflict over water resources has been uncommon. 36 They found that cooperation was much
more common than conºict, both globally and in all world regions except the Middle East/North Africa . This
pattern may explain why only a limited number of case studies of water conflict are presented in the water wars literature. Analysts
have criticized environmental security arguments that are based on case studies because such works tend to
have no variation in the dependent variable. 37 Many large sample statistical studies have attempted to address such
shortcomings, however, in several cases these studies too have come under fire. For instance, a number of large-sample
statistical studies found correlations between water-related variables and conflict, however, few, if any,
provide convincing support for causal relationships. Moreover, several studies found that water availability
had no impact on the likelihood of either domestic or international conflict , 38 including at least one study that
attempted to replicate earlier studies that claimed to have found such correlations. 39 Moreover, the results of several studies
that do find correlations between water and conflict are either not robust or are contrasted by other findings .
For instance, Raleigh and Urdal found that the statistical significance of water scarcity variables is highly dependent
on one or two observations, leading them to conclude that actual effects of water scarcity “are weak,
negligible or insignificant.” 40 Jensen and Gleditsch found that the results of Miguel and colleagues are less
robust when using a recording of the original dataset. 41 Gleditsch and colleagues found that shared basins do
predict an increased propensity for conflict, but found no correlation between conflict and drought, the
number of river crossings, or the share of the basin upstream, leading them to state that “support for a
scarcity theory of water conflict is somewhat ambiguous.” 42
Treaties solve water wars—our ev assumes climate change
Tir 12 (Jaroslav Tir, associate professor of international affairs in the University of Georgia School of Public and International
Affairs, Jaroslav Tir is a specialist in international relations as well as war and international conflict. Douglas M Stinnett, Ph. D,
professor of International affairs at UGA. “Weathering climate change: Can institutions mitigate international water conflict?”
Journal of Peace Research 49(1) 211–225. http://jpr.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/49/1/211.full.pdf+html)
Transboundary river treaties and international conflict While this study is motivated by the premise that water scarcity can contribute
to militarized international conflict, we echo some of the skepticism regarding the ‘water wars’ scenario. As Salehyan
(2008) observes, proponents of the deterministic view that environmental scarcity leads to armed conflict tend
to overlook the role of human agency and the moderating effects of institutions . International institutions, in
particular, are one important factor that helps explain why international conflicts over water are
comparatively rare. Rather than simply being the opposite of conflict, formal international cooperation is one method
for managing transboundary water sources and thereby preventing the emergence and escalation of
international water disputes. We thus view international institutions as critical explanatory variables that have been largely
overlooked in many discussions of international water conflict. 5 International treaties have become an increasingly
common means of managing transboundary rivers. International organizations, such as the United Nations and
World Bank, often advocate the formation of river treaties. In the case of tensions in the Aral Sea basin, for example, the UN
Secretary General has recommended a formal international accord to better manage the rivers feeding the Aral Sea (Heintz, 2010).
This trend has been reflected in recent academic research investigating the conditions leading to river treaty formation (e.g. Tir &
Ackerman, 2009; Stinnett & Tir, 2009; Tir & Stinnett, 2011). River treaties can specify how the river will be shared, set
water quality targets, determine acceptable water withdrawal rates, or balance navigation, water level, and
water quality needs; this will, in turn, help minimize the stresses placed on the river and make use more
effective in the long run. By helping to resolve the underlying problems that occur because of the
competing use of rivers – and which are likely to be exacerbated by increased water scarcity – treaties can alleviate
political tensions and reduce international conflict (Wolf, Yoffe & Giordano, 2003).
Multiple stipulations in international agreements mitigate the risk of climate
induced water conflicts
De Stefano et. al, 12 (Lucia De Stefano, Expert in Soil & Groundwater and Geologist at Oregon State University, “Climate
change and the institutional resilience of international river basins,” Written in Journal of Peace Research, 2012 49: 193
http://jpr.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/49/1/193.full.pdf+html)
Institutional sources of resilience to climate change Recent research has found that while an international water agreement
may not necessarily prevent the emergence of country grievances, these grievances usually result in
negotiations (or peaceful management) when an agreement already governs the basin (Brochmann & Hensel,
2009). Institutions such as international water treaties can contribute to transparency, decrease the transaction
costs of cooperation, and clarify expectations among the parties, thus stabilizing hydropolitical relations
(McCaffrey, 2003: 157). While a handful of empirical works have studied the general phenomenon of water treaty signature (Espey &
Towfique, 2004; Song & Whittington, 2004; Tir & Ackerman, 2009; Dinar, Dinar & Kurukulasuriya, 2011), less research has
examined the institutional components such treaties embody in a global context (Stinnett & Tir, 2009). The presence (absence) of
institutional stipulations may further reflect on the resilience of treaties, given water variability and climatic
change (Gleick, 2010). The international relations and hydropolitics literature has shed insight into which mechanisms could
possibly enhance treaty resilience and cooperation. Guided by the availability of global data as to the existence of particular
stipulations and buttressed by existing analysis in the literature, we consider the presence of (a) water allocation
mechanisms, (b) variability management mechanisms, (c) conflict resolution mechanisms, and (d) river
basin organizations. While we have elected to concentrate on only four major stipulations, we recognize that additional
stipulations may add to resilience. Side-payments and issue-linkage, for example, may act as a contract enforcing mechanism
specifically in asymmetric contexts (LeMarquand, 1977; Bennett, Ragland & Yolles, 1998; Dinar, 2006). Our underlying assumption
is that the existence of these four institutional stipulations provides a valid first approximation at the global
scale of the institutional resilience of transboundary basins to present and future climate change-induced
water variability. Below we discuss these four major components. While these stipulations are quite distinct, in some cases one
single treaty provision can include information on two different stipulations. For example, it is possible that an
allocation mechanism also includes specific stipulations for variability management. In that case we will
consider the mere presence of an allocation mechanism as one positive feature of the agreement, and the
existence of explicit references to flow variability management as another asset of the treaty.
Can’t Forecast Impacts
Their impact comparisons are made up – not even the most advanced
supercomputers can make accurate doomsday climate predictions
Ridenour, 2003 (Amy, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, United Press International, May 7, 2003
Wednesday, “Think tanks wrap-up”, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/05/07/Think-tanks-wrap-up/UPI40291052353798/#ixzz2IXqcDPr3)
"Approximately five
million different parameters have to be followed for a computer mock-up of
the climate system to be accurate. All their important interactions and impacts must be known, but they are not. Furthermore,
a full mock-up, covering all the spatial scales and generating a 40-year forecast of climate
change, would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputing. In other words, an
incredibly long wait and a near-impossible computational task." -National Policy Analysis #417, Climate
Change and California Assembly Bill 1058: Is it Hype? by Dr. Willie Soon.
CO2 = Harmless
CO2 has little to no effect on the environment and climate change
Happer 12 (Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the Marshall Institute and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a
specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993,
he served as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics
and Chair of the University Research Board. 3/27/12, “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?mod=djemITP_h)
During a fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this month, President Obama is reported to have said: "It gets you a little nervous about what is
happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I
really have enjoyed nice weather." What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for
more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of
Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The
latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees
Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979. The lack of any statistically
significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned.
The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per
million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm. CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds
of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit
because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because
warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable
energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without. The direct warming due to doubling CO2
levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC
computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even mor e, because they assume
changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of
observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. There has indeed been
some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that
warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had
increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing
to do with mankind. Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have
been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard
evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually
warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska. Weather conditions
similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942 , when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht
encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had. L arge fluctuations
from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one
and the winter of 1936 was much colder. Nightly television pictures of the tragic destruction from tornadoes over the past months
might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is no evidence of any trend in the number
of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures have risen
markedly." Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in
ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño
or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc. As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save
many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly—for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather
radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areas—than by credulous support of schemes to reduce "carbon
footprints," or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming. It is easy to be confused about climate, because we
are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil
fuels. But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between
what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict . The observed response of the climate
to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions.
Don’t Believe the Hype
Err neg – aff authors overestimate warming and underestimate adaptation
Goklany 2011 - a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior (Indur M., “Misled on
Climate Change: How the UN IPCC (and others) Exaggerate the Impacts of Global Warming” December 2011,
http://goklany.org/library/Reason%20CC%20and%20Development%202011.pdf , PZ)
A third approach would be to fix the root cause of why developing countries are deemed to be most at-risk, namely, poverty.
Sustained economic growth would, as is evident from the experience of developed countries, address virtually all problems of poverty,
not just that portion exacerbated by global warming. It is far more certain that sustainable economic growth will provide greater
benefits than emission reductions: while there is no doubt that poverty leads to disease and death, there is substantial doubt
regarding the reality and magnitude of the negative impact of global warming. This is especially true as
assessments often ignore improvements in adaptive capacity. Of these three approaches, human well-being in poorer
countries is likely to be advanced most effectively by sustained economic development and least by emission reductions. In addition,
because of the inertia of the climate system, economic development is likely to bear fruit faster than any emission reductions.These
figures also indicate that the compound effect of economic development and technological change can result in quite dramatic
improvements even over the relatively short period for which these figures were developed. Figure 5, for instance, covered 26 years.
By contrast, climate change impacts analyses frequently look 50 to 100 years into the future . Over such long
periods, the compounded effect could well be spectacular. Longer term analyses of climate-sensitive indicators of
human well-being show that the combination of economic growth and technological change can, over
decades, reduce negative impacts on human beings by an order of magnitude, that is, a factor of ten, or more.
In some instances, this combination has virtually eliminated such negative impacts. But, since impact
assessments generally fail to fully account for increases in economic development and technological
change, they substantially overestimate future net damages from global warming . It may be argued that the high
levels of economic development depicted in Figure 6 are unlikely. But if that’s the case, then economic growth used to drive the
IPCC’s scenarios are equally unlikely, which necessarily means that the estimates of emissions, temperature increases, and impacts
and damages of GW projected by the IPCC are also overestimates.B. Secular Technological Change The second major reason
why future adaptive capacity has been underestimated (and the impacts of global warming systematically
overestimated) is that few impact studies consider secular technological change. 25 Most assume that no
new technologies will come on line, although some do assume greater adoption of existing technologies with higher GDP per
capita and, much less frequently, a modest generic improvement in productivity. 26 Such an assumption may have been appropriate
during the Medieval Warm Period, when the pace of technological change was slow, but nowadays technological change is fast (as
indicated in Figures 1 through 5) and, arguably, accelerating. 27 It is unlikely that we will see a halt to technological change unless socalled precautionary policies are instituted that count the costs of technology but ignore its benefits, as some governments have
already done for genetically modified crops and various pesticides. So how much of a difference in impact would consideration of
both economic development and technological change have made? If impacts were to be estimated for five or so years into the future,
ignoring changes in adaptive capacity between now and then probably would not be fatal because neither economic development nor
technological change would likely advance substantially during that period. However, the time horizon of climate change
impact assessments is often on the order of 35–100 years or more. The Fast Track Assessments use a base year of
1990 to estimate impacts for 2025, 2055 and 2085. Over such periods one ought to expect substantial advances in
adaptive capacity due to increases in economic development, technological change and human capital . As
already noted, retrospective assessments indicate that over the span of a few decades, changes in economic
development and technologies can substantially reduce, if not eliminate, adverse environmental impacts
and improve human well-being, as measured by a variety of objective indicators. 41 Thus, not fully
accounting for changes in the level of economic development and secular technological change would
understate future adaptive capacity, which then could overstate impacts by one or more orders of
magnitude if the time horizon is several decades into the future. The assumption that there would be little or no improved or new
technologies that would become available between 1990 and 2100 (or 2200), as assumed in most climate change impact assessments,
is clearly naïve. In fact, a comparison of today’s world against the world of 1990 (the base year used in most impacts studies to date)
shows that even during this brief 20-year span, this assumption is invalid for many, if not most, human enterprises. Since 1990, for
example, the portion of the developing world’s population living in absolute poverty declined from 42% to 25%, and in sub-Saharan
Africa Internet users increased from 0 to 50 million, while cellular phone users went from 0 per 100 to 33 per 100.
***Warming Good
**CO2 Agriculture
1NC
Food crises are beginning—CO2 emissions are key to preventing billions of deaths
from global food shortages
Idso 11 (Sherwood Idso, former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture, 7/6/11, “Meeting
the Food Needs of a Growing World Population,” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N27/EDIT.php).
Parry and Hawkesford (2010) introduce their study of the global problem by noting that "food
production needs to
increase 50% by 2030 and double by 2050 to meet projected demands," and they note that at the same
time the demand for food is increasing, production is progressively being limited by "non-food uses of crops and cropland," such as
the production of biofuels, stating that in their homeland of the UK, "by 2015 more than a quarter of wheat grain may be destined for
bioenergy production," which surely must strike one as both sad and strange, when they also note that "currently,
at least
one billion people are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with more
people "hungrier now than at the start of the millennium." So what to do about it: that is the question the two researchers broach in
their review of the sad situation. They begin by describing the all-important process of photosynthesis, by which the earth's
plants "convert light energy into chemical energy, which is used in the assimilation of
atmospheric CO2 and the formation of sugars that fuel growth and yield," which phenomena make
this natural and life-sustaining process, in their words, "a major target for improving crop productivity both via conventional breeding
and biotechnology." Next to a plant's need for carbon dioxide comes its need
for water, the availability of which, in the
words of Parry and Hawkesford, "is the major constraint on world crop productivity." And they state that
"since more than 80% of the [world's] available water is used for agricultural production, there is little opportunity to use additional
water for crop production, especially because as populations increase, the demand to use water for other activities also increases."
Hence, they rightly conclude that "a
real and immediate challenge for agriculture is to increase crop
production with less available water." Enlarging upon this challenge, they give an example of a success
story: the Australian wheat variety 'Drysdale', which gained its fame "because it uses water more
efficiently." This valued characteristic is achieved "by slightly restricting stomatal aperture and
thereby the loss of water from the leaves." They note, however, that this ability "reduces photosynthetic
performance slightly under ideal conditions," but they say it enables plants to "have access to water later in
the growing season thereby increasing total photosynthesis over the life of the crop." Of course,
Drysdale is but one variety of one crop; and the ideal goal would be to get nearly all varieties of all crops
to use water more efficiently. And that goal can actually be reached by doing nothing, by merely halting the efforts of
radical environmentalists to deny earth's carbon-based life forms -- that's all of us and the rest of the earth's plants and animals -- the
extra carbon we and they need to live our lives to the fullest. This is because allowing
the air's CO2content to rise in
response to the burning of fossil fuels naturally causes the vast majority of earth's plants to
progressively reduce the apertures of their stomata and thereby lower the rate at which
water escapes through them to the air. And the result is even better than that produced by the breeding of Drysdale,
because the extra CO2 in the airmore than overcomes the photosynthetic reduction that results from the partial closure of
plant stomatal apertures, allowing even more yield to be produced per unit of water transpired in the
process. Yet man can make the situation better still, by breeding and selecting crop varieties that perform better under higher
atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the varieties we currently rely upon, or he can employ various technological means of altering
them to do so. Truly, we can succeed, even where "the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of substantially reducing the
world's hungry by 2015 will not be met," as Parry and Hawkesford accurately inform us. And
this truly seems to us the
moral thing to do, when "at least one billion people are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with
more people "hungrier now than at the start of the millennium.”
2NC Uniqueness
The next agricultural revolution is underway. Absent CO2, food demand will
devastate wild nature.
Idso squared, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, ‘01
(Craig and Keith, The Most Important Global Change, February 2001, Volume 4, Number 8: 21,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N8/EDIT.php)
It thus behooves us to seriously consider the findings of Tilman et al. (2001), reported just four days later in the pages of Science,
In an analysis of the
global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion that will likely occur over the next 50
years, which was based upon projected increases in population and concomitant advances in
technological expertise, the group of ten respected researchers concluded that the task of meeting the
doubled global food demand they calculated to exist in the year 2050 will likely exact an environmental
toll that "may rival climate change in environmental and societal impacts." What are the specific
problems? For starters, Tilman and his colleagues note that "humans currently appropriate more than a
third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and about half of usable freshwaters, have doubled
terrestrial nitrogen supply and phosphorus liberation, have manufactured and released
globally significant quantities of pesticides, and have initiated a major extinction event." Now, think of doubling
those figures. In fact, do even more; for the scientists calculate global nitrogen fertilization and pesticide
production will likely rise by a factor of 2.7 by the year 2050.
which Leo and Gergen had obviously not the advantage of seeing when they composed their essays.
Agricultural demand will triple by 2050—only increased CO2 emissions can solve
Idso Cubed 5 (Craig, president of CO2 Science, Keith, Vice president of CO2 Science, Sherwood, Will
Farming Destroy Wild Nature? APRIL 13TH 2005 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N15/EDIT.php)
In an article in Science entitled "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature," Green
et al. (2005) address a looming
problem of incredible proportions and significance: how to meet the two- to three-fold increase in
food demand that will exist by 2050 (Tilman et al., 2002; Bongaarts, 1996) without usurping for
agriculture all the land that is currently available to what they call "wild nature." The four scientists
demonstrate the immediacy of the problem by discussing the relationship between farming
and birds. They begin by noting that "farming (including conversion to farmland and its intensifying use) is the single
biggest source of threat to bird species listed as Threatened (accounting for 37% of threats) and is already
substantially more important for species in developing countries than those in developed countries (40% and 24% of threats,
respectively)," and by reporting that "for
developing and developed countries alike, the scale of the
threat posed by agriculture is even greater for Near-Threatened species (57% and 33% of
threats, respectively)." Clearly, a little more taking of land by agriculture will likely be devastating
to several species of birds; and a lot more usurpation (using words employed by climate alarmists the world over) will likely be
catastrophically deadly to many of them, and numerous other animals as well. So how does one solve
the problem and keep from driving innumerable species to extinction (using more words that climate
alarmists relish) and still feed the masses of humanity that will inhabit the planet a mere 45 years hence? The answer
is simple: one has to raise more food without appreciably increasing the amounts of land and
water used to do it. The problem is that it is getting more and more difficult to do so. Already, in fact, Green et al. report that
annual growth in yield is now higher in the developing world than it is in the developed world, which suggests we may be approaching
the upper limits of the benefits to be derived from the types of technology that served us so well over the last four decades of the 20th
century, when global food production outstripped population growth and kept us largely ahead of the hunger curve, at least where
political unrest did not keep food from reaching the tables of those who needed it. This is also the conclusion of Green et al., who
report that "evidence from a range of taxa in developing countries suggests that high-yield farming may allow more species to persist."
But will the high-yield farming we are capable of developing in the coming years be high enough to keep the loss of wild nature's land
at an acceptable minimum? This
question was addressed by Idso and Idso (2000), who developed a
supply-and-demand scenario for food in the year 2050. Specifically, they identified the plants that currently
supply 95% of the world's food needs and projected historical trends in the productivities of these crops 50 years into the future.
They also evaluated the growth-enhancing effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on these
plants and made similar yield projections based on the increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration likely to occur by that future date. This work indicated that world population would be 51% greater in the year
2050 than it was in 1998, but that world food production would be only 37% greater, if its enhanced productivity were solely a
consequence of anticipated improvements in agricultural technology and expertise. However, they
determined that the
consequent shortfall in farm production could be overcome - but just barely - by the additional
benefits anticipated to accrue from the aerial fertilization effect of the expected rise in the
air's CO2 content, assuming no Kyoto-style cutbacks in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
2NC Poverty Impact
Billions will die without expanded agricultural output
Mahendra Shah, Executive Secretary of CGIAR and Maurice Strong, Senior Adviser to UN and World
Bank 2000 “Food in the 21st century: from science to sustainable agriculture,” p. 9-10
As the new millennium begins, the world faces another food crisis that is just as dangerous — but much
more complex — than the one it confronted thirty years ago. Each year the global population climbs by an
estimated 90 million people. This means, at the very least, the world's farmers will have to
increase food production by more than 50 percent to feed some two billion more people by
2020. But the numbers don't tell the full story. The challenge confronting the world is far more intricate than simply producing more
food, because global conditions are very different than they were on the eve of the Green Revolution. To prevent a crisis,
the world community must confront the issues of poverty, food insecurity, environmental
degradation, and erosion of genetic resources. Feeding the world in the 21st century will require not only food availability, but food
security — access to the food required for a healthy and productive life. It means the ability to grow and to purchase food as needed. It
also means that people do not have to rely only on staples such as wheat, rice, potatoes and cassava. Food security focuses attention on
areas such as income, markets, and natural resources. The
basic statistics on food security are grim. In
addition to the expected population growth, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) estimates as many as 840 million people — a number that exceeds the combined populations of
Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan — currently do not have enough to eat. The companion problem of
"hidden hunger" — deficiencies of vital micronutrients — affects even more people in the developing world. The shift away from the
traditional food staples will make this challenge even more difficult. Simply increasing productivity of wheat and rice alone may not
have the impact it did 30 years ago
Moral obligation to prevent global starvation
Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez 2010
[http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n1/hunger.html]:
Giving aid to the poor in other nations may require some inconvenience or some sacrifice of luxury
on the part of peoples of rich nations, but to ignore the plight of starving people is as morally
reprehensible as failing to save a child drowning in a pool because of the inconvenience of getting
one's clothes wet. In fact, according to Singer, allowing a person to die from hunger when it is easily within
one's means to prevent it is no different, morally speaking, from killing another human being. If I
purchase a VCR or spend money I don't need, knowing that I could instead have given my money to some relief agency that could
have prevented some deaths from starvation, I am morally responsible for those deaths
2NC Turns Economy
CO2 key to plant growth and economic stability
Wall Street Journal 1/19/12 (“No Need to Panic About Global Warming”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations
by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2
that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better
growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times
larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management
contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost
certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Princeton physics professor William Happer on
why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. A recent
study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the
highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth
unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of
the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life
expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have
a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come
with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
2NC Link – CO2 Key
CO2 helps global food production – increases rainfall and lengthens the growing
season
Zubrin 12 (Robert Zubrin, B.A. in mathematics and masters degree in aeronautics from the University of Rochester, 4/3/12,
“Carbon Emissions are Good,” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295098/carbon-emissions-are-good-robert-zubrin)
This has left the EPA’s second premise — that global warming would be a harmful development — largely unchallenged. This is
unfortunate, because while it is entirely possible that the earth may be warming — as it has done so many times in the past — there is
no rational basis whatsoever to support the contention that carbon-dioxide-driven global warming would be on the whole harmful to
life and civilization. Quite the contrary: All
available evidence supports the contention that human CO2
emissions offer great benefits to the earth’s community of life.¶ Putting aside for the moment the question
of whether human industrial CO2 emissions are having an effect on climate, it is quite clear that they are raising
atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, they are having a strong and markedly positive effect on
plant growth worldwide. There is no doubt about this. NASA satellite observations taken from orbit
since 1958 show that, concurrent with the 19 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 over the
past half century, the rate of plant growth in the continental United States has increased by
14 percent. Studies done at Oak Ridge National Lab on forest trees have shown that increasing the carbon dioxide level 50
percent, to the 550 parts per million level projected to prevail at the end of the 21 century, will likely increase photosynthetic
If CO2 levels are increased, the
rate of plant growth will accelerate.¶ ¶ Now let us consider the question of warming: If it is occurring — and I
productivity by a further 24 percent. This is readily reproducible laboratory science.
believe it is, based not on disputable temperature measurements but on sea levels, which have risen two inches in two decades — is it
a good thing or a bad thing? Answer: It is
a very good thing. Global warming would increase the rate of
evaporation from the oceans. This would increase rainfall worldwide. In addition, global
warming would lengthen the growing season, thereby increasing still further the bounty of both agriculture and
nature.
Scientific consensus proves
Idso 11 (Craig Idso, former founder, president, and current chairman of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, 6/15/11, “Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World?”
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductionEstimates2050.pd,f, page 8).
In a test of this hypothesis, Cunniff et al. ¶ designed “a controlled environment experiment
using five modern-day representatives of wild ¶ C4 crop progenitors, all ‘founder crops’ from a
variety of independent centers,” which were ¶ grown individually in growth chambers
maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 180, ¶ 280 and 380 ppm, characteristic of
glacial, post-glacial and modern times, respectively. The ¶ results revealed that the 100-ppm
increase in CO2 from glacial to postglacial levels (180 to 280 ¶ ppm) “caused a significant gain in
vegetative biomass of up to 40%,” together with “a reduction ¶ in the transpiration rate via
decreases in stomatal conductance of ~35%,” which led to “a 70% ¶ increase in water use
efficiency, and a much greater productivity potential in water-limited ¶ conditions.” ¶ In
discussing their results, the five ¶ researchers concluded that “these key ¶ physiological changes could have ¶
greatly enhanced the productivity of ¶ wild crop progenitors after ¶ deglaciation ... improving the ¶
productivity and survival of these wild ¶ C4 crop progenitors in early ¶ agricultural systems.” And in this ¶
regard, they note that “the lowered ¶ water requirements of C4 crop ¶ progenitors under increased CO2¶
would have been particularly ¶ beneficial in the arid climatic regions ¶ where these plants were ¶
domesticated.” For comparative purposes, they also included one C3 species in their study –¶ Hordeum
spontaneum K. Koch – and they report that it “showed a near-doubling in biomass ¶ This body of
research demonstrated ¶ that increased levels of atmospheric ¶ CO2 generally produce
increases in ¶ plant photosynthesis, decreases in ¶ plant water loss by transpiration, ¶
increases in leaf area, and increases ¶ in plant branch and fruit numbers compared with [the]
40% increase in the C4 species under growth treatments equivalent to the ¶ postglacial CO2 rise.”¶ In light
of these and other similar findings¶ (Mayeux et al., 1997), it can be appreciated ¶ that the civilizations of
the past, which ¶ could not have existed without agriculture, ¶ were largely made possible by
the increase ¶ in the air’s CO2 content that accompanied ¶ deglaciation, and that the peoples of the ¶
Earth today are likewise indebted to this ¶ phenomenon, as well as the additional 100 ¶ ppm of CO2 the
atmosphere has ¶ subsequently acquired. But what about the ¶ future, will such benefits continue to¶ accrue?
Warming provides an essential boon to agriculture – 600 years of African trends
prove
Taylor, 11 James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound
science and free-market environmentalism with a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers. He is also senior fellow for The
Heartland Institute focusing on environmental issues. “ Climate Change Weekly: Global Warming Benefiting Africa’s Sahel Region”
Global warming activists are sounding four-alarm fire bells over a new study claiming global warming is
causing drought and killing trees in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa. Much like previous claims that
have fallen by the wayside, the notion that global warming is devastating the Sahel is unlikely to
stand the dual tests of time and scientific scrutiny. According to the new study, a rise in
temperatures and a decline in precipitation during the 20th century reduced tree densities in the Sahel by
approximately 18 percent from 1954 through 2002. Lead author Patrick Gonzalez says in a press release
accompanying the study, “Rainfall in the Sahel has dropped 20-30 percent in the 20th century…” At first
glance, the study and accompanying press release might present a persuasive argument for Western
democracies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Then again, the argument that Western
democracies should reduce carbon dioxide emissions may have been driving the study,
rather than the other way around. Lead author Gonzalez is also a lead author for the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose funding and very existence are
dependent on the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Moreover, IPCC
is on record claiming global warming is causing an increase in drought, so having a new study
claiming global warming is causing drought and related problems in Africa’s Sahel region
bolsters the shared interests of Gonzalez and IPCC. Gonzalez also spent half of the past decade as
a staffer for the Nature Conservancy environmental activist group. The Nature Conservancy is one of the
most vocal proponents of global warming alarmism and has also long asserted Western democracies must
dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Further, NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey
funded the study. If such funded studies find little about which to be concerned, NASA and
U.S. Geological Survey funds dry up, as do funds for Gonzalez and his National Park
Service employers. This is not to say that readers should dismiss out of hand a study published by a
Nature Conservancy staffer and United Nations representative with clear incentives to conclude global
warming is causing drought and tree deaths. Such a background and incentives should, however, cause
readers to look a little more deeply at the facts before accepting the study’s conclusions at face value.
Turning to the science, assertions that global warming is causing drought and tree deaths in the Sahel is
surprising news to many scientists and Sahel observers. The Sahel is a relatively narrow band of land
stretching east-west across the African continent at the southern edge of the Sahara Desert. Contrary to
what Gonzalez reports in his new study, many studies have documented improving conditions in
the Sahel as the earth has warmed. “The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making
farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa,” New Scientist
reported in 2002 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacularretreat.html). “Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and
advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing so much greener that families who fled to wetter coastal
regions are starting to go home.” An “analysis of satellite images completed this summer reveals that
dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert,” New
Scientist explained. “Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on
the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast. Nor is it just a short-term
trend. Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s.” “There are
more trees for firewood and more grassland for livestock. And a survey among farmers shows a 70
per cent increase in yields of local cereals such as sorghum and millet in one province in recent
years,” New Scientist added. These trends have continued throughout the past decade. In 2009 scientists at
Boston University used satellite data to study African vegetation patterns since the mid-1990s. As reported
by BBC News, “satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of
vegetation in the Southern Sahara.” “The broader picture is reinforced by studies carried
out in the Namib Desert in Namibia,” BBC News added. “This is a region with an average
rainfall of just 12 millimetres per year – what scientists call ‘hyper-arid’. Scientists have been
measuring rainfall here for the last 60 years. Last year the local research centre, called Gobabeb,
measured 80mm of rain.” Scientists at Brown University and the University of Minnesota-Duluth
confirmed a longer term improvement in African soil moisture. After studying African
drought patterns since the 1400s, the scientists reported in January 2007 in the peerreviewed science journal Geology that Africa is “experiencing an unusually prolonged
period of stable, wet conditions in comparison to previous centuries of the past
millennium.” Moreover, “the patterns and variability of twentieth-century rainfall in central Africa have
been unusually conducive to human welfare in the context of the past 1400 yr,” the scientists explained .
The same patterns are occurring globally. Analyzing satellite imagery that has been
available since 1982, scientists reported in a 2003 peer-reviewed study in Science, “We
present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18
years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our
results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic
constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of
carbon over 18 years) globally.” With so many studies and data indicating global warming is benefiting
soil moisture, plant growth and forest expansion in the Sahel region, Africa as a whole and globally, the
new assertion that global warming is causing a climate crisis in the Sahel is speculative and controversial at
best. Perhaps Gonzalez inadvertently revealed the true purpose of his new study when he concluded his
press release by saying, “We in the U.S. and other industrialized nations have it in our power, with current
technologies and practices, to avert more drastic impacts around the world by reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions.” This is certainly something we would expect a Nature Conservancy staffer and United Nations
representative to say.
2NC Link – Photosynthesis
Increases in CO2 content increase plant photosynthesis, decrease water loss, and
increase fruit number
Idso 11 (Craig Idso, former founder, president, and current chairman of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, 6/15/11, “Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World?”
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductionEstimates2050.pd,f, page 7).
The idea that an increase in the air’s CO2¶ content may be of benefit to the biosphere ¶ can be
traced back in time over 200 years. ¶ As early as 1804, for example, de Saussure ¶ showed that peas
exposed to high CO2¶ concentrations grew better than control ¶ plants in ambient air; and
work conducted ¶ in the early 1900s significantly increased ¶ the number of species in which
this ¶ growth-enhancing effect of atmospheric ¶ CO2 enrichment was observed to occur
(Demoussy, 1902-1904; Cummings and Jones, 1918). In ¶ fact, by the time a group of scientists convened at
Duke University in 1977 for a workshop on ¶ Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide
Enrichment, an annotated bibliography ¶ of 590 scientific studies dealing with CO2 effects on
vegetation had been prepared (Strain, ¶ 1978). This body of research demonstrated that increased
levels of atmospheric CO2 generally ¶ produce increases in plant photosynthesis, decreases
in plant water loss by transpiration, ¶ increases in leaf area, and increases in plant branch
and fruit numbers, to name but a few of ¶ the most commonly reported benefits. And five years later, at
the International Conference on ¶ Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant ¶ Productivity, it was
concluded that a doubling of the air’s ¶ CO2 concentration would likely lead to a 50% increase in ¶
photosynthesis in C3 plants, a doubling of water use ¶ efficiency in both C3 and C4 plants, significant
increases ¶ in biological nitrogen fixation in almost all biological ¶ systems, and an increase in the ability of
plants to adapt ¶ to a variety of environmental stresses (Lemon, 1983).
2NC Impact Ext
High-risk of short-term food shortages – CO2 emissions is key to prevent extinction
Sherwood and Idso 10 (Keith and Craig, "The World's Looming Food and Water Shortage," CO2 Science Magazine,
Volume 13, Number 49:8, December, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N49/EDIT.php)
Every now and then, various astute observers of man's precarious position on planet earth
call our attention to a developing global crisis that seems destined to wreak havoc on the
human race a mere forty years from now: a lack of sufficient land and freshwater resources
to produce the food that will be required to sustain our growing population. The most recent of this
community of researchers to address the approaching problem are Hanjra and Qureshi (2010), who begin their treatment of the subject
by quoting Benjamin Franklin's well-known homily: "when the well is dry, we know the worth of water."¶ "Food policy," as the two
Australian researchers write, "must not lose sight of surging water scarcity." Stating that " population
and income growth
will increase the demand for food and water," they indicate that "irrigation will be the first sector
to lose water, as water competition by non-agricultural uses increases and water scarcity
intensifies." And noting that "increasing water scarcity will have implications for food security,
hunger, poverty, and ecosystem health and services," they report that "feeding the 2050 population
will require some 12,400 km3 of water, up from 6800 km3 used today." This huge increase,
in their words, "will leave a water gap of about 3300 km3 even after improving efficiency in
irrigated agriculture, improving water management, and upgrading of rainfed agriculture,"
as per the findings of de Fraiture et al. (2007), Molden (2007) and Molden et al. (2010). ¶ This water deficiency,
according to Hanjra and Qureshi, "will lead to a food gap unless concerted actions are
taken today." Some of the things they propose, in this regard, are to conserve water and energy resources, develop and adopt
climate-resilient crop varieties, modernize irrigation, shore up domestic food supplies, reengage in agriculture for further
development, and reform the global food and trade market. And to achieve these goals, they say that "unprecedented global
cooperation is required," which by the looks of today's world is an even more remote possibility than that implied by the proverbial
wishful thinking. So, on top of everything else they suggest (a goodly portion of which will not be achieved), what
can we do
to defuse the ticking time-bomb that is the looming food and water crisis?¶ We suggest
doing nothing. But not just any "nothing." The nothing we suggest is to not mess with the
normal, unforced evolution of civilization's means of acquiring energy. We suggest this,
because on top of everything else we may try to do to conserve both land and freshwater
resources, we will still fall short of what is needed to be achieved unless the air's CO2
content rises significantly and thereby boosts the water use efficiency of earth's crop plants,
as well as that of the plants that provide food and habitat for what could be called "wild
nature," enabling both sets of plants to produce more biomass per unit of water used in the
process. And to ensure that this happens, we will need all of the CO2 that will be produced
by the burning of fossil fuels, until other forms of energy truly become more cost-efficient
than coal, gas and oil. In fact, these other energy sources will have to become much more
cost-efficient before fossil fuels are phased out; because the positive externality of the CO2induced increase in plant water use efficiency provided by the steady rise in the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels will be providing a most
important service in helping us feed and sustain our own species without totally decimating
what yet remains of wild nature.
2NC Solves Warming
Increased CO2 solves warming --- it acts as a sink that removes it from the
atmosphere --- recent evidence is on our side
Idso & Idso 11—Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, Botany & Microbiology @ Arizona State
University and PhD from UMinnesota and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture AND PhD in Geography
(Sherwood and Craig, “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path,” Published by the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf, DA:
6/21/2012//JLENART)
As can be seen from this figure, earth’s land surfaces were a net source of CO2-carbon to the atmosphere until
about 1940, primarily due to the felling of forests and the plowing of grasslands to make way for expanded
agricultural activities. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean, an
increasingly greater sink for CO2-carbon; and it has done so even in the face of massive global
deforestation, for which it has more than compensated . And in light of these findings, plus the fact that they do “not
depend on models” but “only on the observed atmospheric increase and estimates of fossil fuel emissions,” Tans concluded that
“suggestions that the carbon cycle is becoming less effective in removing CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g.,
LeQuere et al., 2007; Canadell et al., 2007) can perhaps be true locally, but they do not apply globally, not over the
50-year atmospheric record, and not in recent years.” In fact, he goes on to say that “to the contrary” and “despite
global fossil fuel emissions increasing from 6.57 GtC in 1999 to 8.23 in 2006, the five-year smoothed
global atmospheric growth rate has not increased during that time, which requires more effective uptake [of
CO2] either by the ocean or by the terrestrial biosphere, or both, to satisfy atmospheric observations.” And
the results portrayed in the figure we have adapted from Tans’ paper clearly indicate that this “more
effective uptake” of CO2-carbon has occurred primarily over land.
AT Pests
Increased CO2 levels solve—it prevents them from growing as fast
Idso et. al. 11—PhD in Geology and Chairman @ the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change—AND Robert Carter, PhD and Adjunct
Research Fellow @ James Cook University—AND S. Fred Singer, PhD and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project—AND Susan
Crockford, evolutionary biologist with specialities in skeletal taxonomy, paleozoology and vertebrate evolution—AND Joseph D’Aleo, former professor
of meteorology @ Lyndon State College—AND Indur Goklany, independent scholar, author, and co-editor of Electronic Journal of Sustainable
Development—AND Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, former Research Physicist with the
US Department of Agriculture and former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology @ Arizona State University; PhD in
Philosophy from UMinnesota—AND Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada—AND, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair
and Professor of Atmospheric Science @ UMissouri [boooo]—AND Willie Soon, astrophysicist @ Solar and Stellar Physics Division @ HarvardSmithsonian Center of Astrophysics—AND Mitch Taylor, cited Canadian scientist (Craig, “Climate Change Reconsidered,” 2011 Interim Report of the
NIPCC, September, Edited by Joseph Bast, S.T. Karnick, and Diane Bast --- *President, **Research Editor, and ***Executive Editor of the Heartland
Institute, http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf)
In light of their findings and the continued upward trend in the air‘s CO2 content, Hillstrom et al.
conclude, “concentrations of elevated CO2 above 500 ppm have the potential to decrease P.
sericeus populations by reducing female longevity and fecundity, which should be particularly
beneficial for the northern hardwood forests of North America that are currently growing under
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppm and rising. In one final study focusing on the future
effects of rising atmospheric CO2, as opposed to temperature, Rao et al. (2009) determined what
foliage-mediated effects atmospheric CO2 enrichment might have on another pernicious insect pest . As
background for their study, they explain that castor “is an important non-edible oilseed crop grown in
many parts of the arid and semi-arid regions of India, and the castor semilooper (Achaea janata) and
tobacco caterpillar (Spodoptera litura) “occur during early and late stages of growth of castor,
respectively, during which periods castor oil yields can be reduced ―by 30-50% by the
semilooper alone, and the tobacco caterpillar ―can cause yield losses of 25-40%. In conducting their
study, Rao et al. allowed larvae of both species to feed on castor foliage grown in present-day air
(presumed to contain 350 ppm CO2) and in air enriched with CO2 to concentrations of 550 and 700 ppm.
Their results indicated, ―compared to the larvae fed on ambient CO2 foliage, the larvae fed on 700 and 550 ppm CO2 foliage
exhibited greater consumption. However, the efficiency of conversion of both ingested and digested food
into larval biomass ―decreased in the case of larvae grown on 700 and 550 ppm CO2 foliage, so
they ―grew slower and took longer time (two days more than ambient) to pupation, which would allow
significantly more time (~13 percent) for them to be preyed upon by higher orders of creatures, many
of which are considered to be much less of a threat to crop production than are insect larvae . In the
case of castor beans, then, it would appear that in addition to the productivity enhancement likely to be
provided by the stimulation of photosynthesis driven by atmospheric CO2 enrichment—an
approximate 34 percent increase in response to a 300 ppm increase in the air‘s CO2 content
(Grimmer and Komor, 1999; Grimmer et al., 1999)—a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 likely also
would curtail yield losses currently caused by the castor semilooper and tobacco caterpillar .
AT Weeds
More evidence --- CO2 provides an extra benefit to C3 plants which blocks C4 weeds from expanding
Idso et. al. 12—Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ Arizona State
and PhD from UMinnesota and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture—AND Keith Idso, PhD in Botany—AND
Craig, PhD in Geography (Sherwood, “C4 Weeds vs. C3 Crops in a Warmer World: A Finnish Perspective,” 28 March 2012, Vol. 15,
No. 13, CO2Science, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N13/B3.php)
Reference Hyvonen, T. 2011. Impact of temperature and germination time on the success of a C4 weed in a C3 crop: Amaranthus retroflexus and spring
barley. Agricultural and Food Science 20: 183-190. Background It
is a well-known fact, as the author indicates, that C4 plants benefit
from elevated temperature; and he thus writes that many people believe that "since the majority of the
'world's worst weeds' are C4 plants and most crops are C3 plants, global warming can be assumed to
strengthen the competition from these weeds in the future." But is this seemingly logical conclusion really
correct? What was done In a test of the hypothesis that he conducted in Finland, Tyvonen studied the degree of success of
Amaranthus retroflexus (a C4 weed) growing both with and without spring barley (a C3 crop) at current and
elevated (+3°C) temperatures in a greenhouse experiment, where A. retroflexus was sown at a number of
different starting times relative to the time of sowing of the barley in the various competition runs. What was learned The Finnish
researcher discovered that although the growth of barley decreased somewhat with the rise in temperature,
"the growth and seed production of A. retroflexus in competition with barley was minimal." Furthermore, as he
continues, "climate warming will advance the sowing times of C3 crops (Kaukoranta and Hakala, 2008), thus
reinforcing the competitive benefit of C3 crops in spring time." What it means From the results of his study,
Hyvonen concludes that "A. retroflexus is unlikely to take hold in spring cereals," which he says is
confirmed by field observations that reveal that "none of the 188 weed species found in a Finnish weed
survey (Salonen et al., 2001) was a C4 species." In addition, he notes that "none of the C4 species belong to the most
important weeds of C3 crops in Europe (Schroeder et al., 1993)," concluding that "C3 crop species could act as a
barrier to invasion by the 'world's worst weeds' into the boreal region." We would only add to this
conclusion that the additional preferential benefit that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content provides to
C3 as opposed to C4 plants makes his view of the matter all the more likely to be correct.
AT Idso Indicts
Idso is definitely qualified and peer-reviewed
Hackney, 9 (Ryan, Law Clerk to United States District Judge Sim Lake for the Southern District of Texas. J.D., University of
Texas School of Law, 2009; A.B. and A.M., Harvard University, 2009, “ Flipping Daubert: Putting Climate Change Defendants in the
Hot Seat,” Lewis & Clark Law School’s Environmental Law Online,
http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/401/flipping_daubert_putting_clima.html)
Sherwood Idso would make a good test case of such an expert. Idso, who has served as a research physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and as an adjunct professor in Geology and Botany at Arizona
State University, is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an
organization that promotes the view that heightened CO2 levels are a good thing because of their beneficial
effects on plant growth.[143] Idso has energy industry connections: The Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change has been reported to have received funding from ExxonMobil,[144] and in
1991 Idso produced a video extolling the agricultural benefits of heightened CO2 for the Western Fuels
Association, a coal industry association.[145] While Idso’s connections to energy interests have led some
to question his work as biased,[146] his research on the effects of CO2 on plant growth has been published
several times in peer-reviewed journals. His research on the effects of heightened CO2 in boosting growth
in eldarica pine trees (Pinus eldarica), for example, was published in the Journal of Experimental Botany,
an Oxford University Press publication.[147] He published peer-reviewed papers in 2001 and 2004 on the
long-term effects of CO2 on growth of sour orange trees.[148] Since Idso is a published scientist who has
publicly promoted the benefits of CO2 and has shown a willingness to accept money from energy
companies, it is not unthinkable that climate change defendants could turn to him for expert testimony
about his research. But would he be allowed to testify? It is likely that Idso would pass a Daubert reliability
challenge. First, there is little question that Idso would qualify as an expert in some aspects of climate
change: He is a published scientist who has worked specifically with the biological effects of heightened
CO2.[149] Idso’s acceptance of energy company money is irrelevant to this question, as no part of Rule
702 or Daubert suggests that corporate funding diminishes an expert’s qualifications or the reliability of his
or her work.[150] While some might argue that this is a blind spot in Daubert,[151] it would probably be
unreasonable to institute a rule that prohibits scientists from testifying on behalf of their employees or
sponsors. The Committee Notes to the Rule 702 amendments do allow judges to consider whether an expert
is “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted
independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of
testifying.”[152] This analysis would likely weigh in favor of admitting Idso’s testimony, since he began
researching the effects of CO2 on plants years prior to any climate change litigation. And even if Idso is a
paid shill of the energy industry in some aspects of his career, he has also published several papers in
independent, peer-reviewed journals. To the extent that Idso’s testimony is based on the results of his peerreviewed studies and other similar publications, it would be difficult to challenge his testimony on the
Daubert five-factor reliability test. Testability can be established because the publications describe the tests
that Idso conducted to advance his theories.[153] The fact that the papers were accepted for publication in
respected journals suggests that the methodologies of the tests involved—including error rate and control
standards—were sufficiently rigorous that other scientists would accept them as reliable for publication.
While all of Idso’s conclusions may not be widespread in the scientific community, it is generally accepted
among ecologists that heightened CO2 can promote plant growth.[154] If Idso’s testimony sticks to the
information contained in his peer-reviewed publications, a Daubert challenge to his reliability would
probably fail.
**CO2 Agriculture – Aff
CO2 Insufficient
Benefits are short-term – can’t act as a sufficient negative feedback and warming
kills other resources needed to sustain agriculture
Mann 4 (Michael E, PHD in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, member of the Penn State University
faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and
Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center
(ESSC), "CO2 Fertilization," http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/)
It has sometimes been argued that the earth’s biosphere (in large part, the terrestrial biosphere) may have the capacity to
sequestor much of the increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere associated with human fossil fuel burning. This effect is
known as “CO2 fertilization” because, in the envisioned scenario, higher ambient CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere literally
“fertilize” plant growth. Because plants in turn, in the process of photosynthesis, convert CO2 into oxygen, it is thus sometimes argued
that such “co2 fertilization” could potentially provide a strong negative feedback on changing CO 2 concentrations. Recent
experiments and model calculations, however, suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. A set of controlled
experiments known as FACE (“Free Air CO2 Enrichment”) experiments have been performed in which ambient CO 2
levels are elevated in forest stands and changes in various measures of productivity are made over several
years. Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in agreement with models), that any elevation of
productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly offset any gradual, long-term
increases in co2 due to human activity. This is due in part to the fact that other conditions (e.g. availability of
nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus) appear to quickly become limiting, even when carbon availability is
removed as a constraint on plant growth when ambient CO2 concentrations are sufficiently increased. A few
simple calculations indicate that any hypothesized co2 fertilization response is unlikely to offset a significant fraction of projected
increases in atmospheric co2 concentration over the next century. At present, about 600 billion tons of carbon are tied up
in
the above-ground vegetation. About 2-3 times this much is tied up in roots and below ground carbon, which
is a more difficult carbon pool to augment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st
century range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if
the world increases its reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically. These numbers
clearly indicate that sequestering a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very difficult,
especially as forests are cleared to make way for agriculture and communities. While there are possibilities of storage in wells and
deep in the ocean, stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration would require gathering up the equivalent of
1 to 2 times the world’s existing above ground vegetation and putting it down abandoned oil wells or deep
in the ocean. While CO2 fertilization could help to increase above ground vegetation a bit, storing more than a few tens of percent
of the existing carbon would be quite surprising, and this is likely to be more like a few percent of global carbon emissions projected
for the 21st century.
Warming Kills Ag
Multiple reasons warming kills agriculture
William Cline, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Center for
Global Development, 3-2008, “Global warming and agriculture” Finance and Development, the quarterly
publication of the IMF March 2008,. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/cline.htm
For that reason, this study (Cline, 2007) was undertaken both to get a better long-term fix on overall world
effects under current policies (the so-called baseline or business-as-usual scenario) and to understand the
likely impact on individual countries and regions. The time frame stretched out to the average for 2070–99,
what is called the "2080s." Climate model projections are available on a comparable basis for this period,
which is far enough in the future to allow sizable warming and potential damage to materialize but close
enough to the present to elicit public concern. The study, which is explored in this article, suggests that
there is good reason not to downplay the risks to agriculture from global warming.
How climate affects agriculture Climate change can affect agriculture in a variety of ways.
Beyond a certain range of temperatures, warming tends to reduce yields because
crops speed through their development, producing less grain in the process. And
higher temperatures also interfere with the ability of plants to get and use moisture.
Evaporation from the soil accelerates when temperatures rise and plants increase
transpiration—that is, lose more moisture from their leaves. The combined effect is called
"evapotranspiration." Because global warming is likely to increase rainfall, the net impact of higher
temperatures on water availability is a race between higher evapotranspiration and higher precipitation.
Typically, that race is won by higher evapotranspiration. But a key culprit in climate change—carbon
emissions—can also help agriculture by enhancing photosynthesis in many important, so-called C3, crops
(such as wheat, rice, and soybeans). The science, however, is far from certain on the benefits
of carbon fertilization. But we do know that this phenomenon does not much help
C4 crops (such as sugar-cane and maize), which account for about one-fourth of all crops
by value.
CO2 is net worse for food
Justin Gillis June 4, 2011 is an assistant business editor at The New York Times, in charge of the paper's coverage of food,
agriculture and energy. He joined the Times last year after a dozen years as an editor and reporter at The Washington Post, and before
that, a dozen years at The Miami Herald. A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Now, the latest scientific research suggests that a previously discounted factor is helping to destabilize the food
system: climate change. Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather
disasters, like floods in the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia. Scientists
believe some, though not all, of those events were caused or worsened by human-induced global warming.
Temperatures are rising rapidly during the growing season in some of the most important agricultural
countries, and a paper published several weeks ago found that this had shaved several percentage points off potential yields, adding
to the price gyrations. For nearly two decades, scientists had predicted that climate change would be relatively
manageable for agriculture, suggesting that even under worst-case assumptions, it would probably take until 2080 for food
prices to double. In part, they were counting on a counterintuitive ace in the hole: that rising carbon dioxide levels, the
primary contributor to global warming, would act as a powerful plant fertilizer and offset many of the ill effects of
climate change. Until a few years ago, these assumptions went largely unchallenged. But lately, the destabilization of the
food system and the soaring prices have rattled many leading scientists. “The success of agriculture has been
astounding,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher at NASA who helped pioneer the study of climate change and agriculture.
“But I think there’s starting to be premonitions that it may not continue forever .” A scramble is on to figure out
whether climate science has been too sanguine about the risks. Some researchers, analyzing computer forecasts that are used to
advise governments on future crop prospects, are pointing out what they consider to be gaping holes. These include a
failure to consider the effects of extreme weather, like the floods and the heat waves that are increasing as the earth
warms. A rising unease about the future of the world’s food supply came through during interviews this year with more than 50
agricultural experts working in nine countries. These experts say that in coming decades, farmers need to withstand
whatever climate shocks come their way while roughly doubling the amount of food they produce to
meet rising demand. And they need to do it while reducing the considerable environmental damage caused
by the business of agriculture.
Heat capacity, financial and tech constraints outweigh CO2 benefits
James McCarthy, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Full Text of Third Assessment
WG #2, 1.2.1.1, http://www.ipcc.ch
Human production factors notwithstanding, food production is influenced mostly by the availability of water and nutrients, as
well as by temperature. Increases in temperatures could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase
the risk of heat or drought stress in other areas. Livestock (e.g., cattle, swine, and poultry) are all susceptible to
heat stress and drought (Gates, 1993). The effects of climatic changes—even smooth trends will not be uniform in space or
time. For smoothly evolving climatic scenarios, recent literature (see Chapter 5) tends to project that high latitudes may
experience increases in productivity for global warming up to a 1°C increase, depending on crop type, growing season, changes in
temperature regimes, and seasonality of precipitation. In the tropics and subtropics -where some crops already
are near their maximum temperature tolerance and where dry land, no irrigated agriculture
predominates the literature suggests that yields will tend to decrease with even nominal amounts of
climate change (IPCC, 1998; Chapter 5). Moreover, the adaptive capacity of less developed countries in the
tropics is limited by financial and technological constraints that are not equally applicable to more
temperate. developed countries. This would increase the disparity in food production between
developed and developing countries, For global warming greater than 2.5°c Chapter 5 reports that most
studies agree that world food prices –a key indicator of overall agricultural vulnerability would increase.
Much of the literature suggests that productivity increases in middle to high latitudes will diminish, and yield
decreases in the tropics and subtropics are expected to be more severe (Chapters 5 and 19). These
projections are likely to be. underestimates, and our confidence in them cannot be high because they are based
on scenarios in which significant changes in extreme events such as droughts and floods are not fully
considered or for which rapid nonlinear climatic changes have not been, assumed (Section 2.3.4 notes that
vulnerability to extreme events generally is higher than vulnerability to changing mean conditions).
Warming = Weeds
Weeds accelerate with warming – kills plants
Hatfield et. al. 11—Laboratory Director @ National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment
(Ames, IA)—AND K.J. Boote, Professor of Agronomy @ UFlorida—AND B.A. Kimball, worker @
USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center—AND L.H. Ziska, worker @ USDA Crop
Systems and Global Change Lab—AND R. C. Izaurralde, Professor @ Joint Global Change Research
Institute, Pacific Northwest National Lab @ UMaryland—AND D. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis
Research Unit and Professor @ UIllinois—AND A.M. Thomson, Joint Global Change Research Institute,
Pacific Northwest National Lab. @ UMaryland—AND D. Wolfe, Professor of Horticulture @ Cornell
University (J.L, “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal,
Vol. 103, Iss. 2, March 2k11, American Society of Agronomy)
Along with precipitation, temperature is a primary abiotic variable that affects invasive weed biology. The probable
impact of rising temperatures on the expansion of invasive weeds into higher latitudes is of particular concern.
Many of the worst invasives for warm season crops in the southern U nited S tates originated in tropical or
warm temperature areas; consequently, northward expansion of these invasives may accelerate with warming
(Patterson, 1993). For example, itchgrass (Rottboelliia cochinchinensis), an invasive weed associated with significant yield
reductions in sugarcane for Louisiana (Lencse and Griffin, 1991), is also highly competitive in corn, cotton,
soybean, grain sorghum, and rice systems (e.g., Lejeune et al., 1994). The response of this species to a 3°C increase
in average temperature stimulated biomass by 88% and leaf area by 68% (Patterson et al., 1979), projecting
increases in growth for the middle Atlantic states (Patterson et al., 1999). Northward migration of other invasive
weeds, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) and witchweed (Striga asiatica), is also anticipated (Patterson, 1995a). Conversely, additional
warming could also restrict the southern range of other invasive weeds, for example, wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) or Canada thistle (Ziska and
Runion, 2007).
Warming = Pests
Warming increases Pests – kills agriculture
WRI 99 (World Resource Institute, "Climate change will affect plant pests and diseases in the same way it
affects infectious disease agents." wri.org, http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8486)
Climate change will affect plant pests and diseases in the same way it affects infectious
disease agents. In other words, the range of many insects will expand or change, and new
combinations of pests and diseases may emerge as natural ecosystems respond to altered
temperature and precipitation profiles. Any increase in the frequency or severity of extreme
weather events, including droughts, heat waves, windstorms, or floods, could also disrupt
the predator-prey relationships that normally keep pest populations in check. An explosion
of the rodent population that damaged the grain crop in Zimbabwe in 1994, after 6 years of drought had
eliminated many rodent predators, shows how altered climate conditions can intensify pest problems.
The effect of climate on pests may add to the effect of other factors such as the overuse of pesticides and the loss of biodiversity that
already contribute to plant pest and disease outbreaks [300]. The
ingenuity of farmers, breeders, and
agricultural engineers, and the natural resilience of biological systems, will help buffer
many of the negative effects of climate change on agriculture. However, experts believe that
over the longer term, the accumulated stresses of sustained climate change stand a good
chance of disrupting agro-ecosystems and reducing global food productivity.
Flawed Studies
Their studies are flawed – they were done in greenhouses rather than open fields
Mittelstaedt 9 (Martin, The Globe and Mail’s environment reporter, The Globe and Mail, 3-31,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article743395.ece, 7-3-11)
Scientists have made another worrisome discovery, this time about carbon dioxide itself, the main
greenhouse gas, which is vital for plant development. It had been assumed in the 1980s, based on greenhouse experiments,
that an atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide would stimulate plant growth, raising some crop yields by as
much as 30 per cent. That is part of the reason why, up until now, few people worried much about agriculture and global
warming. It was thought that, while climate change might wreak havoc on ice-dependent polar bears and low-lying coastal cities,
it held a verdant lining for farmers. But new research published last year based on experiments in the U.S.,
Japan, Switzerland and New Zealand found the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide were vastly
overrated when crops were grown in the more realistic setting of open farm fields, rather than in
greenhouses. Corn yields didn't rise at all, and the rise in wheat and rice yields was less than half
previous estimates.
AT Solves Warming
Ocean sinks cause warming—not the other way around
Venkataramanan and smitha ’11 (Department of Economics, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai, India Indian
Journal of Science “Causes and effects of global warming p.226-229 March 2011 http://www.indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.3/mar11pages159-265.pdf KG)
Causes of global warming: The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mainly from your fossil fuel
emissions, is the most significant human cause of global warming. Carbon dioxide is released every you
burn something, be it a car, airplane or coal plant. This means you must burn less fossil fuel if you want the
Earth's climate to remain stable! And unfortunately, we are currently destroying some of the best known
mechanisms for storing that carbon-plants. Deforestation increases the severity of global warming as well.
Carbon dioxide is released from the human conversion of forests and grasslands into farmland and cities.
All living plants store carbon. When those plants die and decay, carbon dioxide is released back into the
atmosphere. As forests and grasslands are cleared for your use, enormous amounts of stored carbon enter
the atmosphere. An unstoppable feedback loop may happen if you let this continue. If the activities
mentioned above warm the Earth just enough, it could cause natural carbon sinks to fail. A "carbon sink" is
a natural system that stores carbon over thousands of years. Such sinks include peat bogs and the arctic
tundra. But if these sinks destabilize, that carbon will be released, possibly causing an unstoppable and
catastrophic warming of the Earth. The oceans are no longer able to store carbon as they have in the past.
The ocean is a huge carbon sink, holding about 50 times as much carbon as the atmosphere. But now
scientists are realizing that the increased thermal stratification of the oceans has caused substantial
reductions in levels of phytoplankton, which store CO2. Increased atmospheric carbon is also causing an
acidification of the ocean, since carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid when it reacts with water. The tiny
plants of the ocean, the very bottom of that vast watery food chain, are suffering from the effects of global
warming, which means they are becoming less able to store carbon, further contributing to climate change.
As carbon sinks fail, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere climbs!
AT Soybeans
Warming hurts Soybeans
Hatfield et. al. 11—Laboratory Director @ National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment (Ames, IA)—AND K.J. Boote, Professor
of Agronomy @ UFlorida—AND B.A. Kimball, worker @ USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center—AND L.H. Ziska, worker @
USDA Crop Systems and Global Change Lab—AND R. C. Izaurralde, Professor @ Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Lab @ UMaryland—AND D. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit and Professor @ UIllinois—AND A.M. Thomson, Joint Global Change
Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Lab. @ UMaryland—AND D. Wolfe, Professor of Horticulture @ Cornell University (J.L, “Climate
Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 103, Iss. 2, March 2k11, American Society of Agronomy, DA:
6/25/2012//JLENART)
Soybean Optimium
temperatures for the postanthesis phase of soybean has a low optimum temperature of
about 23°C which results in the life cycle being slower and longer when mean daily temperatures exceed
23°C (Pan, 1996; Grimm et al., 1994). Optimum cardinal temperature of 23°C for the postanthesis period is close to the single seed growth rate
(23.5°C) optimum temperature reported by Egli and Wardlaw (1980), and the same as the 23°C 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 23°C 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 temperature of 39°C (Pan, 1996; Thomas, 2001). The cardinal temperature values for soybean are
lower than those of maize and the values used for preanthesis reproductive development (time to anthesis) have a
base of 6 and 26°C optimum as currently used in CROPGRO–soybean model (Boote et al., 1998). These are similar to
the values of 2.5 and 25.3°C reported by Grimm et al. (1993) Using these temperature 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
CROPGRO model predicts the highest grain yield of soybean at 23 to 24°C, with progressive
decline in yield, seed size, and harvest index (HI) with temperature increases above this optimum range and
finally showing no yield at 39°C (Boote et al., 1997, 1998). An analysis of 829 sites across the U nited S tates 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 22°C. 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 temperatures above 30°C (Topt), but show a long gradual decline until failure at
47°C (Salem et al., 2007). Averages among many cultivars show cardinal temperatures (Tb, Topt, Tmax) of 13.2, 30.2, and 47.2°C, respectively, for
pollen germination and for pollen tube growth of 12.1, 36.1, and 47.0°C, respectively. Differences in cardinal temperatures and tolerance of elevated
temperature among cultivars were not significant. When
soybean growth was compared at 38/30 vs. 30/22°C (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 23°C show a progressive
reduction in seed size (single seed growth rate) with a reduction in fertility above 30°C leading to a reduced seed
HI at temperatures above 23°C (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 22.5°C, soybean yield
may increase. However, for the southern U nited S tates with current growing season temperatures of 25 to
27°C, soybean yields are expected to decline with increased warming, 2.4% for 0.8°C increase from 26.7°C
current mean. This is similar to the observations from Lobell and Field (2007) who reported a 1.3% decline in
soybean yield per 1°C 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.
Idso Indict
Idsos are paid off
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007 (“Responding to Global Warming Skeptics—Prominent
Skeptics Organizations”, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)
Greening Earth Society The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to
promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the
same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired
both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels
Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change
science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries. Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is
the best energy source we have. Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan
Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso Funding: The
Greening Earth Society receives its funding from
the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility
company members. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change The Center
claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in
the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of
the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and
Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society;
the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers
have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will
help plants, and that's good. Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources,
stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong
connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association). Affiliated
Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer
**Ice Age
1NC
Best climate data proves warming is false and we’re on the brink of another ice age
Ferrara 12 (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, 5/31/12, Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/2/)
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who
think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural
climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have
already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to
decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to
come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland
Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The
Economic Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured serious natural science,
contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global
warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for
government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the
conference speeches are online. What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious,
pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the
climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing
catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the
alarmists really do have any response. The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international
headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of
its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an
equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can
ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change
Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently. Check out the
20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow
the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the
supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It
follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example,
temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was
even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000
years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned
warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic
interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite
measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the
heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water
below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the
fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was
warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In
2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that
based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial
regulations and taxes? Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington
University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by
2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political
scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant. Well, the results are in, and the
winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation
entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how
scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I
ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad
hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in
public debate. Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a
degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks
expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of
Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based
on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase.
Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of
CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well. Because PDO cycles last
25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook,
in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar
data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward
trend. But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with
very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder
temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830,
which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A
Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes). Even worse was the period
known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots
during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots
during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest
part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder
Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering,
disease and premature death.
CO2 and GHG’s are vital to prevent global cooling and the Ice Age.
Lacis et al., 10 (Andrew A., PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa and NASA scientist, with
Gavin A. Schmidt, NASA scientist @ Goddard Space Flight Center, Sciences and Exploration Directorate,
Earth Sciences Division, David Lind, NASA scientist and PhD, and Reto A. Ruedy, NASA scientist and
PhD, "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature", Science Magazine,
October 15, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full.pdf)
If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as TS = TE, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation would
imply that the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current
atmospheric value. This would result in (radiative) forcing reduced by ~30 W/m2, causing much of the remaining water
vapor to precipitate, thus enhancing the snow/ice albedo to further diminish the absorbed solar radiation.
Such a condition would inevitably lead to runaway glaciation, producing an ice ball Earth . Claims
that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or
“by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water
vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained
radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. To this end, we performed a simple climate experiment with the GISS 2° × 2.5°
AR5 version of ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean with a mixed-layer depth of 250 m, zeroing out all the noncondensing GHGs and
aerosols. The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs is
essential to sustain the atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of water
vapor and cloud feedback. Without this noncondensable GHG forcing, the physics of this model send
the climate of Earth plunging rapidly and irrevocably to an icebound state, though perhaps not to total ocean
freezeover. Time evolution of global surface temperature, TOA net flux, column water vapor, planetary albedo, sea ice cover, and
cloud cover, after the zeroing out of the noncondensing GHGs. The model used in the experiment is the GISS 2°× 2.5° AR5 version of
ModelE, with the Q-flux ocean and a mixed-layer depth of 250 m. Model initial conditions are for a preindustrial atmosphere. Surface
temperature and TOA net flux use the lefthand scale. The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years. During the
first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6°C. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at –21°C, a decrease of
34.8°C. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm). Global cloud cover increases from its 58%
control value to more than 75%, and the global sea ice fraction goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to also
increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect of reducing the absorbed solar energy to further
exacerbate the global cooling. After 50 years, a third of the ocean surface still remains ice-free, even though the global
surface temperature is colder than –21°C. At tropical latitudes, incident solar radiation is sufficient to keep the ocean from freezing.
Although this thermal oasis within an otherwise icebound Earth appears to be stable, further calculations with an interactive ocean
would be needed to verify the potential for long-term stability. The surface temperatures in Fig. 3 are only marginally warmer than
1°C within the remaining low-latitude heat island. From the foregoing, it
is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas
that exerts principal control over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and
clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such are controlled by the radiative forcings supplied
by the noncondensing GHGs. There is telling evidence that atmospheric CO2 also governs the
temperature of Earth on geological time scales, suggesting the related question of what the geological
processes that control atmospheric CO2 are. The geological evidence of glaciation at tropical
latitudes from 650 to 750 million years ago supports the snowball Earth hypothesis (9), and by
inference, that escape from the snowball Earth condition is also achievable .
The Ice Age is coming and will collapse civilization – reducing CO2 causes
extinction
Deming, 9 (David, geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences @ the University of
Oklahoma, “The Coming Ice Age,” May 13,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html)
The Great Famine was followed by the Black Death, the greatest disaster ever to hit the human race. Onethird of the human race died; terror and anarchy prevailed. Human civilization as we know it is only
possible in a warm interglacial climate. Short of a catastrophic asteroid impact, the greatest threat to
the human race is the onset of another ice age. ¶ The oscillation between ice ages and interglacial
periods is the dominant feature of Earth's climate for the last million years. But the computer models
that predict significant global warming from carbon dioxide cannot reproduce these temperature
changes. This failure to reproduce the most significant aspect of terrestrial climate reveals an incomplete
understanding of the climate system, if not a nearly complete ignorance. ¶ Global warming predictions
by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But
our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not
the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of
the next ice age . Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that
they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could
provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would
mean the end of human civilization as we know it.¶ Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In
comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the
seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to
be entering a new period of quiescence. August of 2008 was the first month since the year 1913 that
no sunspots were observed. As I write, the sun remains quiet. We are in a cooling trend. The areal
extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean.¶ We have heard much of the dangers of global
warming due to carbon dioxide. But the potential danger of any potential anthropogenic warming is
trivial compared to the risk of entering a new ice age. Public policy decisions should be based on a
realistic appraisal that takes both climate scenarios into consideration.
2NC Impact Comparison
The coming Ice Age outweighs any impacts of Warming
Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global
Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, ‘7
(Fred, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years”, Page 13, JA
The climate event that deserves real concern is the next Big Ice Age. That is inevitably
approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may
plummet 15 degrees Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder.
Humanity and food production will be forced closer to the equator, as huge ice sheets expand in
Canada. Scandinavia. Russia, and Argentina. Even Ohio and Indiana may gradually be encased in mile-thick ice, while
California and the Great Plains could suffer century-long drought. Keeping warm will become the critical
issue, both night and day . Getting enough food for eight or nine billion people from the
relatively small amount of arable land left unfrozen will be a potentially desperate effort. The
broad, fertile plains of Alberta and the Ukraine will become sub-Arctic wastes. Wildlife species will be
extremely challenged, even though they've survived such cold before-because this time there
will be more humans competing for the ice-free land. That's when human knowledge and high-tech
farming will be truly needed. In contrast, none of the scary scenarios posited by today's global warming advocates took
place during the Earth's past warm periods
2NC Ice Age Now
Sunspots prove- massive global cooling is coming
Ferrara 13 (Peter, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform
and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior
Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan,
and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard
College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, 7/12/13, Forbes.com, “To the
Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-ofglobal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/)
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason
that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped
increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist
magazine reported in March, “The
world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the
atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet,
still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of
global temperature changes.¶ At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But
something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots
run in 11 year short term cycles, with
longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined
substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in
the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,¶
“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short
term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial)
evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn
and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives,
magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of
research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.” ¶ That is even more significant because
NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his
retirement.¶ But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,¶
“Global
warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may
give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning,
so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for
global cooling are far from groundless.”¶ That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar
activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate
change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this
respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words,
another Little Ice Age.
An ice age is coming
National Post ‘8 (February 25th 2008, the National Post, “Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0)
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than
at any time since 1966.¶ The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and
towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average
temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."¶ China is surviving its most
brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized
cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.¶
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the
pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. ¶ In just the first two weeks of February,
Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the preSUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.¶ And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall
had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is
anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.¶ The
with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the
ice is back.¶ Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster
Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it
is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.¶ OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It
would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. ¶ But if
environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time
a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether
the alarmist are being a tad premature.¶ And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.¶
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant
professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that
show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another
Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong. ¶ "We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell.
It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not
properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of
manmade warming on polar ice melt.¶ But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of
winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was
obvious in the current Arctic warming.¶ Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged
off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin
advised people to "stock up on fur coats."¶ He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a
giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not
pick up soon.¶ The
last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that
lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought.
Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.¶
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
2NC Yes Ice Age
Overwhelming climate evidence indicates a coming Ice Age – warming theory false
and disregards long-term evidence
Fegel 9 – Gregory F. Fegel, 2009 (“Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” Pravda, November 1 st 2009,
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-1/)
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and
compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data
which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period
will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for
the next 100,000 years.¶ Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant
and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial
maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.¶ Most of the longterm climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the
Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit,
which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the
direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles,
each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm
interglacials.¶ Print version¶ Font Size¶ Send to friend¶ Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French
mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its
present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark
paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the
correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical
Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate
scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.¶ In their
1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles,
"… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as
those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of
20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results
indicate that the long-term
trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."¶ During
the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide,
Since the 1970s the theory of
‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic
or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming.
establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the
worsening of AGW.¶ The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by
Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the
1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow
cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of
2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures. ¶ The
main flaw in the AGW
theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most,
while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a
true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an
alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the
natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.¶ In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of
data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of
global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing
through history up to our present time. The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a
regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows
that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures
precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead
the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise. ¶ The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global
temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2,
when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which
is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The
earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice
Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the
atmosphere.¶ Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see
global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be
eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans. ¶ ¶ Print
version¶ Font Size¶ Send to friend¶ The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the
natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every
110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today. ¶ Today we are
again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the
earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we
are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always
has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.¶ The AGW theory is
based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a
wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from
paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology,
indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting
climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the
attention of people throughout the world, the
very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which
being foolishly ignored.
will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is
2NC Link – Emissions Key
GHG emissions key to preventing another Ice Age - replaces natural loss of CO2
MATT RIDLEY - BA and DPhil degrees from Oxford University – 1/14/12, Are We Holding a New Ice
Age at Bay?, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538.html
The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude
in the Earth's recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or
warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods.
One theory holds that agriculture and dense settlement were impossible in the volatile,
generally dry and carbon-dioxide-starved climates of the ice age, when crop plants would
have grown more slowly and unpredictably even in warmer regions.¶ This warm spell is
already 11,600 years old, and it must surely, in the normal course of things, come to an end. In the
early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the
moment was at hand. They were "increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are
studying may be the harbinger of another ice age," said Time in 1974. The "almost unanimous" view of
meteorologists was that the cooling trend would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the
century," and "the resulting famines could be catastrophic," said Newsweek in 1975.¶ Since then, of
course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon-dioxide
emissions. A new paper, from universities in Cambridge, London and Florida, drew
headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less
noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that's a
"dead ringer" for our own, expect the next ice age to start "within about 1,500 years." Hardly the day after
tomorrow.¶ Still, it's striking that most interglacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak
sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more
rapidly toward the freezer. The last interglacial—which occurred 135,000 to 115,000 years ago
(named the Eemian period after a Dutch river near which the fossils of warmth-loving shell creatures of
that age were found)—saw temperatures slide erratically downward by about two degrees Celsius between
127,000 and 120,000 years ago, before a sharper fall began.
Emissions can prevent an ice age – we must continue to burn fossil fuels
Science Daily, ‘7 (Aug. 30, 2007, ScienceDaily.com, “Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels”,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm)
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels.
That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at
the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.¶ Arguably, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term
planetary processes yet suggested for human activity.¶ Dr Tyrrell's team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to
marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.¶ The world's oceans are absorbing
CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells
produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for
far longer than previously assumed.¶ Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University,
Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a
theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon.¶ The
work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment
earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated
the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age.¶ Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our
research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop
burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at
what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates
or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.'¶
Research Council, confirms
Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth
allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only variations in received sunlight that determine
the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important. ¶ Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels.
This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C)
then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice
ages.
2NC Link – Ice Sheets
Human increase in temps warming oceans- preventing ice sheets from accumulating
Borenstein 12 (Seth Borenstein, Science climate writer Associated Press, “Ice Age Thawing and Carbon Dioxide Levels
Linked in New Study”, 4/4/2012, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/ice-age-carbon-dioxidelevels_n_1403222.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The dramatic temperature increases that thawed the last ice age followed
spikes
in carbon dioxide levels in the air, a new study finds. Researchers say that further strengthens the
scientific case explaining current man-made global warming.¶ In the new study, scientists show the
atmospheric concentration of that heat-trapping greenhouse gas jumped more than 40 percent.
Then global temperatures went up about 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 degrees Celsius).¶ What is remarkable is
that when the two are plotted they rise, plateau and rise again in a striking similar way with a
slight lag. The warming over 6,000 years follows the greenhouse gas increase, just as scientific theory
has long held.¶ This is important because, until this study, the two curves weren't quite so in sync. At
some points, it seemed that the temperatures warmed before the carbon dioxide levels increased,
something that climate skeptics seized upon.¶ How could carbon dioxide cause warming if the temperatures warmed first, argue
skeptics, who are in the scientific minority.¶ Earlier studies had looked at carbon dioxide levels and temperature readings from
Antarctica, not the entire world. A study published Wednesday in the journal Nature estimated global
temperatures using 80 different proxies — ice and mud samples from dozens of places around the
world — and found that globally, temperatures clearly went up only after carbon dioxide jumped.¶ "You end up with
something that looks remarkably similar to the pattern of rising carbon dioxide through time," study
lead author Jeremy Shankun of Harvard University said. "This, to me, seems like pretty powerful proof of theory of
the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming."¶ There are two main sources of
carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. The natural source comes mostly from dead plants and animals and that
amplified the ice age thaw. In modern day, emissions from burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels add greatly to that natural
carbon dioxide.¶ The ice age warming in Antarctica still appears to come before the carbon dioxide
increases, which are calculated using an 800,000 year old Antarctic ice core, but there's good reason, Shankun said.¶
Temperature records and other ocean data paint a complicated picture of just how the last ice age
thawed. It's almost like a Rube Goldberg machine, with one step leading to another and another. When the last ice age peaked about
25,000 years ago, the ice sheet extended to Iowa and New York City, Shankun said. ¶ The ice sheet was actually so large that it was
unstable, said study co-author Peter Clark of Oregon State University.¶ The initial trigger to the melt: A small and predictable
wobble in Earth's orbit around the sun. That tiny wobble meant a tilt toward the sun that brought
more sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere, causing ice sheets to melt and sending whopping levels of fresh water into
the world's oceans.¶ That caused the global circulation of the oceans to stop, which in turn warmed the
southern oceans melting southern ice sheets over areas where more of the world's carbon dioxide is trapped,
Shankun said.¶ That released massive amounts of the greenhouse gas, which then amplified the global
temperature spike, Shankun said.¶ By 11,000 years ago, the ice age was history and greenhouse gas and temperature levels had
stabilized. That changed with the industrial age and the increased use of fossil fuels. ¶ Carbon dioxide
levels have jumped roughly the same amount in the last century as they did over 6,000 years to
get out of the ice age, Shankun said.¶ Penn State University professor Richard Alley and others called this a
significant advance in studies about past climate change and carbon dioxide, saying "this may be
of help in explaining things out in the sound-bite world."
AT No Extinction
Impact is extinction—history proves.
Marsh 12 (Gerald Marsh is a retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former
consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush,
and Clinton Administration, 2012, The Coming of a New Ice Age, Winningreen,
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm)
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global
warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. ¶ What we live in now is known as an
interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most
interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been
since the last Ice Age ended. ¶ How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the
Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know. ¶ Even if all the
temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has
been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within
natural variations over the last few thousand years. ¶ While an enduring temperature rise of
the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would
undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt. ¶ Entering a new ice age, however, would be
catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization. ¶ One has only to look at maps showing
the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions
would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of
feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder. ¶ The last “little” Ice
Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by
unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by
the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in
Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the
miseries to come.¶ By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out
farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in
1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily,
the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued
flowering of modern civilization.¶ There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years
ago when Earth’s climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years
ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial periods, like the
one we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the
Earth’s history, it was far warmer than it is today. ¶ Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over
the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these had the effect of
dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth’s long history. ¶ Five
hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until
about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than twice what they are today.
¶ It is possible that moderately increased carbon dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial
period. But we have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach. ¶ So,
rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology community in
general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide
needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely. ¶ NASA has predicted that the
solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very
significant cooling of Earth’s climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age? ¶ We ought
to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of
dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.
AT Warming Outweighs
We can adapt to warming – the coming ice age outweighs
Reynolds 5 (James, Environment Correspondent at The Scotsman, quoting Professor Godfrey Hewitt – an evolutionary biologist
at the University of East Anglia, “Global warming 'less threat to diversity than habitat damage by man',” The Scotsman, 6/7/05,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/327190917)//PC
GLOBAL warming may not have the catastrophic effect on the diversity of the world's species that has
been forecast, according to a new book. Plants and animals may actually be able to respond to the temperature rises
that are expected to occur over the next century, the University of East Anglia's Professor Godfrey Hewitt claims. Drawing on the
fact that many species have survived ice ages without becoming extinct, Prof Hewitt believes man's destruction of habitats is a far
greater threat to biodiversity. The theory is put forward in Climate Change and Biodiversity, to be published this Friday. Prof Hewitt,
an evolutionary biologist, said: "Most [species] can probably cope with the small increases in temperature
we are seeing. Far more serious would be a sudden large drop in temperature, possibly the beginning of a
new ice age. This is linked to another real worry, which is the destruction by man of habitats where species
have survived many such major climate changes." The book suggests that the threat of global warming to
biodiversity should take account of longer-term climate changes. Species have endured repeated global
cooling and warming through several ice-age cycles, which for northern Europe oscillated between ice cover and conditions warmer than
today. Elements of certain species will move north as temperatures rise, leading to potential genetic change in
those species. Prof Hewitt added: "Organisms may adapt to new conditions, change their range with suitable environments, or go
extinct." The migration of species may also lead to genetic change, and loss of genetic diversity, although this probably poses no threat to humans.
AT Warming = Ice Age
Warming can’t trigger another Ice Age – prefer our science over their unwarranted
fear-mongering
Gibbs, journalist for the New York Times, 2007 (Walter, May 15th 2007, The New York Times, “Scientists Back Off Theory of
a Colder Europe in a Warming World”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/earth/15cold.html?pagewanted=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/%20Environment&_r=
2%3E
Mainstream climatologists
who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of
cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying
about that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination.¶ The idea, which held
climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension
of the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes
of Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world.¶ Without that
warm-water current, Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe,
where major cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on
Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of the world sweltered. ¶ All that has now been removed from the
forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced by scientists worldwide in recent years has
also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue.¶ “The concern had previously been that we were close to a threshold
where the Atlantic circulation system would stop,” said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. “We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved modeling and ocean measurements.
The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously thought.” ¶ After consulting 23 climate models, the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it was “very unlikely” that the
crucial flow of warm water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual
melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current
by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any
cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed by
a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a
result of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.¶ “The
bottom line is that the atmosphere is warming up so much that a slowdown of the North
Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe,” said Helge Drange, a professor at the Nansen
Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway.
AT Indicts
Top climate modelers believe we are entering a global cooling phase
Pearce 9 (Fred Pearce is a science writer and has reported on the environment, popular science and development issues from 64
countries over the past 20 years. He specializes in global environmental issues, including water and climate change. He is a regular
broadcaster and international speaker on environmental issues, and has given public presentations on all six continents in the past few
years, 2009, “World's climate could cool first, warm later,” New Scientist, September 4th 2009,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)
Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One
of the world's top climate modellers said
Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool .¶
"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva
at the UN's World Climate Conference.¶ "I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."¶ Few climate
scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more
and more agree that
the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.¶ Nature vs
humans¶ This is bad timing. The UN's World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for
providing "climate services" to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next
rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the
risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.¶ But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done
admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. "In
many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office. ¶ Cold
in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over
warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean
currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic
Oscillation (NAO).¶ Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the
strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is
now moving into a colder phase.
Atlantic¶ Latif predicted that
**Ice Age – Aff
Warming  Ice Age
Turn – warming will cause an ice age.
Hartmann ’04 [Thom, Political Analyst, Jan 20, “How Global Warming May cause the Next Ice Age,”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm]
While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al
Gore's recent conference on the ¶ topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder
for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and ¶ the Pentagon are taking a new look at
the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a
sudden ¶ shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting. In quick summary, if
enough cold, fresh water coming from the ¶ melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers
of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which ¶
keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return
of the last ice age - in a ¶ period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be
a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ¶ ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading
to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, ¶ and wars around the world.
No Ice Age – Now
Ice Age won’t occur for at least 1,500 years
Reuters, 12 (It’s quoting Nature Geoscience, which is a popular magazine, with credible authors) “Next ice age not likely before
1,500 years, 3/9/12, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at
least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday. Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global
warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping
out emissions today, according to the U.N.'s weather agency. An ice age is a period when there is a long-term reduction in the earth's surface and
atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers. There have been at least five ice ages on earth. During ice ages there are
cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating. Officially, the earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to
15,000 years, and estimates vary on how long such periods last. "(Analysis) suggests that
the end of the current interglacial (period)
would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts per million by volume
(ppmv)," the study said. However, the current carbon dioxide concentration is of 390 ppmv, and at that level an
increase in the volume of ice sheets would not be possible, it added. The study based on variations in the earth's orbit and rock
samples was conducted by academics at Cambridge University, University College London, the University of Florida and Norway's University of
Bergen. The causes of ice ages are not fully understood but concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, changes in the earth's orbit
around the sun, and the movement of tectonic plates are all thought to contribute. The world is forecast to grow hotter as greenhouse gases continue to
rise, increasing threats such as extreme weather events and sea level rise. Scientists have warned that global temperature rise should be limited to within 2
degrees Celsius to avoid the worst effects of climate change but delays in curbing emissions growth are putting the planet at risk.
No uniqueness – no impending ice age now.
Thompson ’08 [Andrea, Live Science, Jun 12, “Could Waning Sunspots Bring On New Ice Age?”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366061,00.html]
No impending ice age¶ Though there is debate about how and whether the Maunder minimum actually
caused the Little Ice Age, scientists have proposed a¶ few hypotheses as to how it could have done so. One
idea springs from the fact that the sun emits much more ultraviolet radiation ¶ when it is covered in
sunspots, which can affect the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere. The other is that when the sun is active, it ¶
produces tangled magnetic fields that keep out galactic cosmic rays. Some scientists have proposed
that a lack of sunspots means these cosmic rays are bombarding Earth and creating clouds,
which can help cool the planet's surface. But these ideas aren't yet proven, and¶ anyway, the sun's
contribution is small compared to volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases, Hathaway notes. Even if there
were¶ another Maunder minimum, he says, we would still suffer the effects of greenhouse gases
and the Earth's climate would remain warm. ¶ "It doesn't overpower them at all," Hathaway said.¶
Warming Impacts Outweigh
Current C02 levels won’t maintain temperatures but drive them up - triggers the
impacts
Richard Black – 1/9/12, Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age', BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienceenvironment-16439807
Groups opposed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions are already citing the study as a
reason for embracing humankind's CO2 emissions.¶ The UK lobby group the Global Warming Policy
Foundation, for example, has flagged up a 1999 essay by astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, who argued that:
"The renewal of ice-age 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. ¶ "We must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain
the present advantageous world climate. This implies the ability to inject effective greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite
of what environmentalists are erroneously advocating."¶ Luke Skinner
said his group had anticipated this kind
of reception.¶ "It's an interesting philosophical discussion - 'would we better off in a warm [interglacial-type] world rather than a
glaciation?' and probably we would," he said.¶ "But it's missing the point, because where we're going is not
maintaining our currently warm climate but heating it much further, and adding CO2 to a
warm climate is very different from adding it to a cold climate.¶ "The rate of change with
CO2 is basically unprecedented, and there are huge consequences if we can't cope with
that."
No Extinction
Adaptation to the ice age possible – no extinction
ASU 11 (Arizona State University News, 11/17/2011, Popular Archaeology, Arizona State Univeristy
News, http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/004608.html)
A team at Arizona State University and the University of Colorado (USA) used complex computer modelling to analyse evidence of
how human hunter-gatherers responded to dramatic changes during the last Ice Age. ¶ The researchers used the archaeological record
to track human behavioural changes in Late Pleistocene (126,000 - 10,000 BP) Western Eurasia over a period of 100,000 years, and
across the equivalent of 1,500 generations of human hunter-gatherers. They applied computer modelling to determine the evolutionary
consequences of cultural and biological changes, which included how changes in the movements of modern humans and Neanderthals
caused them to interact and interbreed with each other. The results showed that human
mobility during the
environmental changes associated with the Ice Age increased over time, likely in response to
those environmental changes. The modelling suggests the last Ice Age caused the ancestors of
modern humans - and Neanderthals - to widen their ranges across Western Eurasia in
search of new resources as the climate shifted.¶ According to study co-author Julien Riel-Salvatore of the
University of Colorado, Denver, this provides new evidence that Neanderthals were more adaptable and
resourceful than previously thought, and suggests Neanderthals were gradually absorbed
within the expanding modern human populations.a
Mitigation and adaptation solve
Fischer 12 (Susanna Fischer, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE, and the Centre for
Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) as a post-doctoral researcher in September 2011. She works in the research stream
on adaptation and development. Susannah has completed a PhD at the geography department at the University of Cambridge on the
politics and governance of climate change in India, 2/27/2012, What is Climate Change Adaptation, the Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/climate-change-adaptation)
There are two main policy responses to climate change: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation addresses the root causes, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while
adaptation seeks to lower the risks posed by the consequences of climatic changes. Both
approaches will be necessary, because even if emissions are dramatically decreased in the
next decade, adaptation will still be needed to deal with the global changes that have
already been set in motion.¶ ¶ Humans have been adapting to their environments throughout
history by developing practices, cultures and livelihoods suited to local conditions – from the
Mediterranean siesta to the Vietnamese practice of building homes on stilts to protect against monsoonal rains. However, climate change raises the possibility that existing societies will experience climatic shifts (in
Adaptation measures may be planned in
advance or put in place spontaneously in response to a local pressure. They include largescale infrastructure changes – such as building defences to protect against sea-level rise or
improving the quality of road surfaces to withstand hotter temperatures – as well
behavioural shifts such as individuals using less water, farmers planting different crops and
more households and businesses buying flood insurance.¶ ¶ The IPCC describes vulnerability to climate change as being determined by
temperature, storm frequency, flooding and other factors) that previous experience has not prepared them for.¶ ¶
three factors: exposure to hazards (such as reduced rainfall), sensitivity to those hazards (such as an economy dominated by rain-fed agriculture), and the capacity to adapt to those hazards (for example, whether
farmers have the money or skills to grow more drought-resistant crops). Adaptation measures can help reduce vulnerability – for example by lowering sensitivity or building adaptive capacity – as well as allowing
populations to benefit from opportunities of climatic changes, such as growing new crops in areas that were previously unsuitable. ¶ ¶ Low-income countries tend to be more vulnerable to climate risks and some
adaptation measures – such as increasing access to education and health facilities – will overlap with existing development programmes. But adaptation goes beyond just development to include measures to address
additional risks specifically caused by climate change, such as raising the height of sea defences. It is still unclear how expensive these measures will be or who will pay for them, but the World Bank suggests
adaptation could cost the same again as the world currently spends on development assistance.
Squo Emissions Solve
Current emissions are enough to prevent Ice Age for over 1,000 years – have to act
now to prevent catastrophic warming
Nina Chestney – Reuters – 1/9/12, Next Ice Age Delayed By Global Warming Gases, Study Finds, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/next-ice-age-global-warming_n_1193900.html
High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely
to begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.¶
Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010
and will linger in the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping out
emissions today, according to the U.N.'s weather agency.¶ An ice age is a period when there is a long-term
reduction in the earth's surface and atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers. ¶ There have been at
least five ice ages on earth. During ice ages there are cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating. ¶ Officially, the
earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, and estimates vary on how long such periods
last.¶ "(Analysis)
suggests that the end of the current interglacial (period) would occur within
the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts
per million by volume (ppmv)," the study said.¶ However, the current carbon dioxide
concentration is of 390 ppmv, and at that level an increase in the volume of ice sheets would
not be possible, it added.¶ The study based on variations in the earth's orbit and rock samples was conducted by academics at
Cambridge University, University College London, the University of Florida and Norway's University of Bergen. ¶ The causes of ice
ages are not fully understood but concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, changes in the earth's orbit around
the sun, and the movement of tectonic plates are all thought to contribute. ¶ The
world is forecast to grow hotter as
greenhouse gases continue to rise, increasing threats such as extreme weather events and
sea level rise.¶ Scientists have warned that global temperature rise should be limited to
within 2 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst effects of climate change but delays in curbing
emissions growth are putting the planet at risk.
Indicts
Scientists reject notion of coming Ice Age—time frame for Ice Age too far off—
consensus is on our side
Lazar and Vogel 10 – Brian Lazar is a senior scientist at Stratus Consulting Inc. specializing in the characterization and
mechanics of integrated hydrologic systems, using analytical techniques from engineering, physics, and hydrology, and Jason Vogel is
a senior associate specializing in policy analysis at Stratus Consulting Inc. Dr. Vogel has investigated climate change, chemical
regulation, high-level radioactive waste disposition, and natural resource management, 2010 (“Global Cooling: Science and Myth,”
Weatherwise Magazine, July-August 2010, http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2010/July-August%202010/globalcooling-full.html)
Between the 1940s and the 1970s, global average temperatures cooled, constituting a period of global cooling and
sparking concerns in the 1970s among some scientists, members of the press, and decision-makers that the earth could be headed into a
new ice age. Many of these early climate researchers were geologists who had spent their careers puzzling over the mysteries of ice ages: Why did they happen, what triggered them, and how long did
they last?¶ While some people jumped to the conclusion that the earth was headed into another ice
age, most were extremely careful to nuance their claims and observations, acknowledging
that climate is hard to understand and predict. The theory of global cooling received brief prominence in the early 1970s due to media reports, two
record cold winters, consequent political attention, and observed cooling over the previous few decades. Most scientists, however, rejected the idea that
global cooling would continue and perhaps lead to another ice age in the immediate future, as
scientific understanding of atmospheric chemistry and physics improved and because
temperatures started warming as many scientists had projected.¶ The difference between global cooling and greenhouse gas
warming can be thought of in many ways, each containing important insights into the climate system. Global cooling and the descent into a new ice
age are highly likely on the scale of hundreds to thousands of years. Climate warming due to
human activities is highly likely in the immediate future—indeed numerous scientific assessments
have concluded that it is already happening. Global cooling, as popularly discussed, is largely the result of natural cycles, such as the intensity of solar
radiation and decadal climate oscillations. Climate warming, as popularly discussed, is largely the result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human industrial activity and land use. Most
importantly, the causes behind global cooling and climate warming are not mutually exclusive.