Climate Change
Disads are non-unique – Currently lots of people are doing stuff with climate, but
Current climate change actions will fall well short of solving for global warming
Rogelj et al 09
[Joeri Rogelj, Bill Hare, Julia Nabel, Kristen Macey, Michiel Schaeffer, Kathleen Markmann and Malte Meinshausen; June 11, 2009; Halfway to
Copenhagen, no way to 2° C; Nature; http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0907/full/climate.2009.57.html; accessed 11 May 2014; AC]
Taken together, the
countries for which quantitative estimates of future emissions can be made
currently represent the lion's share of global population and emissions. These countries accounted for about 70
and 67 per cent of the global population in 1990 and 2005, respectively, and for 79 and 76 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in those
particular years. This
exercise therefore serves as an evaluation of the adequacy of current proposals to
limit global warming. If additional countries come forward with quantifiable ambitions to reduce their emissions, the projections of
future warming presented here could conceivably be lowered, although only to a limited extent .¶ The issue of interest now is to
see how far these national positions, if fully implemented, would reduce total emissions over
time, and hence to determine a global emissions pathway that we term 'Halfway to Copenhagen', in light of the fact that a global climate treaty
must be agreed six months from now. The resulting pathway may be a best-case scenario, as full compliance
with stated national positions and international agreements is not guaranteed. The calculation of this
pathway takes into account the specific gases and sectors included in various national position statements.¶ We estimate each country's future
emissions pathway and sum these to a global trajectory. Depending on the countries' proposals, we assume limits on national emissions or only
on individual sectors. The sum of all national emissions, including a business-as-usual (BAU) projection5, 6, 7 for sectors and gases not covered,
forms the basis of each national emissions pathway. If national positions result in estimated emissions exceeding the BAU path, the BAU path is
taken instead. In some cases, countries indicate a range of reductions that could be considered, depending on the ambition of other countries. This
range of reductions has been captured here by analysing two different scenarios, which we call 'current minimum' and 'current best'.¶ So what
does all this stack up to? Overall,
for the Annex I countries as a group, greenhouse gas emissions from
industrial sources — that is, all sources except land-use change and forestry — would be in the
range of 8–14 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 if current commitments were followed
through (Fig. 1). This is far less than the 25–40 per cent reductions required from this group of
countries for the same period, gases and sources if warming is to be limited to around 2 °C (ref. 8).
The collective commitments of non-Annex I countries would reduce their emissions to about 4 per cent below anticipated BAU emissions for
2020. These
reductions are also substantially less than those needed to get on a global emissions
pathway consistent with limiting warming to about 2 °C, which would require 15–30 per cent below BAU by 2020
(ref. 9). In the longer term, Annex-I industrial emissions would fall to 57–63 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 — if current positions were
faithfully implemented. Global industrial emissions, however, would be approximately 102–111 per cent above 1990 levels by 2050. To calculate
the climatic consequences of these global emission pathways, we estimate total emissions of all the main greenhouse gases and aerosols10. We
then use a reduced-complexity climate model11 to obtain probabilistic estimates of future atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global
temperature, given uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system responds to changing concentrations of these gases. For the sake
of conciseness, only the 'current best' pathway is presented here. According
to this analysis, the current best Halfway
to Copenhagen pathway has virtually no chance of limiting warming to 2 °C (or 1.5 °C) above
pre-industrial temperatures — or, put another way, it is virtually certain to exceed 2 °C. A pathway
that limits emissions to levels likely to meet current temperature goals would have quite different characteristics. Recent work has shown that the
overall reduction in emissions by 2050 provides a good indicator of the likelihood of exceeding warming thresholds such as 2 or 1.5 °C in the
twenty-first century; we show here a pathway for comparison that has roughly a 70-per-cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by
2050 from 2000 levels and cumulative CO2 emissions of a trillion tonnes of CO2 between 2000 to 2050 (Fig. 2). This pathway has about a 25 per
cent chance of exceeding 2 °C, and its median estimate would begin to approach 1.5 °C by 2100.¶
Must act now
IPCC 14
[International Panel on Climate Change, April 7-11, 2014; Summary for Policymakers; Final Draft; Working Group III; PDF;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Delaying mitigation efforts beyond those in place today through 2030 is estimated to substantially
increase the difficulty of the transition to low longer‐term emissions levels and narrow the range ¶ of
options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial ¶ levels (high confidence).
Cost‐effective mitigation scenarios that make it at least as likely as not that ¶ temperature change will remain below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial
levels (2100 concentrations ¶ between about 450 and 500 ppm CO2eq) are typically characterized by annual GHG emissions in ¶ 2030 of roughly
between 30 GtCO2eq and 50 GtCO2eq (Figure SPM.5, left panel). Scenarios
with ¶ annual GHG emissions above 55
GtCO2eq in 2030 are characterized by substantially higher rates of ¶ emissions reductions from 2030 to
2050 (Figure SPM.5, middle panel); much more rapid scale‐up of ¶ low‐carbon energy over this period (Figure SPM.5, right panel); a larger
reliance on CDR technologies ¶ in the long term (Figure SPM.4, top panel); and higher transitional and long term economic
impacts ¶ (Table SPM.2). Due to these increased mitigation challenges, many models with annual 2030 GHG ¶
emissions higher than 55 GtCO2eq could not produce scenarios reaching atmospheric concentration ¶
levels that make it as likely as not that temperature change will remain below 2°C relative to pre‐¶
industrial levels. [6.4, 7.11, Figures TS.11, TS.13]
Global warming makes coral reef bleaching worse
Buddemeir, Kleypas, and Aronson 04
[Robert W. Buddemeier, Kansas Geological Survey, Joan A. Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Richard B Aronson,
Dauphin Island Sea Lab; February 2004; Coral Reefs and Global Climate Change; Pew Center on Global Climate Change;
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Coral_Reefs.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Coral reef alteration, degradation, and loss will continue for the foreseeable future, especially in those
areas already showing evidence of systemic stress. As we enter unprecedented climatic state, recent geological and biological
history gives us little on which to base predictions regarding the future of coral reef ecosystems. Key uncertainties include the extent to which
human activities will continue to alter the environment, how climate variability such as the frequency and intensity of El Nino-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events will change relative to global temperature, and the biological and ecological responses of coral reef communities to
unprecedented future conditions. However, there
is no realistic doubt that continued climate change will cause further
degradation of coral reef communities, which will be even more devastating in combination with the
continuing nonclimate stresses that will almost certainly increase in magnitude and frequency. The effects of
climate change on global coral reef ecosystems will vary from one region to another. Although climate change has the potential to yield some
benefits for certain coral species in specific regions, such as the expansion of their geographic ranges to higher latitudes, most
of the
effects of climate change are stressful rather than beneficial. Reef systems that are at the intersection of
global climatic and local human stresses will be the most vulnerable. Remote, deep, or well-protected reef communities
are more likely to provide reserves and refuges for future generations of coral reef organisms and aesthetic and scientific resources for future
generations of humans.
Target co2 emissions by 2100 for 2 degrees C
IPCC 14
[International Panel on Climate Change, April 7-11, 2014; Summary for Policymakers; Final Draft; Working Group III; PDF;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Mitigation scenarios in which it is likely that the temperature change caused by anthropogenic ¶ GHG
emissions can be kept to less than 2°C relative to pre‐industrial levels are characterized by ¶ atmospheric concentrations
in 2100 of about 450 ppm CO2eq (high confidence). Mitigation ¶ scenarios reaching concentration levels of about 500
ppm CO2eq by 2100 are more likely than not to ¶ limit temperature change to less than 2°C relative to pre‐
industrial levels, unless they temporarily ¶ ‘overshoot’ concentration levels of roughly 530 ppm CO2eq before 2100, in which case they are
¶
about as likely as not to achieve that goal.15 Scenarios
that reach 530 to 650 ppm CO2eq ¶ concentrations by 2100 are
more unlikely than likely to keep temperature change below 2°C relative ¶ to pre‐industrial levels. Scenarios that reach
about 650 ppm CO2eq by 2100 are unlikely to limit ¶ temperature change to below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial levels. Mitigation scenarios in
which temperature increase is more likely than not to be less than 1.5°C relative to pre‐industrial levels by ¶ 2100 are characterized by
concentrations in 2100 of below 430 ppm CO2eq. Temperature peaks ¶ during the century and then declines in these scenarios. Probability
statements regarding other ¶ levels of temperature change can be made with reference to Table SPM.1. [6.3, Box TS.6] ¶
International Coop Key
IPCC 14
[International Panel on Climate Change, April 7-11, 2014; Summary for Policymakers; Final Draft; Working Group III; PDF;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests ¶ independently.
Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global ¶ scale, because most
greenhouse gases (GHGs) accumulate over time and mix globally, and emissions ¶ by any agent (e.g., individual,
community, company, country) affect other agents.4¶ International ¶ cooperation is therefore required to effectively
mitigate GHG emissions and address other climate ¶ change issues [1.2.4, 2.6.4, 3.1, 4.2, 13.2, 13.3]. Furthermore,
research and development in support ¶ of mitigation creates knowledge spillovers. International cooperation can play a
constructive role in ¶ the development, diffusion and transfer of knowledge and environmentally sound
technologies ¶ [1.4.4, 3.11.6, 11.8, 13.9, 14.4.3].
Alt cause – pop and econ growth
IPCC 14
[International Panel on Climate Change, April 7-11, 2014; Summary for Policymakers; Final Draft; Working Group III; PDF;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Globally, economic and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of increases ¶ in CO2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between ¶ 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical
to the previous three decades, while the contribution of ¶ economic growth has risen sharply (high confidence). Between 2000 and 2010, both
drivers ¶ outpaced emission reductions from improvements in energy intensity (Figure SPM.3 ).
Increased use ¶ of coal relative to
other energy sources has reversed the long‐standing trend of gradual ¶ decarbonization of the world’s
energy supply. [1.3, 5.3, 7.2, 14.3, TS.2.2]¶
The time to act is now – the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed by 2030 without a
2 degree reduction
AFP 14
[Agence France Presse; Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Will 'Disappear' Within Two Decades With No Intervention; Business Insider;
http://www.businessinsider.com/australias-great-barrier-reef-will-disappear-within-two-decades-with-no-intervention-2014-3#ixzz356ulfTCz;
accessed 19 June 2014; AC]
Time is running out for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, with climate change set to wreck irreversible
damage by 2030 unless immediate action is taken, marine scientists said on Thursday.¶ In a report prepared for this month’s
Earth Hour global climate change campaign, University of Queensland reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said the world heritage site was at a
turning point.¶ “If we
don’t increase our commitment to solve the burgeoning stress from local and global
sources, the reef will disappear,” he wrote in the foreword to the report.¶ “This is not a hunch or alarmist rhetoric by
green activists. It is the conclusion of the world’s most qualified coral reef experts.”¶ Hoegh-Guldberg said
scientific consensus was that hikes in carbon dioxide and the average global temperature were “almost certain to
destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years”.¶ “It is
highly unlikely that coral reefs will survive more than a two-degree increase in average global
temperature relative to pre-industrial levels,” he said.¶ “But if the current trajectory of carbon pollution levels continues
unchecked, the world is on track for at least three degrees of warming. If we don’t act now, the climate change damage
caused to our Great Barrier Reef by 2030 will be irreversible.Ӧ The Great Barrier Reef, one of the most biodiverse places
on earth, teems with marine life and will be the focus of Australia’s Earth Hour – a global campaign that encourages individuals and
organisations to switch off their lights for one hour on April 29 for climate change.
Climate Change Yes
GHG emissions rising
IPCC 14
[International Panel on Climate Change, April 7-11, 2014; Summary for Policymakers; Final Draft; Working Group III; PDF;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 17 May 2014; AC]
Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger ¶
absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period (high confidence). Despite a growing ¶ number
of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 giga ¶ tonne carbon
dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2%) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 ¶ GtCO2eq (1.3%) per year from 1970 to 2000
(Figure SPM.1).6,7 Total anthropogenic GHG emissions ¶ were the highest in human history from
2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010. The ¶ global economic crisis 2007/2008 only
temporarily reduced emissions. [1.3, 5.2, 13.3, 15.2.2, Box ¶ TS.5, Figure 15.1]
97% of scientists in the field support the unequivocal claim that the Earth is
warming.
Walsh 14
(J.D. Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2014, Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M.
Wehner, J. Willis, D. An- derson, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Appendix 3: Climate
Science Supplement. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.)
Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 735-789. doi:10.7930/J0KS6PHH. On the Web:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement)
Multiple analyses of the peer-reviewed science literature have repeatedly shown that more than 97% of
scientists in this field agree that the world is unequivocally warming and that human activity is the
primary cause of the warming experienced over the past 50 years. Spirited debates on some details of climate science
continue, but these fundamental conclusions are not in dispute.The scientific method is built on scrutiny and debate among
scientists. Scientists are rigorously trained to conduct experiments to test a question, or hypothesis, and submit their findings to the scrutiny of
other experts in their field. Part of that scrutiny, known as “peer review,” includes independent scientists examining the data, analysis methods,
and findings of a study that has been submitted for publication. This peer review process provides quality assurance for scientific results, ensuring
that anything published in a scientific journal has been reviewed and approved by other independent experts in the field and that the authors of the
original study have adequately responded to any criticisms or questions they received. However, peer review is only the first step in the long
process of acceptance of new ideas. After publication, other scientists will often undertake new studies that may support or reject the findings of
the original study. Only after an exhaustive series of studies over many years, by many different research groups, are new ideas widely accepted.
Given that new scientific understanding emerges from this exhaustive process ,
the widespread agreement in the scientific
community regarding the reality of climate change and the leading role of human activities in driving this
change is striking. This consensus includes agreement on the fundamental scientific principles that
underlie this phenomenon, as well as the weight of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over
decades, and even centuries, of research. The conclusion that the world is warming, and that this is
primarily due to human activity, is based on multiple lines of evidence, from basic physics to the patterns
of change through the climate system (including the atmosphere, oceans, land, biosphere, and cryosphere). The warming of
global climate and its causes are not matters of opinion; they are matters of scientific evidence, and that
evidence is clear. Scientists do not “believe” in human-induced climate change; rather, the widespread
agreement among scientists is based on the vast array of evidence that has accumulated over the last 200
years. When all of the evidence is considered, the conclusions are clear. There is more work to be done to fully
understand the many complex and interacting aspects of climate change, and important questions remain. Scientific debate continues on questions
such as: Exactly how sensitive is the Earth’s climate to human emissions of heat-trapping gases? How will climate change affect clouds? How
will climate change affect snowstorms in Chicago, tornadoes in Oklahoma, and droughts in California? How do particle and soot emissions affect
clouds? How will cli- mate change be affected by changes in clouds and the oceans? These detailed questions, and more, serve as healthy
But the fact that climate is changing, that
this is primarily in response to human activities, and that climate will continue to change in response to
these activities, is not in dispute.
indicators that the scientific method is alive and well in the field of climate science.
Climate Change happening now, oceans feeling the effects
Kearney and McIvor 14
[William Kearney, Director of Media Relations for National Academy of Sciences, and Chloe McIvor, Press Officer for the UK Royal Society;
February 27, 2014; NAS, UK Royal Society release joint publication on climate change,
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18730; accessed 8 July 2014; AC]
'As two of the world's leading scientific bodies, we feel a responsibility to evaluate and explain what is known about climate change, at least the
physical side of it, to concerned citizens, educators, decision makers and leaders and to advance public dialogue about how to respond to the
threats of climate change,' said NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone. 'Our aim with this new resource is to provide people with easy access to the
latest scientific evidence on climate change, including where scientists agree and where uncertainty still remains,' Royal Society President Sir
"We have enough evidence to warrant action being taken on climate change - it is now
time for the public debate to move forward to discuss what we can do to limit the impact on our lives and
those of future generations." 'Climate Change: Evidence and Causes,' written and reviewed by leading
experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well-understood and where there is
still uncertainty and a need for more research. Carbon dioxide (CO2) rose to levels not seen for at least
800,000 years and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term
warming trend. The publication explains measurements that distinguish between different forms of carbon in the atmosphere
provide clear evidence increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from combustion of fossil fuels and
discusses why warming that occurred along with increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes
such as variations in the Sun's output. The publication delves into other commonly asked questions about climate change.
Paul Nurse also said.
Examples of these are what the slower rate of warming since the very warm year in 1998 means as well as whether and how climate change
Many effects of climate change have already become apparent
in the observational record but possible extent of future impacts needs to be better understood. For
example, while average global sea levels have risen about eight inches (20 cm) since 1901 and are
expected to continue rising, more research is needed to more accurately predict size of future sea level
rise. Chemical balance of the oceans also shifted towards a more acidic stat, which makes it difficult for
organisms such as corals and shellfish to form and maintain their shells. As oceans continue to absorb
CO2, their acidity will continue to increase over the next century along with as yet undetermined impacts
on marine ecosystems and the food web.
affects strength and frequency of extreme weather events.
New report shows that hundreds of scientists agree climate change is real and
happening now.
Times Union 14
[Times Union, May 10, 2014, Climate Change is Here Now; http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Editorial-Climate-change-is-here-now5468375.php; accessed 8 July 2014]
Even as one credible report after another describes
with scary detail how we, our children and our grandchildren will be affected by climate change, it
remains frustratingly difficult to make the substantive changes needed now to deal with the negative
effects of our planet's rising temperatures. Last week, in the third such national report released since 2000,
more than 250 scientists and government officials presented evidence and conclusions about the changes
Americans cannot afford to ignore it or even move slowly in our response.
we will face in the coming decades. More importantly, it declares that, once considered an issue for a
distant future, climate change and its ill effects are firmly in the present. The document, known as the National
Climate Assessment, vividly describes how the Earth's warming has so far affected the United States. "For our kids today and coming
generations, climate change is going to be a part of their reality," said David Wolf, chairman of the Climate Change Focus Group at Cornell
University. Professor Wolf delved into how the Northeast will fare. Upstate New York will be wetter and warmer, an environment in which
disease carrying ticks and mosquitoes will thrive while some of our traditional crops and livestock will not.
Much that was predicted when the U.S. government released its last report in 2008 has started. The
report cites recent events like
increased flooding from heavy rainfall, more coastal storm damage due to sea level rise and increased
summer heat and drought. Detectable patterns in birds and other wildlife migration have been
documented.President Barack Obama underscored that the report's predictions are not some problem for the distant future: "This is a
problem that is affecting Americans right now. . . having an impact on Americans as we speak." The extent of the impact of climate change may
be questioned, but there's no question we're already feeling it. Even so, the most recent University of Texas energy poll found more Americans
are concerned about protecting their pocketbooks than the environment. Our nation continues to rely on 600 coal-fired power plants for
electricity. They make up the largest source of the nation's carbon emissions -- estimated to be about 40 percent of the total -- and contribute to
global warming. Support is growing to change the tax structure to better reward those who emit less carbon and to expedite change throughout
our economy and our power infrastructure. Such sensible measures will certainly help and must happen. Yes, other emerging economies are
continuing to pollute the atmosphere. But how can the U.S. urge other nations to reduce emissions unless we embrace the practice of reducing by
example, and then press for treaties to force global environmental improvement?
Temperature increase set to occur due to warming.
Endenhofer et al 14 (Otto Endenhofer, IPCC scientist (Germany), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba
Sokona (Mali), Shardul ¶ Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina), ¶ John Broome (UK), Thomas
Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes ¶ Bustamante (Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar
Dhakal ¶ (Nepal / Thailand), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani ¶ (Canada), Manfred Fischedick
(Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh ¶ (Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri (Colombia / Austria), Sujata Gupta (India /
Philippines), ¶ Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang (China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha ¶ (USA), Stephan Klasen
(Germany), Charles Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria / Germany), ¶ Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Omar Masera
(México), Jan Minx ¶ (Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (UK / Ethiopia), Anthony Patt (Austria / Switzerland), Nijavalli ¶ H. Ravindranath (India),
Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer ¶ (Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin Seyboth
(USA), Ralph Sims ¶ (New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan (India), Robert Stavins ¶ (USA), Christoph von
Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi Sugiyama ¶ (Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea / USA), Kevin Chika Urama
(Nigeria / UK), Diana ¶ Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm Zwickel ¶ (Germany); March
2014, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation for Climate Change; Summary for Policymakers;
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf; accessed 8 July 2014]
Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is
expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios,
those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7
to 4.8°C compared to pre‐industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5°C to 7.8°C when including
climate uncertainty) (high confidence). The emission scenarios collected for this assessment represent full
radiative forcing including GHGs, tropospheric ozone, aerosols and albedo change. Baseline scenarios
(scenarios without explicit additional efforts to constrain emissions) exceed 450 parts per million (ppm)
CO2eq by 2030 and reach CO2eq concentration levels between 750 and more than 1300 ppm CO2eq by
2100. This is similar to the range in atmospheric concentration levels between the RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5
pathways in 2100. For comparison, the CO2eq concentration in 2011 is estimated to be 430 ppm
(uncertainty range 340–520 ppm).
Climate Change is happening now
Goldenberg 2014
(Suzanne Goldenberg, enviornmental correspondent for the Guardian, Guardian, May 4, 2014, Climate change is clear and present danger, says
landmark US report http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/04/climate-change-present-us-national-assessment)
Climate change has moved from distant threat to present-day danger and no American will be left
unscathed, according to a landmark report due to be unveiled on Tuesday. The National Climate
Assessment, a 1,300-page report compiled by 300 leading scientists and experts, is meant to be the
definitive account of the effects of climate change on the US. It will be formally released at a White House event and is
expected to drive the remaining two years of Barack Obama's environmental agenda. The findings are expected to guide Obama as he rolls out
the next and most ambitious phase of his climate change plan in June - a proposal to cut emissions from the current generation of power plants,
America's largest single source of carbon pollution. The White House is believed to be organising a number of events over the coming week to
give the report greater exposure. "Climate
change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly
into the present," a draft version of the report says. The evidence is visible everywhere from the top of the
atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, it goes on. "Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are
longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced.
Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours, though in many regions
there are longer dry spells in between." The final wording was under review by the White House but the
basic gist remained unchanged, scientists who worked on the report said. On Sunday the UN secretary-general, Ban Kimoon, said the world needed to try harder to combat climate change. At a meeting of UN member states
in Abu Dhabi before a climate change summit in New York on 23 September, Ban said: "I am asking
them to announce bold commitments and actions that will catalyse the transformative change we need. If
we do not take urgent action, all our plans for increased global prosperity and security will be undone."
Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University and vice-chair of the NCA advisory committee, said the
US report would be unequivocal that the effects of climate change were occurring in real-time and were
evident in every region of the country. "One major take-home message is that just about every place in the
country has observed that the climate has changed," he told the Guardian. "It is here and happening, and we are
not cherrypicking or fearmongering." The draft report notes that average temperature in the US has
increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1895, with more than 80% of that rise since 1980. The last decade
was the hottest on record in the US. Temperatures are projected to rise another 2F over the next few
decades, the report says. In northern latitudes such as Alaska, temperatures are rising even faster. "There
is no question our climate is changing," said Don Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of
Illinois and a lead author of the assessment. "It is changing at a factor of 10 times more than naturally."
Record-breaking heat - even at night - is expected to produce more drought and fuel larger and more
frequent wildfires in the south-west, the report says. The north-east, midwest and Great Plains states will
see an increase in heavy downpours and a greater risk of flooding.
Climate Change will continue and accelerate.
NAS and the Royal Society 14
[U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf]
How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century? Warming due to the
addition of large amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere can be understood in terms of very basic
properties of greenhouse gases. It will in turn lead to many changes in natural climate processes, with a
net effect of amplifying the warming. The size of the warming that will be experienced depends largely on the amount of
greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere and hence on the trajectory of emissions. If the total cumulative emissions since 1870 are kept
below about 1 trillion (million million) tonnes of carbon, then there is a two-thirds chance of keeping the rise in global average temperature since
Based just on the established
physics of the amount of heat CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from
pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would by itself, without amplification by any other effects,
the pre-industrial period below 2 °C (3.6 oF). However, over half this amount has already been emitted.
cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). However, the total amount of
warming from a given amount of emissions depends on chains of effects (feedbacks) that can individually
either amplify or diminish the initial warming. The most important amplifying feedback is caused by
water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere as warmer air can hold more moisture.
Also, as Arctic sea ice and glaciers melt, more sunlight is absorbed into the darker underlying land and
ocean surfaces causing further warming and further melting of ice and snow. The biggest uncertain factor in our
knowledge of feedbacks is in how the properties of clouds will change in response to climate change. Other feedbacks involve the carbon cycle.
Currently the land and oceans together absorb about half of the CO2 emitted from human activities, but
the capacities of land and ocean to store additional carbon are expected to decrease with additional
warming, leading to faster increases in atmospheric CO2 and faster warming. Models vary in their
projections of how much additional warming to expect, but all such models agree that the overall net
effect of feedbacks is to amplify the CO2-only warming by a factor of 1.5 to 4.5. Very confident. If emissions
continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming
of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the
end of the 21st century.
Climate Change is happening now, it’s getting warmer.
NAS and the Royal Society 14
[U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf]
Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since
1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations
(such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content) and indications from the natural
world (such as poleward shifts of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc.) together
provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming. The clearest evidence for surface warming
comes from widespread thermometer records. In some places, these records extend back to the late 19th
century. Today, temperatures are monitored at many thousands of locations, over both the land and ocean surface. Indirect estimates
of temperature change from such sources as tree rings and ice cores help to place recent temperature
changes in the context of the past. In terms of the average surface temperature of Earth, these indirect
estimates show that 1983 to 2012 was probably the warmest 30-year period in more than 800 years. A
wide range of other observations provides a more comprehensive picture of warming throughout the
climate system. For example, the lower atmosphere and the upper layers of the ocean have also warmed,
snow and ice cover are decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, and
sea level is rising [Figure 1b]. These measurements are made with a variety of monitoring systems, which
gives added confidence in the reality that Earth’s climate is warming.
Is the climate warming? Yes.
Climate Change, it’s real and causing problems.
NAS and the Royal Society 14
[U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf]
Climate records show a warming trend Estimating
global average surface air temperature increase requires careful
analysis of millions of measurements from around the world, including from land stations, ships, and satellites. Despite the
many complications of synthesising such data, multiple independent teams have concluded separately and
unanimously that global average surface air temperature has risen by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900.
Although the record shows several pauses and accelerations in the increasing trend, each of the last three
decades has been warmer than any other decade in the instrumental record since 1850. Going further back in
time before accurate thermometers were widely available, temperatures can be reconstructed using climate-sensitive
indicators (‘proxies’) in materials such as tree rings, ice cores, and marine sediments. Comparisons of the
thermometer record with these proxy measurements suggest that the time since the early 1980s has been
the warmest 30-year period in at least eight centuries, and that global temperature is rising towards peak
temperatures last seen 5,000 to 10,000 years ago in the warmest part of our current interglacial period.
Many other impacts associated with the warming trend have become evident in recent years. Arctic
summer sea ice cover has shrunk dramatically. The heat content of the ocean has increased. Global
average sea level has risen by approximately 20 cm (8 inches) since 1901, due both to the expansion of
warmer ocean water and to the addition of melt waters from glaciers and ice sheets on land. Warming and
precipitation changes are altering the geographical ranges of many plant and animal species and the
timing of their life cycles. In addition to the effects on climate, some of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere
is being taken up by the ocean, changing its chemical composition (causing ocean acidification).
Anthropogenic
Warming happening now due to human related activities
Walsh 14
(J.D. Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2014, Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M.
Wehner, J. Willis, D. An- derson, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Appendix 3: Climate
Science Supplement. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.)
Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 735-789. doi:10.7930/J0KS6PHH. On the Web:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement)
This human-caused intensification of the greenhouse effect is the primary cause of observed warming in
recent decades. Carbon dioxide has been building up in the Earth’s atmosphere since the beginning of the
industrial era in the mid-1700s. Emissions and atmospheric levels, or concentrations, of other important
heat-trapping gases – including methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons – have also increased because of
human activities. While the atmospheric concentrations of these gases are relatively small compared to
those of molecular oxy- gen or nitrogen, their ability to trap heat is extremely strong. The human-induced
increase in atmospheric levels of carbon di- oxide and other heat-trapping gases is the main reason the
planet has warmed over the past 50 years and has been an important factor in climate change over the past
150 years or more.
The main cause of warming is human induced climate change
Walsh 14
(J.D. Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2014, Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M.
Wehner, J. Willis, D. An- derson, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Appendix 3: Climate
Science Supplement. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.)
Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 735-789. doi:10.7930/J0KS6PHH. On the Web:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement)
Determining the causes of climate changes is a field of research known as “detection and attribution.”
Detection involves identifying a climate trend or event (for instance, long-term surface air temperature trends, or a
particularly extreme heat wave) that is strikingly outside the norm of natural variations in the climate system.
Similar to conducting forensic analysis on evidence from a crime scene, attribution involves considering the possible causes
of an observed event or change, and identifying which factor(s) are responsible. Detection and attribution
studies use statistical analyses to identify the causes of observed changes in temperature, precipitation,
and other aspects of climate. They do this by trying to match the complex “fingerprint” of the observed
climate system behavior to a set of simulated changes in climate that would be caused by different
forcings. Most approaches con- sider not only global but also regional patterns of changes over time. Climate simulations are used
to test hypotheses regarding the causes of observed changes. First, simulations that include changes in
both natural and human forcings that may cause climate changes, such as changes in energy from the sun and increases
in heat-trapping gases, are used to characterize what effect those factors would have had working together.
Then, simulations with no changes in external forcings, only changes due to natural variability, are used
to characterize what would be expected from normal internal variations in the climate. The results of
these simulations are compared to observations to see which provides the best match for what has really
occurred. Detection and attribution studies have been applied to study a broad range of changes in the climate system as well as a number of
specific extreme events that have occurred in recent years. These studies have found that human influences are the only
explanation for the observed changes in climate over the last half-century. Such changes include increases
in surface temperatures, changes in atmospheric vertical temperature profiles, increases in ocean heat
content, increasing atmospheric humidity, increases in intensity of precipitation and in runoff, indirectly
estimated through changes in ocean salinity, shifts in atmospheric circulation, and changes in host of
other indices. Taken together these paint a coherent picture of a planet whose climate is changing
primarily as a result of human activities. Detection and attribution of specific events is more challenging than for long-term trends
as there are less data, or evidence, available from which to draw conclusions. Attribution of extreme events is especially scientifically
challenging. Many extreme weather and climate events observed to date are within the range of what could have occurred naturally, but the
probability, or odds, of some of these very rare events occurring has been significantly altered by human influences on the climate system. For
example, studies have concluded that there is a detectable human influence in recent heat waves in Europe, Russia, and Texas as well as flooding
events in England and Wales, the timing and magnitude of snowmelt and resulting streamflow in some western U.S. states, and some specific
events around the globe during 2011.
Various types of observations point to the climate changing and humans being the
reason.
Walsh 14
(J.D. Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2014, Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M.
Wehner, J. Willis, D. An- derson, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Appendix 3: Climate
Science Supplement. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.)
Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 735-789. doi:10.7930/J0KS6PHH. On the Web:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement)
There are many types of observations that can be used to detect changes in climate and determine what is causing these changes.
Thermometer and other instrument-based surface weather records date back hundreds of years in some locations. Air
temperatures are measured at fixed locations over land and with a mix of predominantly ship- and buoy-based measurements
over the ocean. By 1850, a sufficiently extensive array of land-based observing stations and ship-borne
observations had accumulated to begin tracking global average temperature. Measurements from weather
balloons began in the early 1900s, and by 1958 were regularly taken around the world. Satellite records beginning in the
1970s provide additional perspectives, particularly for remote areas such as the Arctic that have limited ground-based observations.
Satellites also provided new capabilities for mapping precipitation and upper air temperatures. Climate “proxies” – biological or
physi- cal records ranging from tree rings to ice cores that correlate with aspects of climate – provide
further evidence of past cli- mate that can stretch back hundreds of thousands of years.
These diverse datasets have been analyzed by scientists and engineers from research teams around the
world in many dif- ferent ways. The most high-profile indication of the changing climate is the surface
temperature record, so it has received the most attention. Spatial coverage, equipment, methods of observation, and many
other aspects of the measurement re- cord have changed over time, so scientists identify and adjust for these changes. Independent
research groups have looked at the surface temperature record for land21 and ocean22 as well as land and ocean
combined.23,24 Each group takes a dif- ferent approach, yet all agree that it is unequivocal that the planet is
warming.There has been widespread warming over the past century. Not every region has warmed at the same pace, however, and a few
regions, such as the North Atlantic Ocean (Figure 9) and some parts of the U.S. Southeast (Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate, Figure 2.7), have even
experienced cooling over the last century as a whole, though they have warmed over recent decades. This is due to the stronger influence of
internal variability over smaller geographic regions and shorter time scales, as mentioned in Supplemental Message 1 and discussed in more
detail in Supplemental Message 3. Warming during the first half of the last century occurred mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. The last three
decades have seen greater warming in response to accelerating increases in heat-trapping gas concentrations, particularly at high northern
latitudes, and over land as compared to ocean.
Science community agrees climate change happening now and humans are the
cause.
Lowenthal 14
[Rep. Alan Lowenthal, March 26, 2014, The Huffington Post, “Climate Change: Case Closed”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-lowenthal/climate-change-science_b_5030346.html]
Today, we are at an environmental crossroads. Just as those that pioneered environmental protection in the 20th Century faced the threat of
Human-caused climate change
threatens almost every aspect of human existence. Left unchecked, the world of tomorrow will be a vastly
different world than the one we know today. And yet, despite rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers,
retreating arctic ice, ocean acidification, changing wildlife patterns, and extreme weather events
worldwide, polls continue to show that a large portion of the public believe there is significant scientific
disagreement as to whether human actions are contributing to climate change -- or even if climate change
is real. Nothing could be further from the truth. Disinformation by entities with conflicts of interest has fueled
reports of scientific disagreement, not scientists. Today, there is not a single scientific body of national or
international standing that rejects the findings of human-caused climate change. Not one. The same unanimity is
true of articles published in diverse scientific journals. Researcher Dr. James Powell, a geochemist and 12-year member
of the National Science Board just completed the most recent update to his survey of the peer-reviewed
literature on climate change. Dr. Powell found that out of the 10,885 peer-reviewed scientific papers
published on climate change in all of 2013 only two papers reject human-caused climate change Two out
of nearly 11,000. That is less than two-hundredths of one percent of all scientific papers that rejected
human-caused climate change. This is not disagreement. This is not a divided scientific community The
reason for this is simple: there is no convincing scientific evidence against a human role in climate
change. Period. Those who deny human-caused climate change offer no compelling evidence to better explain the undeniable rise in
industrial pollution, this generation faces a looming environmental disaster of our own creation.
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and global temperature. The case is closed. We need to put this illusion of major scientific
disagreement behind us and take action.
Human activities are causing increases in warming resulting in climate change.
NAS and the Royal Society 14
[U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf]
GREENHOUSE GASES such as carbon dioxide (CO2) absorb heat (infrared radiation) emitted from
Earth’s surface. Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by
trapping more of this heat. Human activities—especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the
Industrial Revolution—have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than
half the increase occurring since 1970. Since 1900, the global average surface temperature has increased
by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). This has been accompanied by warming of the ocean, a rise in sea level, a strong
decline in Arctic sea ice, and many other associated climate effects. Much of this warming has occurred
in the last four decades. Detailed analyses have shown that the warming during this period is mainly a
result of the increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Continued emissions of these
gases will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface
temperature and important changes in regional climate. The magnitude and timing of these changes will depend on many
factors, and slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more will continue to occur. However, long-term climate
change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
emitted as a result of human activities.
Human causes have increase warming
NAS and the Royal Society 14
[U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf]
Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere The
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution began. In the case
of carbon dioxide, the average concentration measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has risen
from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 (the first full year of data available) to 396 ppm in 2013. The
same rates of increase have since been recorded at numerous other stations worldwide. Since preindustrial times, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 40%, methane has increased by
about 150%, and nitrous oxide has increased by roughly 20%. More than half of the increase in CO2 has
occurred since 1970. Increases in all three gases contribute to warming of Earth, with the increase in CO2
playing the largest role. See page B3 to learn about the sources of human emitted greenhouse gases. Scientists have examined
greenhouse gases in the context of the past. Analysis of air trapped inside ice that has been accumulating over time in
Antarctica shows that the CO2 concentration began to increase significantly in the 19th century after
staying in the range of 260 to 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years. Ice core records extending back
800,000 years show that during that time, CO2 concentrations remained within the range of 170 to 300
ppm throughout many ‘ice age’ cycles—see page B4 to learn about the ice ages—and no concentration above 300
ppm is seen in ice core records until the past 200 years. Measurements of the forms (isotopes) of carbon
in the modern atmosphere show a clear fingerprint of the addition of ‘old’ carbon (depleted in natural
radioactive 14C) coming from the combustion of fossil fuels (as opposed to ‘newer’ carbon coming from
living systems). In addition, it is known that human activities (excluding land-use changes) currently emit
an estimated 10 billion tonnes of carbon each year, mostly by burning fossil fuels, which is more than
enough to explain the observed increase in concentration. These and other lines of evidence point conclusively to the fact
that the elevated CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is the result of human activities.
Climate Change Not Happening Now/No Impact
Climate change won’t cause extinction
Thomas 2014
(Cal Thomas, The Examiner (Washington, DC), April 16, 2014, Climate change cult has to shout louder to be heard amid public skepticism,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-cult-has-to-shout-louder-to-be-heard-amid-public-skepticism/article/2547337)
The Times story was about a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Berlin. To read
it, one might think there is unanimity of opinion on the subject by panel members. Maybe that's true of
current members of the panel, but it is instructive to read the comments by former IPCC member Richard
Tol, who, among other things, is professor of the economics of climate change at the Institute for
Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Professor Tol, writes globalwarming.org, recently "accused the IPCC of being too alarmist about global warming
and asked to have his name withdrawn from its recently released Working Group II report (WG2) on
climate change impacts." In a recent article for the Financial Times titled "Bogus prophecies of doom will
not fix the climate," Tol explains why: "Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the
equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived the ice ages with primitive
technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable."
No Rapid Warming
McGrath ’13
(Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, “Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'”,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023, May 19, 2013)
Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the
short-term. Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's
atmosphere. Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the
coming decades. But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly. “Start Quote The
most extreme projections are looking less likely than before” Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford The slowdown in the expected
rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office
lowered their five-year temperature forecast. But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any
slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term. An international team of
researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the
shorter term climate response. Transient nature Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we
doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it
over several thousand years. Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a
doubling of CO2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term
temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F). But in this new analysis, by only including the
temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C. Ice The report suggests that
warming in the near term will be less than forecast "The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they
are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr
Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford. "The most extreme projections are looking less likely than
before."
Warming won’t cause extinction
Barrett ‘7
[Professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, (Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods,
introduction)]
First, climate change does not threaten the survival of the human species.5 If unchecked, it will cause
other species to become extinction (though biodiversity is being depleted now due to other reasons). It
will alter critical ecosystems (though this is also happening now, and for reasons unrelated to climate
change). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations.
“Catastrophic” climate change is possible, but not certain. Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, large changes
(such as sea level rise of, say, ten meters) will likely take centuries to unfold, giving societies time to
adjust. “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or
two. However, abrupt climate change (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though
potentially very serious, is unlikely to be ruinous. Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions,
and we cannot be sure of its consequences. Even in a worse case scenario, however, global climate change is not the
equivalent of the Earth being hit by mega-asteroid. Indeed, if it were as damaging as this, and if we were
sure that it would be this harmful, then our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming. The
challenge would still be more difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now.
Global cooling locked in – CO2 doesn’t cause warming
Caruba, ’13 (Alan, founder of The National Anxiety Center, member of the Society of Professional Journalists, American Society of
Journalists and Authors and the National Association of Science Writers, “The Mini-Ice Age Has Arrived,” 3/19,
http://www.albanytribune.com/HYPERLINK "http://www.albanytribune.com/19032013-the-mini-ice-age-has-arrived%E2%80%8F-oped/"
HYPERLINK "http://www.albanytribune.com/19032013-the-mini-ice-age-has-arrived%E2%80%8F-oped/"HYPERLINK
"http://www.albanytribune.com/19032013-the-mini-ice-age-has-arrived%E2%80%8F-oped/"19032013
One of the world’s most respected long-term climate forecasters is Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist whose
expertise is relied upon by corporations and others who need to know what the weather will really be as
opposed to the criminally false claims about global warming. His website, WeatherAction, is well worth visiting. In his
own words, “WeatherAction is involved in the Global Warming/Climate Change debate where we point out that the world is now
cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data
that changes in CO2 have any effect on weather or climate. There are no scientists in the world who can
produce such observational data. There is only effect the other way, namely that ocean temperatures
control average CO2 levels.” Recently Corbyn announced that “The CO2 story is over. It has been pointing
the world in the wrong direction for too long. The serious implications of the developing mini ice age to
agriculture and the world economy through the next 25 to 35 years must be addressed.” World cooling is
now locked in says Corbyn, citing the decrease in average solar activity and a jet stream that is often further
south than normal, resulting in extreme weather events. Following in the heels of Corbyn’s forecast was
the release of a new report by Dr. David Whitehouse, published by the Global Warming Policy
Foundation, and what makes it fairly extraordinary after decades of global warming propaganda is that he concludes that there has
been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. That’s seventeen years
of atrocious lies about a warming earth. The irony that Dr. Whitehouse includes in his report is that the
atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased during that time from 370 ppm to 390 ppm. So,
everything you have been told about carbon dioxide emissions and those of other so-called greenhouse
gases “causing” a warming earth is just lies, lies, and lies.
Global Warming isn’t happening and there is no impact
Francis ‘11
(Merlin Francis, writer for DNA India, “Climate Change is caused by Nature, not Human Activity,” DNA, 2/1/13,
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/HYPERLINK "http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/1501621/report-climate-change-is-caused-by-nature-nothuman-activity" HYPERLINK "http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/1501621/report-climate-change-is-caused-by-nature-not-humanactivity"HYPERLINK "http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/1501621/report-climate-change-is-caused-by-nature-not-human-activity"1501621
“The current global warming is modest and is not of any threat to humanity,” said Dr Madhav
Khandekar, Environment Canada Expert Reviewer for the IPCC. Pointing out to various graphs at a
lecture on Extreme Weather, Monsoon Floods and the Uncertain Science of Global Warming, hosted by
the Geological Society of India, he explained that climate change has been a natural phenomena for
centuries and it is premature to blame climate changes on global warming. “From the geological
perspective, the earth has been warming and cooling for long periods. Severe droughts and floods
happened even a hundred years ago. Let’s not rush in to say that climatic changes are due to
human activity,” he said. “Temperatures are impacted by road, buildings, and heat produced from air
conditioners. We do not take that into consideration when studies have shown that nearly 50% of increase
in temperature is due to the urban impact.” He also revealed that the present warming in Greenland is no
more than what it was in the 1940s. “It was significantly warmer then, so I don’t expect sea levels to rise
much.” “We may be entering into a significantly colder era. That’s what we should worry about and not
global warming. “Several low temperature and snow accumulation records have been broken in the last
five years. Neither the IPCC nor climate change models offer any explanation for this,” he said. “There is
a disconnect when we say that there is global warming while we have been witnessing some of the
coldest winters.”
Global Warming: Non-existent and Incredibly Expensive.
Kear ’13
(David Kear, former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations consultant; & South Pacific geoscientist, “Global Warming
alias Climate Change [the Non-Existent, Incredibly expensive, Threat to us All, including to our Grandchildren]”, Climate
Realists, 7/13, http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/KearGW]
Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat: Politicians and the Media have
listened to the proponents of Global-Warming Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any
critical assessment of it all. Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming
themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of
true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements- which contained
grave errors. Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to
combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change. The projects were unnecessary
because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule
was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s
real problems. A huge international bureaucratic industry was born - with Cabinet Ministers, government
departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very
much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our
grandchildren’s well-being. In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay
for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and
expenses of the loudest proponents.
Warming is slowing
Rojas, ’13
(John-Paul Ford, “Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show,” 1/3, Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figuresshow.html)
A new scientific model has revised previous figures for the next five years downwards by around a fifth.
The forecast compares how much higher average world temperatures are likely to be than the “long-term
average” from 1971-2000. It had been thought that this would be 0.54C during the period 2012 -2016 but
new data puts the figure for the 2013-2017 period at 0.43C.
No warming
Todd 12 (Samuel, writer for Policy Mic, “A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real”,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real"
New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, theDaily
Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit , after taking data from nearly
30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests
we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be
significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory
among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that
we are actually heading toward global cooling.
Global Warming Exaggerated-Numbers prove
Saad, 09
(Lydia Saad worked at Gallup, a world news source on the internet and conducted survays on the issue, “Increased Number Think Global
Warming Is “Exaggerated”,” 3/11 "http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx")
As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global
warming than said it
exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup's 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the
problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%. The trend in the "exaggerated" response has been
somewhat volatile since 2001, and the previous high point, 38%, came in 2004. Over the next two years, "exaggerated"
sentiment fell to 31% and 30%. Still, as noted, the current 41% is the highest since Gallup's trend on this measure began in
1997.
Global warming predictions over-hyped
Moore 95
(Thomas Gale Moore was a writer from Stanford about climate change and its impacts on the earth, some of his was work was cited in The Public
Interest, a famous book, “GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals,” Stanford.edu,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html, ACCESSED: 7/17/13, SH)
Senator Mitchell's forecast
and his history are both wrong. Warmer periods bring benign rather than more
violent weather. Milder temperatures will induce more evaporation from oceans and thus more
rainfall -- where it will fall we cannot be sure but the earth as a whole should receive greater precipitation.
Meteorologists now believe that any rise in sea levels over the next century will be at most a foot or
more, not twenty. In addition, Mitchell flunks history: around 6,000 years ago the earth sustained temperatures
that were probably more than four degrees Fahrenheit hotter than those of the twentieth century,
yet mankind flourished. The Sahara desert bloomed with plants, and water loving animals such as hippopotamuses
wallowed in rivers and lakes. Dense forests carpeted Europe from the Alps to Scandinavia. The Midwest of the United States was somewhat drier
than it is today, similar to contemporary western Kansas or eastern Colorado; but Canada enjoyed a warmer climate and more rainfall.
Climate swings are natural
Bell, ’13
(Larry, professor of architecture and space architecture at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of the Sasakawa International
Center for Space Architecture, “The Feverish Hunt For Evidence Of A Man-Made Global Warming Crisis,” 3/19,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/HYPERLINK "http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-manmade-global-warming-crisis/" HYPERLINK "http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-madeglobal-warming-crisis/"HYPERLINK "http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-made-globalwarming-crisis/"2013bgm)
Indeed, climate really does change without any help from us, and we can be very grateful that it does. Over the past
800,000 years, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been covered by ice up to miles thick at regular
intervals lasting about 100,000 years each. Much shorter interglacial cycles like our current one lasting
10,000 to 15,000 years have offered reprieves from bitter cold. And yes, from this perspective, current
temperatures are abnormally warm. By about 12,000 to 15,000 years ago Earth had warmed enough to
halt the advance of glaciers and cause sea levels to rise, and the average temperature has held fairly
constant ever since, with brief intermissions. Although temperatures have been generally mild over the
past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are still normal. The past century has
witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cooldown, began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at quite a constant rate until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after
reaching a high of 1.16ºF above the average global mean.
Climate Change Bad
Warming turns every impact
Burke 08 (Sharon, sr fellow and dir of the energy security project at the Center for a New American Security, Chapter 6 of Climatic
Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change, edited by Kurt Campbell, p 157-165)
At the same time, however, the
implications of both trends for human society and survival raise the stakes; it is
crucial to try to understand what the future might look like in one hundred years in order to act
accordingly today. This scenario, therefore, builds a picture of the plausible effects of catastrophic climate change, and
the implications for national security, on the basis of what we know about the past and the present. The purpose is not to "one up" the
previous scenarios in awfulness, but rather to attempt to imagine the unimaginable future that is, after all, entirely plausible.
Assumed Climate Effects of the Catastrophic Scenario. In the catastrophic scenario, the year 2040 marks an important
tipping point. Large-scale, singular events of abrupt climate change will start occurring, greatly exacerbated by
the collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which is believed to play and important role in regulating global climate,
particularly in Europe.8 There
will be a rapid loss of polar ice, a sudden rise in sea levels, totaling 2 meters (6.6
feet), and a temperature increase of almost 5.6°C (10.1°F) by 2095. Developing countries, particularly those at
low latitudes and those reliant on subsistence, rain-fed farming, will be hardest and earliest hit. All
nations, however, will find it difficult to deal with the unpredictable, abrupt, and severe nature of climate
change after 2040. These changes will be difficult to anticipate, and equally difficult to mitigate or recover
from, particularly as they will recur, possibly on a frequent basis. First, the rise in temperatures alone will
present a fundamental challenge for human health. Indeed, even now, about 250 people die of heatstroke every year in the
United States. In a prolonged heat wave in 1980, more than 10,000 people died of heat-related illnesses, and between 5,000 and 10,00 in 1988.9
In 2003, record heat waves in Europe, with temperatures in Paris hitting 40.4°C (104.7°F) and 47.3°C (116.3°F) in parts of Portugal, are
estimated to have cost more than 37,000 lives; in the same summer there were at least 2,000 heat-related deaths in India. Average temperatures
will increase in most regions, and the western United States, southern Europe, and southern Australia will be particularly vulnerable to prolonged
heat spells. The rise in temperatures will complicated daily life around the world. In Washington, D.C., the average summer temperature is in the
low 30s C (high 80s F), getting as high as 40°C (104°F). With a 5.6°C (10.1°F) increase, that could mean temperatures as high as 45.6°C
(114.5°F). In New Delhi, summer temperatures can reach 45°C (113°F) already, opening the possibility of new highs approaching sO.sOC
(123°F). In general, the level of safe exposure is considered to be about 38°C (lOO°F); at hotter temperatures, activity has to be limited and the
very old and the very young are especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and mortality. Sudden shifts in temperature, which are expected in
this scenario, are particularly lethal. As
a result of higher temperatures and lower, unpredictable
precipitation, severe and persistent wildfires will become more common, freshwater will be more scarce,
and agricultural productivity will fall, particularly in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and the western United States. The
World Health Organization estimates that water scarcity already affects two- fifths of the world
population-s-some 2.6 billion people. In this scenario, half the world population will experience persistent
water scarcity. Regions that depend on annual snowfall and glaciers for water lose their supply; hardest hit will be Central Asia, the Andes,
Europe, and western North America. Some regions may become uninhabitable due to lack of water: the Mediterranean, much of Central Asia,
northern Mexico, and South America. The southwestern United States will lose its current sources of fresh water , but
that may be mitigated by an increase in precipitation due to the MOC collapse, though precipitation patterns may be irregular. Regional water
scarcity will also be mitigated by increases in precipitation in East Africa and East and Southeast Asia, though the risk of floods will
increase. The
lack of rainfall will also threaten tropical forests and their dependent species with
extinction. Declining agricultural productivity will be an acute challenge. The heat, together with shifting and
unpredictable precipitation patterns and melting glaciers, will dry out many areas, including today's grain-exporting regions. The largest decreases
in precipitation will be in North Africa, the Middle East, Central America, the Caribbean, and northeastern South America, including Amazonia.
The World Food Program estimates that nearly 1 billion people suffer from chronic hunger today, almost
15 million of them refugees from conflict and natural disasters. According to the World Food Program,
"More than nine out of ten of those who die I of chronic hunger] are simply trapped by poverty in remote
rural areas or urban slums. They do not make the news. They just die." Mortality rates from hunger and lack of water
will skyrocket over the next century, and given all that wiII be happening, that will probably not make the
news, either--people will just die. Over the next one hundred years, the "breadbasket" regions of the world will shift northward.
Consequently, formerly subarctic regions will be able to support farming, but these regions' traditionally small human populations and lack of
infrastructure, including roads and utilities, will make the dramatic expansion of agriculture a challenge. Moreover, extreme year-to-year climate
variability may make sustainable agriculture unlikely, at least on the scale needed. Northwestern
Europe, too, will see shorter
growing seasons and declining crop yields because it will actually experience colder winters, due to the
collapse of the MOC. At the same time that the resource base to support humanity is shrinking, there will be
less inhabitable land. Ten percent of the world population now lives in low-elevation coastal zones (all land
contiguous with the coast that is 10 meters or less in elevation) that will experience sea level rises of 6.6 feet (2 meters) in this scenario and 9.8
feet (3 meters) in the North Atlantic, given the loss of the MOC. Most major cities at or near sea level have some kind of flood protection, so high
tides alone will not lead to the inundation of these cities. Consider, however, that the combined effects of more frequent and severe weather
events and higher sea levels could well lead to increased flooding from coastal storms and coastal erosion. In any case, there will be saltwater
intrusion into coastal water supplies, rising water tables, and the loss of coastal and upstream wetlands, with impacts on fisheries. The rise
could well occur in several quick pulses, with relatively stable periods in between, which will complicate planning and adaptation and make any
kind of orderly or managed evacuation unlikely. Inundation plus the combined effects of higher sea levels and more frequent tropical storms may
leave many large coastal cities uninhabitable, including the largest American cities, New York City and Los Angeles, focal points for the national
economy with a combined total of almost 33 million people in their metropolitan areas today. Resettling coastal populations will be a crippling
challenge, even for the United States. Sea level rises also will affect food security. Significant fertile deltas will become largely uncultivable
because of inundation and more frequent and higher storm surges that reach farther inland. Fisheries
and marine ecosystems,
particularly in the North Atlantic, will collapse. Locally devastating weather events will be the new norm
for coastal and mid-latitude locations-wind and flood damage will be much more intense. There will be
frequent losses of life, property, and infrastructure-and this will happen every year. Although water scarcity and
food security will disproportionately affect poor countries-they already do-extreme weather events will be more or less evenly
distributed around the world. Regions affected by tropical storms, including typhoons and hurricanes, will include all three coasts of
the United States; all of Mexico and Central America; the Caribbean islands; East, Southeast and South Asia; and many South Pacific and Indian
Ocean islands. Recent isolated events when coastal storms made landfall in the South Atlantic, Europe, and the Arabian Sea in the last few years
suggest that these regions will also experience a rise in the incidence of extreme storms. In these circumstances, there will be an across-the-board
decline in human development indicators.
Life spans will shorten, incomes will drop, health will deteriorateincluding as a result of proliferating diseases-infant mortality will rise, and there will be a decline in
personal freedoms as states fall to anocracy (a situation where central authority in a state is weak or nonexistent and power has devolved to more regional or local actors, such as tribes) and autocracy. The Age of
Survival: Imagining the Unimaginable Future If New Orleans is one harbinger of the future, Somalia is another. With a weak and barely
functional central government that does not enjoy the trust and confidence of the public, the nation has descended into clan warfare. Mortality
rates for combatants and noncombatants are high. Neighboring Ethiopia has intervened, with troops on the ground in Mogadishu and elsewhere, a
small African Union peacekeeping force is present in the country, and the United States has conducted military missions in Somalia within the
last year, including air strikes aimed at terrorist groups that the United States government has said are finding safe haven in the chaos." In a July
2007 report, the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia reported that the nation is "literally awash in arms" and factional groups are targeting not only
all combatants in the country but also noncombatants, including aid groups. Drought is a regular feature of life in Somalia that even in the best of
times has been difficult to deal with. These are bad times, indeed, for Somalia, and the mutually reinforcing cycle of drought, famine, and conflict
has left some 750,000 Somalis internally displaced and about 1.5 million people-17 percent of the population-in dire need of humanitarian relief.
The relief is difficult to provide, however, given the lawlessness and violence consuming the country. For example, nearly all food assistance to
Somalia is shipped by sea, but with the rise of piracy, the number of vessels willing to carry food to the country fell by 50 percent in 2007.u Life
expectancy is forty-eight years, infant mortality has skyrocketed, and annual per capita GDP is estimated to be about six hundred dollars. The
conflict has also had a negative effect on the stability of surrounding nations.
In the catastrophic climate change scenario,
situations like that in Somalia will be commonplace: there will be a sharp rise in failing and failed states
and therefore in intrastate war. According to International Alert, there are forty-six countries, home to 2,7
billion people, at a high risk of violent conflict as a result of climate change. The group lists an additional
fifty-six nations, accounting for another 1.2 billion people, that will have difficulty dealing with climate
change, given other challenges. 12 Over the next hundred years, in a catastrophic future, that means there are likely to be at least 102
failing and failed states, consumed by internal conflict, spewing desperate refugees, and harboring and spawning violent extremist
movements. Moreover, nations
all over the world will be destabilized as a result, either by the crisis on their
borders or the significant numbers of refugees and in some cases armed or extremist groups migrating
into their territories. Over the course of the century, this will mean a collapse of globalization and transnational institutions and an
increase in all types of conflict-most dramatically, intrastate and asymmetric. The global nature of the conflicts and the abruptness of the climate
effects will challenge the ability of governments all over the world to respond to the disasters, mitigate the effects, or to contain the violence
along their borders. There
will be civil unrest in every nation as a result of popular anger toward governments,
scapegoating of migrant and minority populations, and a rise in charismatic end-of-days cults, which will
deepen a sense of hopelessness as these cults tend to see no end to misery other than extinction followed
by divine salvation. Given that the failing nations account for half of the global population, this will also
be a cataclysmic humanitarian disaster, with hundreds of millions of people dying from climate effects
and conflict, totally overwhelming the ability of international institutions and donor nations to respond.
This failure of the international relief system will be total after 2040 as donor nations are forced to turn
their resources inward. There will be a worldwide economic depression and a reverse in the gains in
standards of living made in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. At the same time, the
probability of conflict between nations will rise. Although global interstate resource wars are generally
unlikely;" simmering conflicts between nations, such as that between India and Pakistan, are likely to boil
over, particularly if both nations are failing. Both India and Pakistan, of course, have nuclear weapons,
and a nuclear exchange is possible, perhaps likely, either by failing central governments or by extremist
and ethnic groups that seize control of nuclear weapons. There will also be competition for the Arctic
region, where natural resources, including oil and arable land, will be increasingly accessible and borders
are ill defined. It is possible that agreements over Arctic territories will be worked out among Russia, Canada, Norway, the United States,
Iceland, and Denmark in the next two decades, before the truly catastrophic climate effects manifest themselves in those nations. If not, there is a
strong probability of conflict over the Arctic, possibly even armed conflict. In general, though, nations will be preoccupied with maintaining
internal stability and will have difficulty mustering the resources for war. Indeed, the greater danger is that states will fail to muster the resources
for interstate cooperation. Finally, all
nations are likely to experience violent conflict as a result of migration
patterns. There will be increasingly few arable parts of the world, and few nations able to respond to
climate change effects, and hundreds of millions of desperate people looking for a safe haven-a volatile
mix. This will cause considerable unrest in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia, and will likely
involve inhumane border control practices. Imagining what this will actually mean at a national level is
disheartening. For the United States, coastal cities in hurricane alley along the Gulf Coast will have to be
abandoned, possibly as soon as the first half of the century, certainly by the end of the century. New Orleans will obviously be first, but
Pascagoula and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and Houston and Beaumont, Texas, and other cities will be close behind. After the first couple of
episodes of flooding and destructive winds, starting with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the cities will be partially rebuilt; the third major
incident will make it clear that the risk of renewed destruction is too high to justify the cost of reconstruction. The
abandonment of oil
and natural gas production facilities in the Gulf region will push the United States into a severe recession
or even depression, probably before the abrupt climate effects take hold in 2040. Mexico's economy will be
devastated, which will increase illegal immigration into the United States. Other major U.S. cities are
likely to become uninhabitable after 2040, including New York City and Los Angeles, with a combined
metropolitan population of nearly 33 million people. Resettling these populations will be a massive challenge that will
preoccupy the United States, cause tremendous popular strife, and absorb all monies, including private donations, which would have previously
gone to foreign aid. The
United States, Canada, China, Europe, and Japan will have little choice but to become
aggressively isolationist, with militarized borders. Given how dependent all these nations are on global
trade, this will provoke a deep, persistent economic crisis. Standards of living across the United States
will fall dramatically, which will provoke civil unrest across the country. The imposition of martial law is
a possibility. Though the poor and middle class will be hit the hardest, no one will be immune. The fact
that wealthier Americans will be able to manage the effects better, however, will certainly provoke resent-
ment and probably violence and higher crime rates. Gated communities are likely to be commonplace. Finally, the level of
popular anger toward the United States, as the leading historical contributor to climate change, will be astronomical . There will be an
increase in asymmetric attacks on the American homeland. India will cease to function as a nation, but
before this occurs, Pakistan and Bangladesh will implode and help spur India's demise. This implosion
will start with prolonged regional heat waves, which will quietly kill hundreds of thousands of people. It
will not immediately be apparent that these are climate change casualties. Massive agricultural losses late in the first half of the century, along
with the collapse of fisheries as a result of sea level rise, rising oceanic temperatures, and hypoxic conditions, will put the entire region into a
food emergency. At first, the United States, Australia, China, New Zealand, and the Nordic nations will be able to coordinate emergency food aid
and work with Indian scientists to introduce drought- and saltwater-resistant plant species. Millions of lives will be saved, and India will be
stabilized for a time. But a succession of crippling droughts and heat waves in all of the donor nations and the inundation of several populous
coastal cities will force these nations to concentrate on helping their own populations. The
World Food Program and other
international aid agencies will first have trouble operating in increasingly violent areas, and then, as
donations dry up, will cease operations. Existing internal tensions in India will explode in the latter half of the century, as
hundreds of millions of starving people begin to move, trying to find a way to survive. As noted above, a nuclear exchange between
either the national governments or subnational groups in the region is possible and perhaps
even likely. By mid-century, communal genocide will rage unchecked in several African states, most
notably Sudan and Senegal, where agriculture will completely collapse and the populations will depend
on food imports. Both nations will be covered with ghost towns, where entire populations have either
perished or fled; this will increasingly be true across Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, Central America,
the Caribbean, South America, and Southeast Asia. Europe will have the oddity of having to deal with far
colder winters, given the collapse of the MOC, which will compromise agricultural productivity.
Accelerated warming would make extinction extremely likely.
Tickell, 08
(Oliver Tickell, The Guardian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, 8/11,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this
looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd
and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal
words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for
humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.¶ The collapse of the polar ice caps would become
inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost,
complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most
productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last
ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay
out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe
droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would
undoubtedly die.¶ Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned
that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase".
This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks,
notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed
by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of
methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting
permafrost is already under way.¶ To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the
release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs
and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher
than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists
warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions
could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
Climate Change is destroying marine biodiversity, leads to extinction.
Sify 2010
Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global Change Institute, and John
Bruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, “Could unbridled climate changes lead to human extinction?”,
http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html)
'The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems' emerged
from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine
scientists.¶ One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of
Queensland and the director of its Global Change Institute (GCI).¶ 'We may see sudden, unexpected
changes that have serious ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the
planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction
event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg.¶ 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the
trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent
of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs
of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added.¶ 'We are
entering a period in which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive
change and in some cases beginning to fail', he added.¶ The 'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to
marine life identified in the report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water
circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths.¶ These are driving major changes in
marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries);
fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more
frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms.¶ Study co-author John F Bruno, associate professor
in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are modifying
many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a million
years'.¶ 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,'
The findings of the comprehensive report:
Bruno warned, according to a GCI release.¶ These findings were published in Science
Warming causes acidification and collapses the marine food chain, causes ecosystem
instability
Doney ‘7
(Scott Doney, Senior Scientist @ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony,
“EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON MARINE LIFE”, 5-10, L/N)
Climate change and ocean acidification will exacerbate other human influences on fisheries and marine
ecosystems such as over- fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, excess nutrients, and invasive species.
Thermal effects arise both directly, via effects of elevated temperature and lower pH on individual
organisms, and indirectly via changes to the ecosystems on which they depend for food and habitat.
Acidification harms shell- forming plants and animals including surface and deep-water corals, many
plankton, pteropods (marine snails), mollusks (clams, oysters), and lobsters (Orr et al., 2005). Many of
these organisms provide critical habitat and/or food sources for other organisms. Emerging evidence
suggests that larval and juvenile fish may also be susceptible to pH changes. Marine life has survived
large climate and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates of climate change and ocean
acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by the planet in the past except for
rare, catastrophic events in the geological record. One concern is that climate change will alter the rates
and patterns of ocean productivity. Small, photosynthetic phytoplankton grow in the well-illuminated upper ocean, forming the base
of the marine food web, supporting the fish stocks we harvest, and underlying the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and many other key elements
in the sea. Phytoplankton growth depends upon temperature and the availability of light and nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and
iron. Most of the nutrient supply to the surface ocean comes from the mixing and upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water from below. An exception
is iron, which has an important additional source from mineral dust swept off the desert regions of the continents and transported off-shore from
coastal ocean sediments. The geographic distribution of phytoplankton and biological productivity is determined largely by ocean circulation and
upwelling, with the highest levels found along the Equator, in temperate and polar latitudes and along the western boundaries of continents. Key
climate-plankton linkages arise through changes in nutrient supply and ocean mixed layer depths, which affect the light availability to surface
phytoplankton. In the tropics and mid- latitudes, there is limited vertical mixing because the water column is stabilized by thermal stratification;
i.e., light, warm waters overlie dense, cold waters. In these areas, surface nutrients are typically low, which directly limits phytoplankton growth.
Climate warming will likely further inhibit mixing, reducing the upward nutrient supply and thus lowering biological productivity. The nutrientdriven productivity declines even with warmer temperatures, which promote faster growth. At higher latitudes, phytoplankton often have access
to abundant nutrients but are limited by a lack of sunlight. In these areas, warming and reduced mixed layer depths can increase productivity.A
synthesis of climate-change simulations shows broad patterns with declining low-latitude productivity, somewhat elevated high- latitude
productivity, and pole-ward migration of marine ecosystem boundaries as the oceans warm; simulated global productivity increased by up to
8.0% (Sarmiento et al., 2004). While not definitive proof of future trends, similar relationships of ocean stratification and productivity have been
observed in year to year variability of satellite ocean color data, a proxy for surface phytoplankton (Beherenfeld et al., 2006); satellite data for
1997-2005 from GeoEYE and NASA's Sea- Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) show that phytoplankton declined in the tropics and
subtropics during warm phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) marked by higher sea surface temperatures and ocean stratification.
Ecosystem dynamics are complex and non-linear, however, and new and unexpected phenomena may arise as the planet enters a new warmer and
unexplored climate state. Ocean nitrogen fixation, for example, is concentrated in warm, nutrient poor surface waters, and it may increase under
future more stratified conditions, enhancing overall productivity.Changes
in total biological productivity are only part of
the story, as most human fisheries exploit particular marine species, not overall productivity. The
distributions and population sizes of individual species are more sensitive to warming and altered ocean
circulation than total productivity. Temperature effects arise through altered organism physiology and
ecological changes in food supplies and predators. Warming and shifts in seasonal temperature patterns
will disrupt predator-prey interactions; this is especially important for survival of juvenile fish, which
often hatch at a particular time of year and depend up on immediate, abundant source of prey.
Temperature changes will also alter the spread of diseases and parasites in both natural ecosystems and
marine aquaculture. Warming impacts will interact and perhaps exacerbate other problems including
over-fishing and habitat destruction.
Climate change triggers massive marine biodiversity loss.
Field 14 (Christopher Field, IPCC scientist (US) et al, March 2014, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, http://ipccwg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf)
Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution
and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries
productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Spatial shifts of marine species due to projected
warming will cause high-latitude invasions and high local-extinction rates in the tropics and semienclosed seas (medium confidence). Species richness and fisheries catch potential are projected to increase, on average, at mid and high
latitudes (high confidence) and decrease at tropical latitudes (medium confidence). . The progressive expansion of oxygen
minimum zones and anoxic “dead zones” is projected to further constrain fish habitat. Open-ocean net
primary production is projected to redistribute and, by 2100, fall globally under all RCP scenarios.
Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors, thus complicating
marine management regimes (high confidence).
Warming is going to cause catastrophic biodiversity loss leading to massive species
extinction.
Roach 4
(John Roach, Staff, National geographic, “By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says”, 7-12-04,
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction_2.html]
By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the
road to extinction, according to a recent study. "Climate change now represents at least as great a threat to
the number of species surviving on Earth as habitat-destruction and modification," said Chris Thomas, a
conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Thomas is the lead author of the study
published earlier this year in the science journal Nature. His co-authors included 18 scientists from around the world, making this the largest
collaboration of its type.
Townsend Peterson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and one of the study's
co-authors, said the paper allows scientists for the first time to "get a grip" on the impact of climate change as far as natural systems are
concerned. "A lot of us are in this to start to get a handle on what we are talking about," he said. "When we talk about the difference between half
a percent and one percent of carbon dioxide emissions what does that mean?" The researchers worked independently in six biodiversity-rich
regions around the world, from Australia to South Africa, plugging field data on species distribution and regional climate into computer models
that simulated the ways species' ranges are expected to move in response to temperature and climate changes. "We later met and decided to pool
results to produce a more globally relevant look at the issue," said Lee Hannah, a climate change biologist with Conservation International's
According to the researchers' collective results,
the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at
risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming
more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science in Washington, D.C. Study Results.
studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah.
Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and
As global warming interacts
with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the
landscape, the risk of extinction increases even further, they say. In agreement with the study authors,
Pounds and Puschendorf say taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to
constrain global warming to the minimum predicted levels and thus prevent many of the extinctions from
occurring.
"The threat to life on Earth is not just a problem for the future. It is part of the here and
now," they write. Climate Scenarios. The researchers based their study on minimum, mid-range, and maximum future climate scenarios
based on information released by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 . According to the
IPCC, temperatures are expected to rise from somewhere between 1.5 and more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit
(0.8 and more than 2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050. "Few climate scientists around the world think
that 2050 temperatures will fall outside those bounds," said Thomas. "In some respects, we have been
conservative because almost all future climate projections expect more warming and hence more
extinction between 2050 and 2100." In addition, the researchers accounted for the ability of species to disperse or successfully move
Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic."
to a new area, thus preventing climate change-induced extinction. They used two alternatives: one where species couldn't move at all, the other
assuming unlimited abilities for movement. "We are trying to bracket the truth," said Peterson. "If you bracket the truth and look at the two
endpoints and they give the same general message, then you can start to believe it." Outside of the small group of researchers working directly on
the impacts of climate change to species diversity, "the numbers will come as a huge shock," said Thomas.
Extinction Prevention The
researchers point out that there is a significant gap between the low and high ends of the species predicted
to be on the road to extinction by 2050. Taking action to ensure the climate ends up on the low end of the
range is vital to prevent catastrophic extinctions. "We need to start thinking about the fullest of costs
involved with our activities, the real costs of what we do in modern society," said Peterson.
Thomas
said that since there may be a large time lag between the climate changing and the last individual of a
doomed species dying off, rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions may allow some of these species
to hang on. "The only conservation action that really makes sense, at a global scale, is for the international community to minimize warming
through reduced emissions and the potential establishment of carbon-sequestration programs," he said.
Climate Change led to the last massive extinction, wiping 95% of all species.
Meacher 4
(Michael Meacher, Former Environment Secretary (UK), The Guardian, “Apocalypse Soon”, 4-24-04,
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,,1201866,00.html)
What is really chilling about the catastrophes occurring with increasing frequency across the globe is that they have happened, as the
Imagine the
consequences if, as predicted by the inter-governmental panel of the top 3,000 scientists on climate
change, global temperatures rise by 1.4C-5.8C over this century. Even that is not the end of the story. A
conference of top climate scientists concluded last year that previous models had underestimated the
cooling effect of smoke and other particles in the atmosphere, so that if it hadn't been for the smoky haze
from forest fires and coal-burning power stations, the world would have warmed up three times more than
the 0.6C rise actually experienced. Now that smoke pollution is in decline, mainly due to efforts to tackle
acid rain, the scientists calculate that global warming could rise by 7C-10C this century. That would be
without precedent in recorded geological history. Yet it could still be intensified by two more factors. One
is the die-back of the drought-stricken Amazon forests in the second half of this century, as predicted by
the UK Hadley Centre, which would release all their locked-up carbon into the atmosphere, thus raising
global warming by another 1.5C. But the most frightening scenario is a feedback effect whereby fastrising temperatures unlock other global warming sources - notably vast quantities of methane in the
oceans, equal to more than double the world's fossil-fuel reserves - which could trigger a heating-up that
would be unstoppable. To put all this in perspective, Lynas ends his book with an epilogue recalling the
mass extinctions at the end of the Permian era 251 million years ago. It was the worst crisis to strike life
on Earth, killing 95% of the world's species. It was caused not by an asteroid strike like that which wiped
out the dinosaurs, but by global warming. Siberian volcanoes discharged enormous clouds of carbon
dioxide in colossal eruptions, thus warming the climate enough to trigger vast methane "burps" out of the
oceans and releasing a runaway greenhouse effect. What increase in temperature produced this
catastrophic, near-total extinction of life? The oxygen isotopes in the end-Permian rocks indicate it was
6C. Draw your own conclusions.
overwhelming majority of the world's scientists confidently believe, after a warming of only 0.6C over the past century.
Climate Change will cause massive sea level rises leading to extinction.
Weier 8
The Capital Times, 8 (Anita Weier. UW scientist: Sea level changes a driving force in mass extinctions
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/292715)
Watch out for the oceans. That's the lesson of an extensive study by University of Wisconsin-Madison
assistant professor Shanan Peters published June 15 in the journal Nature.Peters looked at data gathered
by scientists over many years and analyzed what they found at about 600 locations all over the continental
United States and Alaska, going back more than 500 million years. Changes in ocean environments
related to sea level exert a driving influence on rates of extinction, which animals and plants survive or
vanish, and the composition of life in the ocean, he found. "This breakthrough speaks loudly to the future
impending modern (oceanic) shelf destruction due to climate change on earth," said National Science
Foundation program manager Rich Lane.No matter what the cause of the ebb and flow of the oceans in various eras, the repeated
and resultant extinctions must be considered, Lane said. Scientists say there may have been as many as 23 mass
extinction events over the last 3.5 billion years on earth, many involving simple forms of life such as
single-celled microorganisms. Over the past 540 million years, there have been five well-documented
mass extinctions, primarily of maritime plants and animals, with as many as 75-95 percent of species lost.
For the most part, scientists have been unable to pin down the causes of the dramatic events, though in the case of the demise of the dinosaurs,
they suspect that a large asteroid crashed into the planet. "Impacts, for the most part, aren't associated with most extinctions," Peters said in an
interview. "There have also been studies of volcanism, and some eruptions correspond to extinction, but many do not."So the assistant professor
of geology and geophysics looked at sea levels by reviewing previous studies of the geological record, which show a clear difference in
composition of the earth when it is covered by the sea and when it is not. He measured two types of marine shelf environments, one where
sediments were derived from land erosion and the other composed primarily of calcium carbonate, which is produced in place by shelled
organisms and chemical processes.In the course of hundreds of millions of years the world's oceans have expanded and contracted in response to
movement of the Earth's crust and changes in climate. There were periods when vast areas of continents, including Wisconsin, were flooded by
shallow seas."Most of the major extinctions have come when sea levels were high," Peters explained. "Anything we can learn about how the
physical environment and life has changed in the past will tell us what to expect in the future."The sea level has changed dramatically in the past,
with each ice age, for instance, and 14,000 years ago there was ice over Madison, he said. So
in respect to climate change, he said,
sea level will change whether the climate is warming or cooling. "The bottom line is that the biosphere is
well primed for the type of sea level change we are likely to see as a result of global warming," Peters
said."The biggest thing we should worry about is the impact of sea level rise on humans. The scariest part
is sea level rise from a human perspective in my opinion, because so many people live close to the sea.
The toll will be large."
Climate Change Good
Climate Change may bring a number of positive effects.
Ridley 13
[Matt Ridley; October 19, 2013; The Spectator: Why climate change is good for the world
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/]
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, rightwing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by
those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking
about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.¶ At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But
then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing
net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first
time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change. ¶ There
are many likely effects of
climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you
aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080.
That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different
studies of the effects of future climate trends.¶ To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change
would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means
approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150
years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean
net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off. ¶ Now
Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a
new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg,
director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this
paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and
planetary welfare during the 20th century.¶ You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net
benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can
emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust
the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current
consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit. ¶ Overall, Prof
Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic
output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation. ¶ It will still be 1.2 per cent
around 2050 and will not turn negative until around 2080. In short, my children will be very old before global warming stops benefiting the
world. Note that if the world continues to grow at 3 per cent a year, then the average person will be about nine times as rich in 2080 as she is
today. So low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today.¶ The
chief benefits of
global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably
fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in
countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent
each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.¶ Cold, not the heat, is the
biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to
the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer
death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those
at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its
current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of
heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.¶ The
greatest benefit from climate change comes not from
temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which
plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per
cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out
of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates. ¶ The
increase
in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has
had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of
greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades
of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per
cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and
has been observed in all vegetation types.¶ Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in
Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is
especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s. ¶ It is
often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent
years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat
means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited. ¶ Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly
because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western
Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears
need broken ice.¶ Well yes, you may argue, but what about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The
latest IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past
century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale …
low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.¶ In fact, the death rate from
droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany.
Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the remarkable
success of cyclone warnings in India last week. That’s the thing about climate change — we will probably pocket the benefits and mitigate at
least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate
does.¶ Yet cherry-picking the bad news remains rife. A remarkable example of this was the IPCC’s last report in 2007, which said that global
warming would cause ‘hundreds of millions of people [to be] exposed to increased water stress’ under four different scenarios of future warming.
It cited a study, which had also counted numbers of people at reduced risk of water stress — and in each case that number was higher. The IPCC
simply omitted the positive numbers.¶ Why
does this matter? Even if climate change does produce slightly more
welfare for the next 70 years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There is one obvious
reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting
wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had
negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made
industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of
prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly
200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into
motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a
day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of
the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by
2030.¶
Climate Change claims are exaggerated, Climate Change may be beneficial for
humanity.
Ridley 14
[Matt Ridley; April 5, 2014; The Spectator: We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176121/armageddon-averted/]
Nigel Lawson was right after all. Ever since the Centre for Policy Studies lecture in 2006 that launched the former chancellor on his late career as
a critic of global warming policy, Lord Lawson has been stressing the need to adapt to climate change, rather than throw public money at futile
attempts to prevent it. Until now, the official line has been largely to ignore adaptation and focus instead on ‘mitigation’ — the misleading term
for preventing carbon dioxide emissions.¶ That has now changed. The received wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of
environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to
climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word
‘mitigation’ not at all.¶ The distinction is crucial. So far, the debate has followed a certain bovine logic: that global warming is happening, so we
need to slow it down by hugely expensive decarbonisation strategies — green taxes, wind farms. And what good will this do? Is it possible to
stop global warming in its tracks? Or would all these green policies be the equivalent of trying to blow away a hurricane? This question — just
how much can be achieved by mitigation — is one not often addressed.¶ There
is an alternative: accepting that the planet is
warming, and seeing if we can adjust accordingly. Adaptation means investing in flood defences, so that airports such as
Schiphol can continue to operate below existing (and future) sea level, and air conditioning, so that cities such as Houston and Singapore can
continue to grow despite existing (and future) high temperatures. It means plant breeding, so that maize can be grown in a greater range of
existing (and future) climates, better infrastructure, so that Mexico or India can survive existing (and future) cyclones, more world trade, so that
Ethiopia can get grain from Australia during existing (and future) droughts.¶ Owen
Paterson, the Secretary of State for the
Environment, in repeatedly emphasising the need to adapt to climate change in this way, has been
something of a lone voice in the government. But he can now count on the support of the mighty IPCC, a United Nations body
that employs hundreds of scientists to put together the scientific equivalent of a bible on the topic every six years or so. Whereas the last report
had two pages on adaptation, this one has four chapters.¶ Professor Chris Field is the chairman of Working Group 2 of the IPCC, the part devoted
to the effects of climate change rather than the cause. ‘The really big breakthrough in this report,’ he says, ‘is the new idea of thinking about
managing climate change.’ His co-chair Vicente Barros adds: ‘Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the
future … adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks’. After so many years, the penny is beginning to drop. ¶ In
his book An
Appeal to Reason, Lawson devoted a chapter to the importance of adaptation, in which he pointed out that
the last IPCC report in 2007 specifically assumed that humans would not adapt. ‘Possible impacts,’ the
report said, ‘do not take into account any changes or developments in adaptive capacity.’ That is to say, if
the world gets warmer, sea levels rise and rainfall patterns change, farmers, developers and consumers
will do absolutely nothing to change their habits over the course of an entire century. It is a ludicrous
assumption.¶ But this assumption was central, Lawson pointed out, to the estimated future cost of climate change the IPCC reported. A
notorious example was the report’s conclusion that, ‘assuming no adaptation’, crop yields might fall by 70 per cent by the end of the century — a
conclusion based, a footnote revealed, on a single study of peanut farming in one part of India.¶ Lawson
pointed out that adaptation
had six obvious benefits as a strategy, which mitigation did not share. It required no international treaty,
but would work if adopted unilaterally; it could be applied locally; it would produce results quickly; it
could capture any benefits of warming while avoiding risks; it addressed existing problems that were
merely exacerbated by warming; and it would bring benefits even if global warming proves to have been
exaggerated.¶ Ask yourself, if you were a resident of the Somerset Levels, whether you would prefer a government policy of adapting to
anything the weather might throw at you, whether it was exacerbated by climate change or not, or spending nearly £50 billion (by 2020) on lowcarbon technologies that might in a few decades’ time, if adopted by the whole world, reduce the exacerbation of floods, but not the floods
themselves.¶ It is remarkable how far this latest report moves towards Lawson’s position. Professor Field, who seems to be an eminently sensible
chap, clearly strove to emphasise adaptation, if only because the chance of an international agreement on emissions looks ever less likely. If you
go through the report chapter by chapter (not that many people seem to have bothered), amid the usual warnings of potential danger, there are
many sensible, if jargon-filled, discussions of exactly the points Lawson made. ¶ Chapter 17 concedes that ‘adaptation strategies … can yield
welfare benefits even in the event of a constant climate, such as more efficient use of water and more robust crop varieties’. Chapter 20 even
acknowledges that ‘in some cases mitigation may impede adaptation (e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations)’. A
crucial point, this: that preventing the poor from getting access to cheap electricity from coal might make them more vulnerable to climate
change. So green policies may compound the problem they seek to solve. ¶ In short, there is a great deal in this report to like. It has, moreover,
toned down the alarm considerably. Even the New Scientist magazine has noticed that the report ‘backs off from some of the predictions made in
the previous report’ and despite the urgings of Ed Davey to sex up the summary during last week’s meeting in Yokohama, New Scientist noticed
that ‘the report has even watered down many of the more confident predictions that appeared in the leaked drafts’. ¶ For instance, references to
‘hundreds of millions’ of people being affected by rising sea levels were removed from the summary, as were statements about the impact of
warmer temperatures on crops. The
report bravely admits that invasive alien species are a far greater threat to
species extinction than climate change itself. Even coral reefs, the report admits, are threatened mostly by
pollution and overfishing, which might be exacerbated at the margin by climate change. So why don’t we have
intergovernmental panels on invasive species and overfishing?¶ As these examples illustrate, perhaps most encouraging of
all, the report firmly states that the impact of climate change will be small relative to other things that
happen during this century: ‘For most economic sectors … changes in population, age structure, income,
technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation and governance will be large relative to the impacts of
climate change.’ So yes, the world is heating up. But in many ways, it will be a better world.¶ The report puts
the global aggregate economic damage from climate change at less than 2.5 per cent of income by the latter years of the century. This is a far
lower number than Lord Stern arrived at in his notorious report of 2006, and this is taking the bleak view that there will be a further 2.5˚C rise
from recent levels. This is the highest of nine loss estimates; the average is only 1.1 per cent.¶ And the IPCC is projecting two thirds more
warming per increment of carbon dioxide than the best observationally based studies now suggest, so the warming the IPCC outlines is not even
likely with the highest emissions assumption.¶ In
other words, even if you pile pessimism upon pessimism, assuming
relatively little decarbonisation, much global enrichment and higher climate ‘sensitivity’ than now looks
plausible — leading to more rapid climate change — you still, on the worst estimate, hurt the world
economy in a century by only about as much as it grows every year or two. Rather than inflict an awful
economic toll, global warming would make our very rich descendants — who are likely to be maybe eight
or nine times as rich as we are today, on global average — a bit less rich.¶ To avoid this little harm, we could go for
adaptation — let poor people get as rich as possible and use their income to protect themselves and their natural surroundings against floods,
storms, potential food shortages and loss of habitat. Or we could go for mitigation, getting the entire world to agree to give up the fossil fuels that
provide us with 85 per cent of our energy. Or we could try both, which is what the IPCC now recommends. ¶ But the one truly bonkers thing to do
would be to go unilaterally into a policy of subsidising the rich to install technologies that drive up the cost of energy, desecrate the countryside,
kill golden eagles, clear-cut swamp forests in North Carolina, turn grain into motor fuel, so driving up the price of food and killing people, and
prevent poor people in Africa getting loans to build coal-fired, cheap power stations instead of inhaling smoke from wood fires cut from virgin
forests.¶ All this we are doing in this country, with almost no prospect of cutting carbon emissions enough to affect the climate. That’s the very
opposite of adaptation — preventing the economic growth that would enable us to adapt while failing to prevent any climate change. ¶ The report
As Rupert Darwall,
author of The Age of Global Warming, has pointed out, it systematically ignores the benefits of climate
change and makes the unsupported claim that crop yields have been negatively affected by climate
change, its only evidence being recent spikes in crop prices — a big cause of which was climate policy,
not climate change, in the shape of biofuels programmes that diverted 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop
into fuel.¶ Did you gather from the press that the report warns of rising deaths from storms and droughts, falling crop yields, spreading
is far from ideal (don’t worry, Professor Field, I know that endorsement from the likes of me would kill your career).
diseases, and all the usual litany? Did you conclude from this that deaths from storms will increase, crop yields will fall, and diseases will kill
what they mean is that the continuing fall in deaths from storms,
floods and disease may not be as steep as it would be without climate change, that the continuing rise in
crop yields may not be as fast as it would be without climate change, and that the continuing retreat of
malaria might not be as rapid as it would be without climate change. In other words, the world will
probably heat up — but it’s not going to end. It’s going to be healthier and wealthier than ever before, just a tad less wealthy
more people? Oh, how naive can you get!¶ No, no, no —
than it might otherwise have been. Assuming we do not adapt, that is. ¶
Benefits of Climate Change outweigh the impacts.
Bast, Singer, Idso 2014 (Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental
science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and others to be
announced.March 25, 2014 Benefits of Global Warming Greatly Exceed Costs, New Study Says http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2014/03/25/benefits-global-warming-greatly-exceed-costs-new-study-says)
An international panel of climate scientists and economists will release a massive new report April 9 that
finds the benefits of global warming “greatly exceed any plausible estimate of its costs.” The new report,
the second and third volumes of Climate Change Reconsidered II, were produced by the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland
Institute.¶ The new report summarizes scholarly research published as recently as January 2014 on the
impacts, costs, and benefits of climate change. Hefty chapters summarize thousands of peer-reviewed
studies of the impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas produced during the burning of
fossil fuels – on plants and soils, agriculture, forests, wildlife, ocean life, and humankind.¶ The authors
find higher levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures benefit nearly all plants, leading to more
leaves, more fruit, more vigorous growth, and greater resistance to pests, drought, and other forms of
“stress.” Wildlife benefits as their habitats grow and expand. Even polar bears, the poster child of antiglobal warming activist groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are benefiting
from warmer temperatures.¶ “Despite thousands of scientific articles affirming numerous benefits of rising temperatures and
atmospheric CO2, IPCC makes almost no mention of any positive externalities resulting from such,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Dr.
Craig D. Idso. “Climate Change Reconsidered II corrects this failure, presenting an analysis of thousands of neglected research studies IPCC has
downplayed or ignored in its reports so that scientists, politicians, educators, and the general public can be better informed and make decisions
about the potential impacts of CO2-induced climate change.Ӧ The
authors look closely at claims climate change will
injure coral and other forms of marine life, possibly leading to some species extinctions. They conclude
such claims lack scientific foundation and often are grossly exaggerated. Corals have survived warming
periods in the past that caused ocean temperatures and sea levels to be much higher than today’s levels or
those likely to occur in the next century.¶ The authors contend the world’s economies are heavily dependent on fossil fuels because
such fuels are and will continue to be safer, less expensive, more reliable, and of vastly greater supply than alternative fuels such as wind and
solar. Dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels would have devastating effects on workers and consumers of both the developed and
developing worlds, leading to severe hardship and even deaths.¶ Rather than continue to fight what is most likely a natural and unstoppable
phenomenon, the authors call for adopting new energy and environmental policies that acknowledge current market and environmental realities.
Such policies would encourage economic growth as the foundation for a cleaner environment, responsible development and use of fossil fuels
until superior energy sources are found, and repeal of many of the regulations, subsidies, and taxes passed at the height of the man-made global
warming scare.¶ A Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the report, written in collaboration with the lead authors and approved by them, will be
available at the press conference. The complete study will be released digitally in April and available in printed form in May.¶ Previous volumes
in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. Those volumes are widely recognized as the most
comprehensive and authoritative critiques of the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In June
2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.
Warming is good and more preferable for all species, plants, animals and humans,
for sustaining life.
Moore 95 (Thomas Gale Moore was a writer from Stanford about climate change and its impacts on the earth, some of his was work was
cited in The Public Interest, a famous book, “GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals,” Stanford.edu,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html, ACCESSED: 7/17/13, SH)
If mankind had to choose between a warmer or a cooler climate, humans, most other animals and, after
adjustment, most plants would be better off with higher temperatures. Not all animals or plants would prosper under
these conditions; many are adapted to the current weather and might have difficulty making the transition. Society might wish to help
natural systems and various species adapt to warmer temperatures (or cooler, should that occur).
Humans and wildlife will flourish for Global Warming- not anthropogenic
Mathur ‘11
(Aditi Mathur, writer for the International Business Times, “Study Claims Global Warming is ‘Beneficial’ for Human Health,” International
Business Times, 9/15/11, http://www.ibtimes.com/study-claims-global-warming-beneficial-human-health)
A new study by three non-profit climate research organizations has claimed that global warming is more
likely to improve rather than harm human health.” The study by Heartland Institute, Center for the
Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP) says “mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today and therefore able to
adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.” However, this finding completely contradicts
the observations and predictions of most researchers in the world. It directly challenges the findings of the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The “Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report” was co-authored by a team of scientists recruited and led by Craig
D. Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer. It asserts that manmade greenhouse gases do not play a
“substantial role” in climate change and that previous reports about the effects of global warming
overestimated the situation and “failed to incorporate chemical and biological processes, which are as
important as the physical ones. However, the conclusions of the study contradict the findings of the
widely cited reports of the IPCC and many climate research organizations. The IPCC says that human
activities (manmade greenhouse gases) are actually responsible for climate change. According to it, CO2
contributes to the melting of polar ice caps, rising sea levels, reduced Arctic ice cover and alarming
changes in the environment. The authors of the new report say “the net effect of continued warming
and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to
humans, plants, and wildlife.” The report says that “global warming is more likely to improve rather
than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths
than the increase they cause in summer deaths.” The researchers found that global warming “benefits”
not only mammals but amphibians, birds, butterflies and insects also benefit from its myriad
ecological effects. The reports also states that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years
ago was both “global and warmer than today’s world.” The latest research reveals that corals and other
forms of aquatic life have effective adaptive responses to climate change enabling them to flourish. It says
that averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future can be done by increasing crop yield,
which will be aided by rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Yes Marine Biodiversity Loss Now/Bad
Acidification is collapsing marine ecosystems.
Searcy 10 (Michael Searcy, contributor to skeptical science, run by John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change
Institute at the University of Queensland, citing a variety of peer reviewed papers, “Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin,” 12/29/10)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Not all of the CO2 emitted by human industrial activities remains in the atmosphere. Between 25% and
50% of these emissions over the industrial period have been absorbed by the world’s oceans, preventing
atmospheric CO2 buildup from being much, much worse. But this atmospheric benefit comes at a
considerable price. As ocean waters absorb CO2 they become more acidic. This does not mean the oceans
will become acid. Ocean life can be sensitive to slight changes in pH levels, and any drop in pH is an
increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment. The acidity of global surface waters has increased by
30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to
accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems. Endorsed by seventy
academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the
"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million
years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological
consequences could last much longer." - The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009 As surface waters become more
acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary
for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures
called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The
degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these
environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on
them. The IAP also stated that, if atmospheric CO2 were to reach 550 parts per million (ppm) along its
current rapid ascent from its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, coral reefs around the globe could be
dissolving.
following.
Marine Biodiversity loss now, ocean acidification is reaching historically devastating
levels.
Hartz 12 (John Hartz, reposting a news release from the National Science Foundation, “Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300
Million Years,” 3/5/12) http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1334
The oceans may be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to
scientists publishing a paper this week in the journal Science. "What we're doing today really stands out
in the geologic record," says 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." 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. If too much
carbon dioxide enters the ocean too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and
some plankton need for reef and shell-building. In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, the
researchers found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed as
fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. In ocean sediment cores, the PETM appears as a
brown mud layer flanked by thick deposits of white plankton fossils. About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of
carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive. In about 5,000 years,
atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by
about 6 degrees Celsius. The carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown
clay layer that scientists see in sediment cores today. As many as half of all species of benthic
foraminifera, a group of one-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that
deep-sea organisms higher on the food chain may have also disappeared, said paper co-author Ellen
Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University. "It's really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10
percent of species," she said. Scientists estimate that ocean acidity--its pH--may have fallen as much as
0.45 units as the planet vented stores of carbon into the air. "These scientists have synthesized and evaluated evidence far
back in Earth's history," said Candace Major, program officer in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which
funded the research. "The
ocean acidification we're seeing today is unprecedented," said Major, "even when
viewed through the lens of the past 300 million years, a result of the very fast rates at which we're
changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans." In the last hundred years, rising carbon dioxide
from human activities has lowered ocean pH by 0.1 unit, an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than
56 million years ago, says Hönisch. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that
pH will fall another 0.2 units by 2100, raising the possibility that we may soon see ocean changes similar
to those observed during the PETM. More catastrophic events have happened on Earth before, but perhaps not as quickly. The study
finds two other analogs for modern day 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 because ocean sediments older than 180 million
During the "Great Dying" at the end
of the Permian, about 252 million years ago, about 96 percent of life disappeared. Massive eruptions from
what is known as the Siberian Traps in present-day Russia are thought to have triggered earth's biggest
extinction. Over 20,000 years or more, carbon in the atmosphere rose dramatically. Scientists have found
evidence for ocean dead zones, and preferential survival of organisms predisposed to 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 associated with the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea doubled atmospheric carbon and
touched off another wave of die-offs. Coral reefs collapsed and an entire class of sea creatures, the eellike conodonts, vanished. On land, large plant-eating animals gave rise to meat-eating dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus rex as the Jurassic
years have been recycled back into the deep Earth, scientists have fewer records to work with.
era began. A greater extinction of tropical species has led some scientists to question whether global warming rather than ocean acidification was
the main killer at this time. This study finds that the most notorious of all extinctions, the one that ended the Age of Dinosaurs with a falling
asteroid 65 million years ago, may not have been associated with ocean acidification. The asteroid impact in present-day Mexico 65 million years
ago released toxic gases and possibly set off fires that sent surges of carbon into the air. Though many species of plankton went extinct, coral
reefs and benthic foraminifera survived.
In lab experiments, scientists have tried to simulate modern ocean
acidification, but the number of variables currently at play--high carbon dioxide and warmer
temperatures, and reduced ocean pH and dissolved oxygen levels--make predictions difficult. An
alternative to investigating the paleo-record has been to study natural carbon seeps from offshore
volcanoes that are producing the acidification levels expected by the year 2100. In a recent study of coral
reefs off Papua New Guinea, scientists found that during long-term exposure to high carbon dioxide and
pH 0.2 units lower than today--at a pH of 7.8 (the IPCC projection for 2100)--reef biodiversity and
regeneration suffered.
Current acidification will lead to massive marine biodiversity loss.
Payne 12 (Verity Payne, PhD from the University of Leeds, The Benning Experimental Biogeochemistry group, “New scientific study
suggests ocean acidification rate ‘unparalleled’ over last 300m years,” 3/2/12) \http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/03/new-scientific-studysuggests-ocean-acidification-rate-over-last-300m-years
The world's oceans might be acidifying 10 times faster than at any time during the last 300m years
according to new research. And if geological history is anything to go by, this is bad news for marine
species. Oceans can soak up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One side effect is that the sea
water, which is naturally slightly alkaline, becomes less alkaline and more acidic - a process called ocean
acidification. Scientists are concerned about even quite small shifts in ocean acidity, as it can affect how
marine creatures grow their shells, which can be crucial to their survival. For this new study, published in the journal
Science, researchers looked for evidence of ocean acidification in the past, going back through hundreds of existing studies of oceans throughout
geological history. They
found that over the last 300m years ocean acidification has never happened faster than
it is happening now. The only period that comes close to present acidification rates is the Palaeo-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM), a turbulent period of climate history around 56 million years ago when large
amounts of carbon were naturally released into the atmosphere over a few tens of thousands of years. At
the time, the changes in the climate and ocean were accompanied by the extinction of many marine
species. Over the past century carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by almost a third.
Oceans currently take in about a quarter of the carbon dioxide currently released from human activity.
This has led seawater pH (a measure of acidity - lower pH means more acidic) to decrease by 0.1. This is
around 10 times faster than acidification during the PETM. Scientists also suggest that we are releasing
carbon much faster than carbon was released during the PETM. Study co-author Professor Andy
Ridgwell, University of Bristol, says: "The geological record suggests that the current acidification is
potentially unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years of Earth history, and raises the possibility
that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change." Since climate model projections
suggest ocean acidification could become more severe by the end of the century, it is unlikely that any
past change in acidification can match what we might see in the future. Ridgewell says: "Although
similarities exist, nothing in the last 300 million years parallels rates of future projections in terms of the
disrupting of ocean carbonate chemistry - a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release
currently taking place." Such an unprecedented rate of change in seawater chemistry could affect some
important marine species.
Climate Change causes ocean acidification that threatens the entire food chain
Walsh 2014 (J.D. Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2014,
Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P.
Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. An- derson, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014:
Appendix 3: Climate Science Supplement. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo,
Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 735-789. doi:10.7930/J0KS6PHH. On the Web:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement)
Dissolved calcium and carbonate ions are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many living
things in the oceans. Ocean acidification lowers the availability of carbonate ions in many parts of the
ocean, affecting the ability of some marine life to produce and maintain their shells. Since the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units, representing
approximately a 30% increase in acidity. The oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide produced by
human activities and become even more acidic in the future. Projections of carbon dioxide levels indicate
that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be as much as 150% more acidic,
resulting in a pH that the oceans have not experienced for more than 20 million years and effectively
transforming marine life as we know it. Ocean acidification is expected to affect ocean species to varying
degrees. Some photosynthetic algae and seagrass species may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the
ocean, as they require CO2 to live, as do plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a
more acidic environment has dramatic negative effects on some calcifying species, including pteropods,
oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled
species are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk.
Ocean acidification increasing
NAS and the Royal Society 14
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., 2014, Climate Change: Evidence
and Causes, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidencecauses.pdf
Direct observations of ocean chemistry have shown that the chemical balance of seawater has shifted to a
more acidic state. Some marine organisms (such as corals and some shellfish) have shells composed of
calcium carbonate which dissolves more readily in acid. As the acidity of sea water increases, it becomes
more difficult for them to form or maintain their shells.
CO2 dissolves in water to form a weak acid, and the oceans have absorbed about a third of the CO2
resulting from human activities, leading to a steady decrease in ocean pH levels. With increasing
atmospheric CO2, the chemical balance will change even more during the next century. Laboratory and
other experiments show that under high CO2 and in more acidic waters, some marine species have
misshapen shells and lower growth rates, although the effect varies among species. Acidification also
alters the cycling of nutrients and many other elements and compounds in the ocean, and it is likely to
shift the competitive advantage among species, with as-yet-to-be-determined impacts on marine
ecosystems and the food web.
Climate Change is causing the destruction of Marine biodiversity through ocean
acidification.
Doney 2014 (Scott Doney, Scott Doney is a senior scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry and director of the
Ocean and Climate Change Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Oceans of Acid: How Fossil Fuels Could Destroy Marine
Ecosystems, February 12th, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/ocean-acidification/)
In 2005, hatchery-grown oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest began mysteriously dying by the millions.
Then it happened again in 2006. And again in 2007 and 2008. Oceanographers and fisheries scientists
raced to understand what was behind the catastrophe. Was it bacterial infections? Or something more
sinister? By 2008, after billions of shellfish larvae had died, they had their answer. The waters of the
Pacific Ocean had turned corrosively acidic. The changes were too subtle to be noticed by swimmers and
boaters, but to oysters, they were lethal. Many oyster larvae never made it to adulthood. Those that did
suffered from deformed shells or were undersized. A $110 million industry was on the brink of collapse.The problem is
with the water, of course—its pH had dropped too much—but the root cause is in the winds that blow above the Pacific
Ocean. A shift in wind patterns had pushed surface waters aside, allowing acidic water from the deep to well up onto the shore. Even a few
the oceans absorb
massive amounts of CO2—about one quarter of our excess emissions—and as we pump more of the
greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, we are driving the pH of ocean water lower and lower. Today, ocean
decades ago, such upwelling events weren’t as acidic and probably wouldn’t have been cause for concern. But
waters are up to 30% more acidic than in preindustrial times.Many people are familiar with the link
between using fossil fuels as an energy source and climate change. Less appreciated is how burning fossil
fuels changes ocean chemistry. Marine plants, animals, and microbes are bathed in seawater, and
somewhat surprisingly, even relatively small alterations in seawater chemistry can have big effects.
Oysters are the canary in the coal mine. The basic principles of seawater carbon dioxide chemistry were well understood even as
far back as the late 1950s when David Keeling started his now famous time HYPERLINK "http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/"HYPERLINK "http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/"series of atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii. Then, levels were at
315 parts per million. Now, a little more than a half-century later, carbon dioxide levels are approaching 400 ppm and continuing to rise as we
burn more fossil fuels. The
potential for serious biological ramifications, however, only began to come to light
in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Like other gases, carbon dioxide dissolves in water; but in contrast to
other major atmospheric constituents—oxygen, nitrogen, argon—carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with the
water (H2O) to form bicarbonate (HCO3-) and hydrogen (H+) ions. The process is often called ocean
acidification to reflect the increase in acidity—more H+ ions—and thus lower pH. The other part of the
story has to do with the composition of salty seawater. Over geological time scales, weathering of rocks
on land adds dissolved ions, or salts, to the ocean, including calcium (Ca+) and carbonate (CO32-) from
limestone. Seawater is on the basic end of pH—which greatly increases the amount of carbon dioxide that
can dissolve in seawater. Oysters are just one of many organisms that are dependent on ocean water
plentiful with carbonate ions, a building block that many marine plants and animals use to build hard
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells. These include corals, shellfish, and some important types of plankton,
the small floating organisms that form the base of the marine food web. Today, there are major research programs
around the world that are tracking changes in seawater chemistry and testing how those shifts affect marine organisms and ecosystems. Early
experiments involved growing these organisms in the laboratory where seawater chemistry can be easily manipulated. Many
of the
species tested under acidified conditions had a more difficult time building shell or skeleton material,
sometimes even producing malformed shells. Together these factors could slow growth and lower
survival of these species in the wild.
Marine biodiversity loss now due to anthropocentrism.
Clark and Clausen 2008 (Brett Clark and Rebecca Clausen, Brett Clark teaches sociology at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh. Rebecca Clausen teaches sociology at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. Volume 60 Issue 3 of The Monthly Review, July
August Edition, The Oceanic Crisis: Captialism and the Degradation of the Marine Ecosystem, http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceaniccrisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem)
At the start of the twenty-first century marine scientists focused on the rapid depletion of marine fish,
revealing that 75 percent of major fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. It is estimated
“that the global ocean has lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes.” The depletion of ocean fish
stock due to overfishing has disrupted metabolic relations within the oceanic ecosystem at multiple
trophic and spatial scales.2¶ Despite warnings of impending collapse of fish stock, the oceanic crisis has
only worsened. The severity is made evident in a recent effort to map the scale of human impact on the
world ocean. A team of scientists analyzed seventeen types of anthropogenic drivers of ecological change
(e.g., organic pollution from agricultural runoff, overfishing, carbon dioxide emissions, etc.) for marine
ecosystems. The findings are clear: No area of the world ocean “is unaffected by human influence,” and
over 40 percent of marine ecosystems are heavily affected by multiple factors. Polar seas are on the verge
of significant change. Coral reefs and continental shelves have suffered severe deterioration.¶ Additionally, the
world ocean is a crucial factor in the carbon cycle, absorbing approximately a third to a half of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The increase in the portion of carbon dioxide has led to an increase in ocean temperature and a slow drop
in the pH of surface waters—making them more acidic—disrupting shell-forming plankton and reefbuilding species. Furthermore, invasive species have negatively affected 84 percent of the world’s coastal
waters—decreasing biodiversity and further undermining already stressed fisheries.3¶
Extinction due to marine biodiversity loss is become more probable thanks to
Climate Change.
Sify 2010 – Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global Change
Institute, and John Bruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, “Could unbridled climate changes lead to human
extinction?”, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html)
'The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems' emerged
from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine
scientists.¶ One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of
Queensland and the director of its Global Change Institute (GCI).¶ 'We may see sudden, unexpected
changes that have serious ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the
planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction
event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg.¶ 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the
trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent
of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs
of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added.¶ 'We are
entering a period in which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive
change and in some cases beginning to fail', he added.¶ The 'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to
marine life identified in the report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water
circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths.¶ These are driving major changes in
marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries);
fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more
frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms.¶ Study co-author John F Bruno, associate professor
in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are modifying
many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a million
years'.¶ 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,'
The findings of the comprehensive report:
Bruno warned, according to a GCI release.¶ These findings were published in Science¶
Ocean acidification collapses the marine food chain leading to ecosystem instability.
Doney ‘7
(Scott Doney, Senior Scientist @ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony,
“EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON MARINE LIFE”, 5-10, L/N)
Climate change and ocean acidification will exacerbate other human influences on fisheries and marine
ecosystems such as over- fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, excess nutrients, and invasive species.
Thermal effects arise both directly, via effects of elevated temperature and lower pH on individual
organisms, and indirectly via changes to the ecosystems on which they depend for food and habitat.
Acidification harms shell- forming plants and animals including surface and deep-water corals, many
plankton, pteropods (marine snails), mollusks (clams, oysters), and lobsters (Orr et al., 2005). Many of
these organisms provide critical habitat and/or food sources for other organisms. Emerging evidence
suggests that larval and juvenile fish may also be susceptible to pH changes. Marine life has survived
large climate and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates of climate change and ocean
acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by the planet in the past except for
rare, catastrophic events in the geological record. One concern is that climate change will alter the rates
and patterns of ocean productivity. Small, photosynthetic phytoplankton grow in the well-illuminated upper ocean, forming the base
of the marine food web, supporting the fish stocks we harvest, and underlying the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and many other key elements
in the sea. Phytoplankton growth depends upon temperature and the availability of light and nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and
iron. Most of the nutrient supply to the surface ocean comes from the mixing and upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water from below. An exception
is iron, which has an important additional source from mineral dust swept off the desert regions of the continents and transported off-shore from
coastal ocean sediments. The geographic distribution of phytoplankton and biological productivity is determined largely by ocean circulation and
upwelling, with the highest levels found along the Equator, in temperate and polar latitudes and along the western boundaries of continents. Key
climate-plankton linkages arise through changes in nutrient supply and ocean mixed layer depths, which affect the light availability to surface
phytoplankton. In the tropics and mid- latitudes, there is limited vertical mixing because the water column is stabilized by thermal stratification;
i.e., light, warm waters overlie dense, cold waters. In these areas, surface nutrients are typically low, which directly limits phytoplankton growth.
Climate warming will likely further inhibit mixing, reducing the upward nutrient supply and thus lowering biological productivity. The nutrientdriven productivity declines even with warmer temperatures, which promote faster growth. At higher latitudes, phytoplankton often have access
to abundant nutrients but are limited by a lack of sunlight. In these areas, warming and reduced mixed layer depths can increase productivity.A
synthesis of climate-change simulations shows broad patterns with declining low-latitude productivity, somewhat elevated high- latitude
productivity, and pole-ward migration of marine ecosystem boundaries as the oceans warm; simulated global productivity increased by up to
8.0% (Sarmiento et al., 2004). While not definitive proof of future trends, similar relationships of ocean stratification and productivity have been
observed in year to year variability of satellite ocean color data, a proxy for surface phytoplankton (Beherenfeld et al., 2006); satellite data for
1997-2005 from GeoEYE and NASA's Sea- Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) show that phytoplankton declined in the tropics and
subtropics during warm phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) marked by higher sea surface temperatures and ocean stratification.
Ecosystem dynamics are complex and non-linear, however, and new and unexpected phenomena may arise as the planet enters a new warmer and
unexplored climate state. Ocean nitrogen fixation, for example, is concentrated in warm, nutrient poor surface waters, and it may increase under
future more stratified conditions, enhancing overall productivity.
Changes in total biological productivity are only part of
the story, as most human fisheries exploit particular marine species, not overall productivity. The
distributions and population sizes of individual species are more sensitive to warming and altered ocean
circulation than total productivity. Temperature effects arise through altered organism physiology and
ecological changes in food supplies and predators. Warming and shifts in seasonal temperature patterns
will disrupt predator-prey interactions; this is especially important for survival of juvenile fish, which
often hatch at a particular time of year and depend up on immediate, abundant source of prey.
Temperature changes will also alter the spread of diseases and parasites in both natural ecosystems and
marine aquaculture. Warming impacts will interact and perhaps exacerbate other problems including
over-fishing and habitat destruction.
Massive Marine Biodiversity loss due to Climate Change.
Field 2014 (Christopher Field, IPCC scientist (US) et al, March 2014, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf)
Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution
and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries
productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Spatial shifts of marine species due to projected
warming will cause high-latitude invasions and high local-extinction rates in the tropics and semienclosed seas (medium confidence). Species richness and fisheries catch potential are projected to increase, on average, at mid and high
latitudes (high confidence) and decrease at tropical latitudes (medium confidence). . The progressive expansion of oxygen
minimum zones and anoxic “dead zones” is projected to further constrain fish habitat. Open-ocean net
primary production is projected to redistribute and, by 2100, fall globally under all RCP scenarios.
Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors, thus complicating
marine management regimes (high confidence).
Marine Biodiversity loss now- threatens human survival.
Sielen 2013 (Allan Sielen, is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from 1995 to 2001. The Devolution of the Sea, The consequences of oceanic development.
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable
descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities
have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a
return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time
would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from
the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the
deep. In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and
Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in
geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological
abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are
emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer
Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems
featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish,
and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the
cockroaches and rats. The prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild
coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems threatens our very
survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that sustains life on earth. Destruction
on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of life. It also violates the
unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.
other sea life one associates with the oceans today. Yet that sea life is now in peril.
Pollution is causing marine biodiversity loss now.
Sielen 2013 (Allan Sielen, is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from 1995 to 2001. The Devolution of the Sea, The consequences of oceanic development.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas
The oceans’ problems start with pollution, the most visible forms of which are the catastrophic spills from
offshore oil and gas drilling or from tanker accidents. Yet as devastating as these events can be, especially
locally, their overall contribution to marine pollution pales in comparison to the much less spectacular
waste that finds its way to the seas through rivers, pipes, runoff, and the air. For example, trash -- plastic
bags, bottles, cans, tiny plastic pellets used in manufacturing -- washes into coastal waters or gets
discarded by ships large and small. This debris drifts out to sea, where it forms epic gyres of floating
waste, such as the infamous Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which spans hundreds of miles across the North
Pacific Ocean.
Overfishing is causing marine biodiversity loss now.
Sielen 2013 (Allan Sielen, is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from 1995 to 2001. The Devolution of the Sea, The consequences of oceanic development
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas
Another cause of the oceans’ decline is that humans are simply killing and eating too many fish. A
frequently cited 2003 study in the journal Nature by the marine biologists Ransom Myers and Boris
Worm found that the number of large fish -- both open-ocean species, such as tuna, swordfish, and
marlin, and large groundfish, such as cod, halibut, and flounder -- had declined by 90 percent since 1950.
The finding provoked controversy among some scientists and fishery managers. But subsequent studies
have confirmed that fish populations have indeed fallen dramatically.
Marine Biodiversity Loss Good/No Impact
Marine Biodiversity is resilient to ocean acidification and climate change.
Taylor ‘10 [James M. Taylor is a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News., “Ocean
Acidification Scare Pushed at Copenhagen,” Feb 10
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/26815/Ocean_Acidification_Scare_Pushed_at_Copenhagen.html]
With global temperatures continuing their decade-long decline and United Nations-sponsored global
warming talks falling apart in Copenhagen, alarmists at the U.N. talks spent considerable time claiming
carbon dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic ocean acidification, regardless of whether temperatures
rise. The latest scientific data, however, show no such catastrophe is likely to occur. Food Supply Risk Claimed
The United Kingdom’s environment secretary, Hilary Benn, initiated the Copenhagen ocean scare with a high-profile speech and numerous
media interviews claiming ocean acidification threatens the world’s food supply. “The fact is our seas absorb CO2. They absorb about a quarter
of the total that we produce, but it is making our seas more acidic,” said Benn in his speech. “If this continues as a problem, then it can affect the
one billion people who depend on fish as their principle source of protein, and we have to feed another 2½ to 3 billion people over the next 40 to
Benn’s claim of oceans becoming “more acidic” is misleading, however. Water with a pH of 7.0
is considered neutral. pH values lower than 7.0 are considered acidic, while those higher than 7.0 are
considered alkaline. The world’s oceans have a pH of 8.1, making them alkaline, not acidic. Increasing
carbon dioxide concentrations would make the oceans less alkaline but not acidic. Since human industrial
activity first began emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a little more than 200 years ago, the pH
of the oceans has fallen merely 0.1, from 8.2 to 8.1. Following Benn’s December 14 speech and public
relations efforts, most of the world’s major media outlets produced stories claiming ocean acidification is
threatening the world’s marine life. An Associated Press headline, for example, went so far as to call
ocean acidification the “evil twin” of climate change. Studies Show CO2 Benefits Numerous recent
scientific studies show higher carbon dioxide levels in the world’s oceans have the same beneficial effect
on marine life as higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have on terrestrial plant life. In a 2005 study
published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists examined trends in chlorophyll
concentrations, critical building blocks in the oceanic food chain. The French and American scientists
reported “an overall increase of the world ocean average chlorophyll concentration by about 22 percent”
during the prior two decades of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. In a 2006 study published in
Global Change Biology, scientists observed higher CO2 levels are correlated with better growth
conditions for oceanic life. The highest CO2 concentrations produced “higher growth rates and biomass
yields” than the lower CO2 conditions. Higher CO2 levels may well fuel “subsequent primary production,
phytoplankton blooms, and sustaining oceanic food-webs,” the study concluded. Ocean Life ‘Surprisingly
50 years.”
Resilient’ In a 2008 study published in Biogeosciences, scientists subjected marine organisms to varying
concentrations of CO2, including abrupt changes of CO2 concentration. The ecosystems were
“surprisingly resilient” to changes in atmospheric CO2, and “the ecosystem composition, bacterial and
phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction
were not significantly affected by CO2-induced effects.” In a 2009 study published in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, scientists reported, “Sea star growth and feeding rates increased with
water temperature from 5ºC to 21ºC. A doubling of current [CO2] also increased growth rates both with
and without a concurrent temperature increase from 12ºC to 15ºC.” Another False CO2 Scare “Far too many
predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are treated by alarmists as sure to occur, when real-world
observations show these doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities,” said
Craig Idso, Ph.D., author of the 2009 book CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs. “The phenomenon of
CO2-induced ocean acidification appears to be no different.
Ocean acidification will be slow and stable, proven by 1000 studies- it improves
ocean resiliency
Codling ‘11 [Jo, received a Bachelor of Science first class and won the FH Faulding and the Swan Brewery prizes at the University of
Western Australia. Her major was microbiology, molecular biology. Nova received a Graduate Certificate in Scientific Communication from the
Australian National University in 1989,[4] and she did honours research in 1990, prize-winning science graduate, Jo has has done over 200 radio
interviews, many on the Australian ABC. She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU and is based in Perth,
Western Australia, , “Ocean Acidification — a little bit less alkalinity could be a good thing,” Sept. 11, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/oceanacidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-a-good-thing/]
Studies of how marine life copes with less alkaline conditions include many experiments with water at pH
values in a range beyond anything that is likely on planet Earth — they go beyond the bounds of what’s
possible. There are estimates that the pH of the ocean has shifted about 0.1 pH unit in the last 200 years,
yet some studies consider the effects of water that is shifted by 2 or even 4 entire pH units. Four pH units
means 10,000 fold change in the concentration of hydrogen ions). That’s a shift so large, it’s not going to
occur in the next few thousand years, even under the worst of the worst case scenarios by the most
sadistic models. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible for CO2 levels to rise high enough to effect that kind of
change, even if we burned every last fossil, every tree, plant microbe, and vaporized life on earth. (Yet
still someone thought it was worth studying what would happen if, hypothetically, that happened.
Hmm.)¶ 1103 studies on acidification say there’s no need to panic¶ CO2 science has an extraordinary
data base of 1103 studies of the effects of “acidification” on marine life. They reason that any change
beyond 0.5 pH units is “far far beyond the realms of reality” even if you are concerned about coral reefs
in the year 2300 (see Tans 2009). Even the IPCC’s highest end “scenario A2″ estimate predicts a peak
change in the range of 0.6 units by 2300.¶ Many of the headlines forecasting “Death to Reefs” come from
studies of ocean water at extreme pH’s that will never occur globally, and that are beyond even what the
IPCC is forecasting. Some headlines come from studies of hydrothermal vents where CO2 bubbles up
from the ocean floor. Not surprisingly they find changes to marine life near the vents, but then, the pH of
these areas ranges right down to 2.8. They are an extreme environment, nothing like what we might
expect to convert the worlds oceans too.¶ Marine life, quite happy about a bit more CO2?¶ Studies of
growth, calcification, metabolism, fertility and survival show that, actually, if things were a little less
alkaline, on average, marine life would benefit. There will be winners and losers, but on the whole, using
those five measures of health, the reefs are more likely to have more life on and around them, than they
are to shrink.¶ Figure 12. Percent change in the five measured life characteristics (calcification,
metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) vs. decline of seawater pH from its present (control treatment)
value to ending values extending up to the beginning pH value of "the warped world of the IPCC" for all
individual data points falling within this pH decline range.¶ How can this be?¶ First, marine life evolved
under conditions where most of the time the world was warmer and had more CO2 in the atmosphere than
it does today. Second, like life above the water, life-below-water is based on carbon, and putting more
carbon into the water is not necessarily a bad thing. That said, the dots in the graph above represent study
results, and the ones below zero tell us there will be some losers, even though there will be more winners
(above zer0). Thirdly, watch out for some of the more devastating headlines which also come from
studies where researchers changed the pH by tossing hydrochloric acid into the tank. Chlorine, as they
say, is not the same as the gas nature breathes — CO2. (The strange thing about the studies with
hydrochloric acid, is that it doesn’t seem to be bad as we might have expected– nonetheless, it seems like
a dubious practice to use in studying the health of corals.)¶ The Ocean Acidification Database is housed
at CO2 science.¶ The graph above is just one of many on their results and conclusions page.¶ The bottom
line:¶ Yes, we should watch and monitor the oceans careful. No, there is no chance the Great Barrier Reef
will be gone in the next 100 years: 1103 studies show that if the worlds oceans were slightly less basic
then marine life as a whole will be slightly more likely to grow, survive, and be fertile.
Marine ecosystems are resilient – different from the organisms that died out in the
past
Dupont 2014
(Sam Dupont and Hans Portner, Senior post–doctoral fellow – Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences – Kristineberg and
coordinator of the Ocean Acidification Infrastructure Facility at Kristineberg, Nature – International Journal of Science, “Marine science: Get
ready for ocean acidification,” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/498429a.html, date accessed 6/30,)
Surprising resilience? We have known for decades that ocean acidification threatens calcifying organisms
such as corals, clams, mussels and brittlestars — some to the point of possible extinction within decades.
It came as a surprise in the past few years that some calcifier species are resilient to acidification, such as
the mussels that thrive in Kiel fjord in Germany despite a seasonal flow of CO2-rich waters1. Other
organisms can be both vulnerable and resilient at different times in their life cycles, such as some
phytoplankton, fish and sea urchins. Initially, female green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus
droebachiensis) that are exposed to acidification produce around one-fifth the number of eggs produced
by urchins in current ocean pH conditions. But after 16 months, adults acclimatize and reproduce as
normal.
Ocean biodiversity is getting better – disproves their impact
Panetta, 7/17/13 (Leon, former US secretary of state, co-chaired the Pew Ocean Commission and founded the Panetta Institute at
California State University, Monterey Bay, “Panetta: Don't take oceans for granted,” http://www.cnn.com/HYPERLINK
"http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html" HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panettaoceans/index.html"HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html"2013bgm)
Our oceans are a tremendous economic engine, providing jobs for millions of Americans, directly and
indirectly, and a source of food and recreation for countless more. Yet, for much of U.S. history, the
health of America's oceans has been taken for granted, assuming its bounty was limitless and capacity to
absorb waste without end. This is far from the truth. The situation the commission found in 2001 was
grim. Many of our nation's commercial fisheries were being depleted and fishing families and
communities were hurting. More than 60% of our coastal rivers and bays were degraded by nutrient
runoff from farmland, cities and suburbs. Government policies and practices, a patchwork of inadequate
laws and regulations at various levels, in many cases made matters worse. Our nation needed a wake-up
call. The situation, on many fronts, is dramatically different today because of a combination of leadership
initiatives from the White House and old-fashioned bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill. Perhaps the
most dramatic example can be seen in the effort to end overfishing in U.S. waters. In 2005, President
George W. Bush worked with congressional leaders to strengthen America's primary fisheries
management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This included
establishment of science-based catch limits to guide decisions in rebuilding depleted species. These
reforms enacted by Congress are paying off. In fact, an important milestone was reached last June when
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced it had established annual, sciencebased catch limits for all U.S. ocean fish populations. We now have some of the best managed fisheries in
the world. Progress also is evident in improved overall ocean governance and better safeguards for
ecologically sensitive marine areas. In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a historic executive order
establishing a national ocean policy directing federal agencies to coordinate efforts to protect and restore
the health of marine ecosystems. President George W. Bush set aside new U.S. marine sanctuary areas
from 2006 through 2009. Today, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, one of several
marine monuments created by the Bush administration, provides protection for some of the most
biologically diverse waters in the Pacific.
Oceans resilient
Kennedy 2 - Environmental science prof, Maryland. Former Director, Cooperative Oxford Laboratory.
PhD. (Victor, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate Change,
http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems
are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the
biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to
respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable.
Some species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for
adaptation to climate change.
Numerous alt causes
- coastal development, ocean acidification, warming
Panetta, 7/17/13 (Leon, former US secretary of state, co-chaired the Pew Ocean Commission and founded the Panetta Institute at
California State University, Monterey Bay, “Panetta: Don't take oceans for granted,” http://www.cnn.com/HYPERLINK
"http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html" HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panettaoceans/index.html"HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opinion/panetta-oceans/index.html"2013, bgm)
Despite the strides made in the 10 years since the Pew Oceans Commission issued its report, challenges remain. Coastal
development
continues, largely unchecked, and wetlands and marshes continue to shrink. That exposes more than half
of the Americans who live along the coasts to the physical and economic damage caused by increasingly
high-intensity storms such as Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy. On top of that, major challenges that
the commission could not see as clearly in 2003, including ocean acidification and rising ocean
temperatures, further threaten some of our most valuable fisheries. The United States must pursue a broader, ecosystembased approach to build resilience in our oceans and respond to future threats.
Yes reef loss now/Reef Loss Bad
Coral Bleaching is increasing as a result of climate change causing reef destruction.
Painting 2011 (Rob Painting, Coral: Life’s a bleach and then you die, January 13th, 2011http://www.skepticalscience.com/Coral-lifes-ableach-and-then-you-die.html)
Reef-coral are actually a symbiosis (a mutually beneficial relationship) between the coral polyp, an anemone-like creature, and tiny algae called
zooxanthellae. The coral provide shelter and nutrients for the algae , and in exchange the algae provide carbohydrates (food) to the polyp, using
energy from the sun (photosynthesis) and the nutrients provided by the coral. These algae live in the skin tissue of the polyp and produce the
coloured pigments which make coral reefs so visually spectacular. When this partnership breaks down the polyps expel the algae, which leads to
the "bleached" effect. Although the polyp does feed using its tentacles to snare food, the bulk of its nutrition (90%+) comes from the algae, and
they are a critical component of coral skeleton formation and therefore reef maintenance and growth. Without symbiotic algae, the coral can die
from starvation, or become so weakened by a lack of food, that it succumbs to harmful bacteria and/or seaweeds which can poison and kill coral
on contact.¶ Because reef-coral have adapted tolerance to a narrow band of environmental conditions, bleaching can occur for a number of
reasons, such as ocean acidification, pollution, excess nutrients from run-off, high UV radiation levels, exposure at extremely low tides and
cooling or warming of the waters in which the coral reside. Typically these events are very localized in scale and if bleaching is mild, the coral
bleaching in itself is not something new, but mass coral
bleaching on the huge scale being observed certainly appears to be, and represents a whole new level of
coral reef decline. As coral reefs operate very near to their upper limit of heat tolerance, bleaching en
masse happens when the surface waters get too warm above their normal summer temperature, and are
sustained at this warmer level for too long. The intensity of bleaching corresponds with how high, and
how long temperatures are elevated and, as one might expect, the intensity of bleaching affects the rate of
survival. Small rises of 1 -2 degree C, for weeks at a time, usually induce bleaching. This episodic ocean warming
can survive long enough to re-acquire new algal partners. So
has been most pronounced worldwide during El-Nino events, when the Pacific Ocean exchanges heat to the atmosphere and surface waters. In
recent years though,
severe mass bleaching is happening outside of El-Nino because of the "background" ocean
warming. The huge mass bleaching in the Caribbean in 2005, a non El-Nino year, and again this year is a
prime example of this. Evidence connecting warm surface waters and mass coral bleaching has
strengthened to the extent that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a coral
bleaching alert system in place. This alert system accurately forecasts mass coral bleaching based on
satellite data of sea surface temperatures. The critical issue with global warming induced coral bleaching,
as it is for many eco-systems, is the speed of warming. They are simply not being given sufficient time to
evolve tolerance. The coral's algal partners have short lifetimes and possess genetic traits which may
enable successful adaptation to warming. Coral themselves aren't so lucky, somewhat in contrast to their
algae, they possess a poor genetic ability to combat warming stress and have decadal lifetimes. It's likely
therefore that many coral will die because the speed of warming is too great within an individual
communities lifetime.¶ Perhaps a useful way of looking at it, is that the "bar" is continually being set higher and higher, and the recovery
time between bleaching events becoming smaller and smaller. Gradually this continual ocean warming will start to impact areas which have so
far escaped unscathed, and these coral will succumb too. Of course coral reefs aren't just under fire from bleaching, as mentioned earlier, humans
The increasing frequency and
severity of bleaching, coupled with the persistent decline in coral around the world, should however
immediately dispel any myths about coral resilience.
are hurting them in many other ways. Ocean Acidification in particular is a large looming threat
Climate Change is causing coral bleaching now and will wipe reefs completely.
Cho 2011 (Renee Cho, Losing Our Coral Reefs, June 13th, 2011 Renee Cho is a staff blogger for the Earth Institute and a
freelance environmental writer who has written for www.insideclimatenews.com, E Magazine and On Earth. Previously, Renee
was Communications Coordinator for Riverkeeper, the Hudson River environmental organization. She is currently in the
certificate program at Columbia University’s Center for Environmental Research and Conservation.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs
Coral reefs, the “rainforests of the sea,” are some of the most biodiverse and productive ecosystems on
earth. They occupy only .2% of the ocean, yet are home to a quarter of all marine species: crustaceans, reptiles,
seaweeds, bacteria, fungi, and over 4000 species of fish make their home in coral reefs . With an annual global economic value of
$375 billion, coral reefs provide food and resources for over 500 million people in 94 countries and
territories. But tragically, coral reefs are in crisis. Coral reefs are endangered by natural phenomena such
as hurricanes, El Nino, and diseases; local threats including overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, coastal development, pollution, and
careless tourism; and the global effects of climate change—warming seas and increasing levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. According to Reefs at Risk Revisited, a recent report by the World Resources Institute (WRI),
75% of the world’s coral reefs are at risk from local and global stresses. Ten percent of coral reefs have
already been damaged beyond repair, and if we continue with business as usual, WRI projects that 90% of
coral reefs will be in danger by 2030, and all of them by 2050. The global effects of climate change are also having
critical impacts on coral reefs, and “the evidence is overwhelming that the ability of corals and the reefs they build
to keep pace with the current rate of climate change has been exceeded” according to a recent study. The
average temperature of tropical oceans has increased by .7˚ C which, combined with natural fluctuations
of warmer ocean temperatures, has resulted in extensive coral bleaching around the globe, involving
thousands of square miles of reefs. When El Nino occurred in 1997-1998, widespread and severe coral reef bleaching occurred in
the Indo-Pacific region and the Caribbean, killing 16% of the world’s coral reefs in 12 months. The 30 million tons of carbon
dioxide our oceans absorb every day is changing the chemistry of seawater and increasing acidification.
Today, coral reefs are experiencing warmer ocean temperatures and more acidity than they have at any
time in the last 400,000 years. Acidification reduces the water’s carrying capacity for calcium carbonate
that corals need to build their skeletons. Even a small decrease in the coral’s ability to construct its
skeleton can leave it vulnerable to erosion, and research suggests that coral reefs will begin to dissolve if
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels double this century. It’s estimated that by 2050, only 15% of coral
reefs will have enough calcium carbonate for adequate growth.¶ A new study also shows that ocean
acidification profoundly alters coral reef ecosystems. As C02 levels rise and acidification increases, the
biodiversity of coral reefs drops, resulting in the elimination of key species needed for healthy reef
formation. “The decline of the structurally complex corals means the reef will be much simpler and there
will be less habitat for the hundreds of thousands of species we associate with today’s coral reefs,” said
Katherina Fabricius, a scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. All of these factors act in
concert on coral reefs, and complex interactions between the threats leave coral reefs even more
vulnerable. Climate change will also bring sea level rise that may result in drowned coral reefs, and more
intense storms that produce excessive nutrient or sediment runoff. The overfishing of herbivorous fish and excess
nutrients decrease coral’s resilience in the face of increased CO2. Rising ocean acidity lowers the threshold at which corals bleach. ¶ If we
reach 450 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere (as of 2010, we were at 388 ppm) ocean
temperatures will rise 2˚ C, calcium carbonate levels in the oceans will decrease, and we will largely
destroy all our coral reefs. Coral reefs provide us with food, construction materials (limestone) and new
medicines—more than half of new cancer drug research is focused on marine organisms. They offer
shoreline protection and maintain water quality. And they are a draw for tourists, sometimes providing up
to 80% of a country’s total income. Losing the coral reefs would have profound social and economic
impacts on many countries, especially small island nations like Haiti, Fiji, Indonesia, and the Philippines
that depend on coral reefs for their livelihoods.
Reef loss will escalate to massive proportions by the end of the 21st century.
Connor 2010 (Steve Connor, Science Editor for the Independent, Coral Reefs are in danger of being
destroyed, 2/24/2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/coral-reefs-in-danger-of-beingdestroyed-1908544.html
All of the tropical coral reefs in the world will be disintegrating by the end of the century because of the
rising acidity of the oceans caused by a build-up of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a study
has found. Coral reefs start to disintegrate when the acidity of the oceans rises beyond a certain threshold,
and this point is likely to be reached before 2100, said Jacob Silverman of the Carnegie Institution of
Science in Washington. Carbon dioxide in the air dissolves in the sea to form carbonic acid, which
interferes with the ability of coral organisms to make their calcium carbonate shells which form coral
reefs, Dr Silversman said. But once the shells stop forming, the reef quickly crumbles. A mathematical
model was used to study how 9,000 coral reefs from around the world would respond to rising levels of
carbon dioxide and increasing ocean acidity, Dr Silverman told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
San Diego. "A global map produced on the basis of these calculations shows that all coral reefs are expected
to stop their growth and start to disintegrate when atmosphere CO2 reaches 560 parts per million – double
its pre-industrial level – which is expected by the end of the 21st-century," he told the meeting. "Thus
these ecosystems, which harbour the highest diversity of marine life in the oceans, may be severely
reduced within less than 100 years."¶ The findings were based on a detailed study of how increasing
acidity affects the metabolism and growth of a large area of fringing coral reef in the northern Red Sea.
The scientists found that the ability of corals to form their calcium skeletons was strongly dependent on
acidity and, to a lesser extent, temperature.Dr Simon Donner, of the University of British Columbia in
Canada, said increasing ocean temperatures also make coral reefs more susceptible to "bleaching", caused
by the loss of the photosynthetic algae on which the coral organisms depend.¶ Corals have a symbiotic relationship
¶
with the microscopic algae that live in their tissues. As well as giving coral its vibrant colour, the algae provide the reef creatures with most of
their energy.¶ Dr Donner said: "Even
if we froze emissions today, the planet still has some warming left in it.
That's enough to make bleaching dangerously frequent in reefs worldwide."
Reef Loss happening now as a result of Climate Change.
Science Daily 2007
Coral Reef Targeted Research Program. "Global Warming Is Destroying Coral Reefs, Major Study Warns." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14
December 2007. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213152600.htm
The largest living structures on Earth and the millions of livelihoods which depend upon them are at risk,
the most definitive review yet of the impact of rising carbon emissions on coral reefs has concluded. If
world leaders do not immediately engage in a race against time to save the Earth's coral reefs, these vital
ecosystems will not survive the global warming and acidification predicted for later this century. That is
the conclusion of a group of marine scientists from around the world in a major new study published in
the journal Science on Dec. 13.¶ "It's vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the
world's carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world's most biodiverse marine
ecosystem," said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the
Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR)
group that wrote the new study. The rise of carbon dioxide emissions and the resultant climate warming from the
burning of fossil fuels are making oceans warmer and more acidic, said co-author Harvell, which is
triggering widespread coral disease and stifling coral growth toward "a tipping point for functional
collapse." The scientists argue that rising global CO2 emissions represent an 'irreducible risk' that will
rapidly outstrip the capacity of local coastal managers and policy-makers to maintain the health of these
critical ecosystems, if CO2 emissions are allowed to continue unchecked. "This crisis is on our doorstep,
not decades away. We have little time in which to respond, but respond, we must!" says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg,
lead author of the Science paper, The Carbon Crisis: Coral Reefs under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. "Coral reefs have
already taken a big hit from recent warm temperatures, but rapid rises in carbon dioxide cause
acidification, which adds a new threat: the inability of corals to create calcareous skeletons," said Harvell.
"Acidification actually threatens all marine animals and plants with calcareous skeletons, including
corals, snails, clams and crabs. Our study shows that levels of CO2 could become unsustainable for coral
reefs in as little as five decades." Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, who is based at The University of
Queensland, says coral reefs occupy a unique niche in the world's environment, where water temperatures
and other environmental factors are 'just right'. "But raising as little as 1°C the temperature that ocean
surface waters reach in summer subjects coral reefs to stresses which lead quickly to mass bleaching.
Raise the temperature a little more, and the corals that build reefs die in great numbers. No coral, no coral
reef ecosystem," says Professor Hoegh-Guldberg.
Reef Loss Good/No Impact
Coral Reefs more resilient to Climate Change than originally thought
Pash 2014 (Chris Pash, The Great Barrier Reef May Be More Resilient To Climate Change Than We Thought Business Insider Australia,
June 18th 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-great-barrier-reef-may-be-more-resilient-to-climate-change-than-we-thought-2014-6)
Analysing fossilised corals suggests the Great Barrier Reef was more resilient to past climate change than
we thought, say scientists.¶ However, the researchers caution that temperature changes expected as a result of modern climate change
will occur much more rapidly and could kill off the reef. ¶ According to a study published in the journal Nature
Communications, there are fears that an increase in average summer temperatures by more than 1°C will
result in thermal stress, coral bleaching and death of the world’s largest coral reef system. ¶ Thomas Felis
of the University of Bremen, Germany, and colleagues investigate the response of Great Barrier Reef
corals at the end of the last ice age, when global temperatures rose significantly. Through the analysis of
fossil coral geochemistry, the team show that between 20,000 and 13,000 years ago corals survived and
adapted to temperature changes of several degrees, much larger than previously recognised.¶ Researchers
note, however, that Great Barrier Reef corals adapted to these temperature changes over a period of
several thousand years and suggest that further work is required to determine the timescales required to
adapt to future warming.¶ Professor John M. Pandolfi, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef
Studies and the University of Queensland, says the paper shows there was remarkable variation in sea
surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef between about 20,000 and 13,000 years ago.