Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Warming Core
Warming Bad
***Science Debate***
MILLER: You're right. You cant drop a couple of balls off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to prove climate change. Thats why we have to rely on
mathematical models to try to figure out where this is all going. And that's difficult. But its not impossible, as some people like to paint it. You know, the
people doing the models are not inept. Over the past nearly four years, Climate Watch has interviewed a lot of scientists, attended conferences, read
academic papers. To me, as what you might call an informed observer, the vast preponderance of scientific evidence supports this notion that the Earth is
warming and that human activity is a significant cause. BROOKS: Are there legitimate debunkers of this proposition? MILLER: Certainly there are
side of the question. If you take, for example, a guy by the name of John Christy from the University
of Alabama, who is very strongly identified with climate change skeptics. That doesnt mean that his work is invalidated. He came out recently with a
study that basically refuted the idea that theres been an observable shrinkage in the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada. And we talked to other scientists
who do believe in anthropogenic or human-induced global warming and do believe that the Sierra snow pack is going to be shrinking, who thought that
this study was sound. But thats one study in a sea of studies. And you have look at the preponderance of the evidence
particular year, not even any particular ten years, because even a 10-year trend
does not necessarily constitute climate change. BROOKS: What are some of the metrics scientists have looked at to come to the conclusion that
human-caused climate change is real? MILLER: They study
temperature records. There have been tidal gauges in place for a long time,
Theyve looked at
looking at sea-level rise, and also augmented now by satellite data that measure with greater accuracy the rate of the rise.
things like ice
cores from Greenland and elsewhere which gives us sort of a reverse chronological story of what the climate has done. And you can
found is what looks to be
a pretty convincing relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the behavior of the
Earths climate. BROOKS: But there are some who refute that evidence? MILLER: Absolutely. Well get people frequently commenting on our blog
who will say the sea level is not rising and that theres been no warming for the past ten years. As I already pointed out, ten years of anything
does not constitute a definitive pattern; its just too short a time span. Its this idea of cherrypicking data, which both sides accuse the other of doing. You have to look at the Earths climate over time as a really
big, complicated jigsaw puzzle. And clearly there are pieces missing. And there are pieces sitting off to the side that arent
missing, but we dont quite know how they fit into the puzzle yet. But still, you see enough of the picture to know
whats going on. The science has yielded at least -- as Stanford's Chris Field of the IPCC puts it -- a blurry picture of the
actually pull one of those ice cores and see the amount of C02 that was in the atmosphere at the time. And what they've
future. And the blurry picture is enough to know the general direction were heading, even without knowing all of the specifics. BROOKS: Are there
former critics who now acknowledge the reality of climate change? MILLER: Richard Muller would be a good example of that. Hes the physicist over
at UC Berkeley who was identified with the skeptic camp for a long time. He
launched a temperature-data audit because he wasnt convinced that the temperature data being used by the IPCC and NOAA and
others was accurate, that there were fundamental issues they were getting bad data, garbage in, garbage out.
population has swelled to six billion and vast swathes of habitat across the globe have been lost
to urban development and agriculture. Any plant or animal that needs to move must contend with roads, cities and farms. The
WWF study shows that human barriers to climate-induced migration will have the worst impact along the northern edges of developed zones in central
and northwestern Russia, Finland and central Canada. Large-scale range shifts will have a major effect on biodiversity if species are unable to move to
find suitable conditions. For example, Mexico has the highest diversity of reptiles in the world because of its ancient, isolated desert habitats. However,
several species, including the threatened desert tortoise may not be able to keep pace with the warming climate. In Africa, the nyala is vulnerable to
expected habitat change in Malawi's Lengwe National Park, and scientists have predicted that South Africa's red lark could lose its entire remaining
habitat. Reports of ecosystem changes due to recent global warming are already coming in from many parts of the world. Costa Rica's golden toad may
be extinct because of its inability to adapt to climate changes; birds such as the great tit in Scotland and the Mexican jay in Arizona are beginning to
breed earlier in the year; butterflies are shifting their ranges northwards throughout Europe; alpine plants are moving to higher altitudes in Austria; and
mammals in many parts of the Arctic - including polar bears, walrus and caribou - are beginning to feel the impacts of reduced sea ice and warming
tundra habitat. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has the potential to eventually destroy at least a
third of the world's existing terrestrial habitats , with no certainty that they will be replaced by equally diverse or productive
ecosystems, or that similar ecosystems will establish elsewhere. Unfortunately, some projections for global greenhouse gas emissions suggest that CO2
will not only double from pre-industrial levels during the 21st Century but may in fact triple if action is not taken to rein in
the inefficient use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil for energy production . Amongst the
countries likely to lose 45 per cent or more of current habitat are Russia, Canada, Kyrgyzstan,
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Uruguay, Bhutan and Mongolia. Bhutan and Mongolia in
particular are havens for extraordinary wildlife riches to which climate change represents an
alarming new threat. Local species loss may be as high as 20 per cent in the most vulnerable arctic and mountain ecosystems. Fragmented
habitats in highly sensitive regions including northern Canada, parts of eastern Siberia, Russia's Taimyr Peninsula, northern Alaska, northern
Scandinavia, the Tibetan plateau, and southeastern Australia may be most at risk. Individual mountain species that may be under threat from global
warming in isolated mountain habitats include the rare Gelada baboon of Ethiopia, the Andean spectacled bear, central America's resplendent quetzal,
the mountain pygmy possum of Australia and the monarch butterfly at its Mexican wintering grounds. Many coastal and island species will be at risk
from the combined threat of warming oceans, sea-level rise and range shifts, all of which can add significantly to existing human pressures. As can be
seen from these examples, and the growing body of science, an alarm is sounding . The rate of global warming may be a critical
determinant in the future of the global biodiversity and we cannot afford to wait to reduce
greenhouse gases. Urgent action is necessary to prevent the rate of change reaching a level that
will be catastrophic for nature and which may bring about irreversible losses of our world's
natural treasures.
Warming is anthropogenic
Wood 10 Duncan Wood is Full Professor, Director of the Program in International Relations (Duncan,
Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies, 7/1/2013,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf
JJ)
we are undergoing
a noticeable anthropogenic shift in the worlds weather and temperature. Not only are a range
of indicators showing that the planet is warming, but the retreat of the polar ice caps, the
melting of glaciers, and most importantly in the short term extreme weather conditions and
increased incidence of natural disasters have highlighted the consequences of maintaining the
status quo in our patterns of energy consumption and industrial development . It is estimated that we have
The urgency of finding alternatives to fossil fuels has been confirmed in recent years by mounting scientific evidence that
experienced a 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years and that by the end of the current century global temperatures may
have risen by as much 7 or 8 degrees. Even with the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is
contemplated by the most ambitious mitigation strategies, global temperatures may raise by as
much as 6%. This would have a dramatic and disastrous impact on both developed and developing nations and will threaten the existence of both
humans and animal and plant species. Though the connection between manmade greenhouse gases and global warming was denied for many years by
industry and governments alike, it has now been accepted that something must be done to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Given that 86% of all global energy comes from fossil fuels, and that these
fossil fuels produce 27,000,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, finding alternative sources of energy is a crucial component of climate change
mitigation strategies.
profiles are "not at all what the data show." His research, now replicated by many others,
instead documents a telltale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratospherethe
precise fingerprint that scientists since the 1960s had predicted would occur from the
intensified "greenhouse effect" as increasing amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from
fossil-fuel emissions built up in the atmosphere. Because of his groundbreaking work, Santer
was selected as the lead author on a chapter of the 1995 report issued by the Intergovernmental
causing global warming is stronger than ever and accepted by the overwhelming majority of
scientists. Our understanding of climate fingerprinting has also become far more sophisticated
and now shows human causation in the measured changes in ocean temperatures, Arctic sea
ice, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and many other aspects of climate change. Some of
Santer's more recent work, for instance, addresses changes in the height of the tropopausethe
boundary between the troposphere, the more turbulent lower layer, and the more stable
stratosphere above. (Between 5 and 10 miles above the earth's surface, a marker of the
tropopause can be seen in the flat, anvil-like top of a thundercloud.) Measurements over the
course of several recent decades have shown that the tropopause has risen markedly. By
studying tropopause changes in computer climate models, and comparing model output with
observations, Santer was able to show that both the warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the stratosphere led to a rise in the height
of the tropopauseand that the observed rise in the tropopause matched the fingerprint of an increase in heat-trapping gases. "Nobody had looked at it
before," Santer says, "but the data showed clearly that natural causes alone simply could not provide a convincing explanation for the observed change."
All the climate fingerprinting research to date, Santer explains, has arrived at the same conclusion, namely that "natural causes cannot
provide a convincing explanation for the particular patterns of climate change we see." That, he
says, is why scientists "have come to have such confidence in our understanding of what is
happeningnot because of the claims of any one individual, but because of the breadth of
scientific work and reproducibility of the results."
Warming is anthropogenic - even if there are alt causes, human emissions are the biggest factor
Fitzpatrick 6 (Melanie Fitzpatrick, Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of
Washington, 5/11/06, "Human Fingerprints," Union of Concerned Scientists,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html)\
Background: Driving the Climate ("Forcing") Climate is influenced by many factors, both natural and human. [7] Things that increase temperature, such
as increases in heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants or an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits, are examples of "positive"
forcings or drivers. Volcanic events and some types of human-made pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere,
lower temperature and are examples of "negative" forcings or drivers . Natural climate drivers include the sun's energy
output, aerosols from volcanic activity, and changes in snow and ice cover. Human climate
drivers include heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants, aerosols from pollution,
and soot particles. Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft
flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate
global climate changes under different conditions. These programs use our knowledge of
physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within Earth's atmosphere and oceans
and on its land surfaces. Mathematical models allow scientists to simulate the behavior of
complex systems such as climate and explore how these systems respond to natural and human
factors. Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm The world's oceans have absorbed about 20
times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher
temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The
measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate variation. Fingerprint 2: The Atmosphere Shifts Recent research
shows that human activities have lifted the boundary of Earth's lower atmosphere. Known as the troposphere (from the Greek tropos, which means
"turning"), this lowest layer of the atmosphere contains Earth's weather. The stable layer above is called the stratosphere. The boundary that separates
the two layers, the tropopause, is as high as nine miles above the equator and as low as five miles above the poles. In an astounding development, a 2003
study showed that this tropopause has shifted upward over the last two decades by more than 900 feet. [10] The rising tropopause marks another human
fingerprint on Earth's climate. In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic aerosols) and
three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated
models. Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heattrapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is
trapping more of Earth's outgoing heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat up the
stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 1979-1999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heattrapping emissions and ozone account for more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science
detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate. Fingerprint 3: The Surface Heats Up Measurements show that global average
11
temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades. [1,2] By comparing Earth's
temperature over that last century with models comparing climate drivers, a study showed that, from 1950 to the present, most of the warming was
caused by heat-trapping emissions from human activities [3]. In fact, heat-trapping emissions are driving the climate about three times more strongly
now than they were in 1950. The spatial pattern of where this warming is occurring around the globe
indicates human-induced causes. Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from
volcanic events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor
fluctuations in the sun's output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any
other current climate driver. Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human
activities as the main driver of our warming climate. Human Causes, Human Solutions
12
AT: Bias
Scientists are unbiased and mostly agree that warming is real
Bowman 94+ (Robert M. Lt. Cl., President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, What About
Global Warming?, http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/warming.htm) KA
Naturally, if I didnt think it was real, I wouldnt be writing this paper. But the polluters and their mouthpieces (like Rush Limbaugh) claim its just a
bunch of hot air. Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association (a front for coal and other corporate interests), for example, says, "Known apocalyptic
global warming advocates, in their zeal to convince the world that the holocaust will be upon us unless we curtail our use of fossil fuels, compose
conclusions which ignore actual observations. ... Satellites, that measure the worlds temperature so accurately that they can detect when the moon is
full, find no warming whatsoever in their entire 18-year record." On the other hand, most of the worlds scientists, acting
through the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have reached consensus on the fact
that Global Warming is real and is already happening . Dan Becker of the Sierra Club (a moderate environmental group)
says, "Assertions that satellite records show no global warming are either misinformed or intentionally untrue. The reality is that the last
30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and they have been
documented not by alarmists, but by responsible, unbiased scientists from NASA, NOAA, and
countless universities and research institutions around the world. The average surface temperature of the first
seven years of the 1990s is already higher than the average for the entire decade of the 1980s (the 1980s had previously been the warmest decade in
recorded history)." J. W. Anderson of Resources for the Future (a non-profit research group with environmental leanings) agrees that surface
temperatures have risen a full degree since reliable measurements began, and that recent decades are the warmest since at least 1400. (Little is known
about the earths climate before that time.) Over two thousand scientists have now concluded that global
warming is already changing our climate. 1995 was the warmest year since humans began keeping accurate measurements of
temperature. (Recent data indicates that it wont hold that distinction for long 1997 has been even hotter.) Scientists are documenting the rapid
melting of glaciers. Snow cover is melting much earlier in the year. Ocean temperatures have warmed, sea levels have risen almost one foot, and the
patterns of deep sea currents are shifting. Average surface temperatures in Antarctica have risen two degrees Fahrenheit since 1950. In 1994, warming
temperatures caused a 48 by 22 mile chunk to break off from the Larsen ice shelf, exposing rocks that had been encased in ice for over 20,000 years.
Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, threatening the oil pipeline, buckling highways, and causing other havoc. The ten hottest years in recorded history have
all taken place since 1980! With the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and scientists around the world, ISSS believes that the evidence
is indisputable. Global Warming is real.
13
AT: Idsos
Idsos are paid off
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007
(Responding to Global Warming SkepticsProminent Skeptics Organizations,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)
Greening Earth Society The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view
that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be
located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob
Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the
western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries. Spin: CO2
emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have. Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick,
Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding
from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and
utility company members. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change The Center claims to "disseminate
factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and
biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig
and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society;
the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have
been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another . Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's
good. Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders.
There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels
Association). Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso , Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer
Idsos dont have a peer review they fill their work with meaningless jargon
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2000
(Misinformation About Climate Science, February, http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climatemisinformation.html)
In an attempt to bank on the credibility science generally enjoys and to fight off accusations
of making unscientific, biased claims, skeptics also pursue the idea "if you can't beat them,
join them"if only in appearance. EXAMPLE: The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change This pseudoscientific research center located in Tempe, AZ, who are also involved with the Greening Earth Society. In a position paper on global warming
[13], the two authors (the only listed staff of the Center) state, "There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the
inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There
is also little doubt that the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature
was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for
there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena." The authors then go on to flesh out
14
AT: Adaption
Adaptation isnt sufficient reducing emissions key
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, recently named the worlds top environmental think
tank, 2011
(June 2011, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Science FAQs, http://www.c2es.org/globalwarming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
However, different regions and sectors will differ in their ability to adapt. Natural ecosystems
have inherent, but limited capability to adapt to climate change, which is further impeded by
other human impacts to the environment such as development and habitat fragmentation. Even
human societies, particularly developing countries, have limited resources to respond to the
challenge of climate change. Poor countries and poor populations within rich countries will be
disproportionately impacted by climate change because of their limited resources for
adaptation.
Some climate related impacts are difficult to adapt to. For example, extreme weather events, such as
storms and floods, are not easily ameliorated by adaptation measures. By investing in the reduction of
greenhouse gases, it will offset necessary investments in adaptation in addition to protecting
against those adverse effects of climate change for which adaptation is particularly difficult. It
isclear that responding to climate change requires both mitigation of greenhouse gases and
adaptation to unavoidable change.
15
(June 2011, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Science FAQs, http://www.c2es.org/globalwarming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Global warming is about changes in long-term averages and not about single events; it does not
mean an end to cold weather. Instead, it means that cold weather will become less frequent and
hot weather more frequent when averaged over decades. In fact, both of these trends have been
observed over the past 50 years in the United States and globally. Even with global warming, we will
have cold winters; however, there will be fewer of them. It is also important to remember that a cold
winter for one location doesnt mean a cold winter everywhere. In fact, many parts of the world,
including the Arctic and the tropics, had an unusually warm winter in 2010. To create heavy snowfall the East
Coast experienced during the 2009 and 2010 winters, you need two things: moist air and cold air. In recent
winters, the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical Pacific have supplied lots of moist air, and that is the key to getting
heavy precipitation. We also had more cold air than usual that spilled out of the Arctic. Conditions were just
right in the past two winters for these air masses to meet up and create massive snowstorms. Snowfall
occurs when warm, moist air is forced above the cold air and begins to precipitate into the cold
air, causing what would haven rain to freeze. Since climate change increases the moisture
content of the atmosphere, global warming can actually increase the risk of heavy snowfall.
16
AT: China
China would model US action on climate change
Gardner, correspondent on energy and the environment, 2007
(Timothy, Oct. 2, Scribd, Experts Say China Would Follow U.S. Lead On Climate,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30958756/Warming-General, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
China would soon follow the U.S. lead if Washington agrees to tackle its emissions in the next
few years because China's government takes the threat of global warming more seriously than
the United States does, a climate expert said on Tuesday. "My impression is that the national government -top level ministry officials -- in China regard the threats of global warming to their country with a
much higher level of seriousness than their counterparts do here in the United States," said
David Hawkins of the environmental group National Resources Defense Council. Hawkins, head
of the group's climate center, spoke by telephone to the Reuters Environment Summit in New York. If the
United States agrees to cut emissions deeply with a baseline that gets tougher over time, it
would spur U.S. manufacturers to buildlow-emissions technologies like alternative energy and
coal plants that store carbon dioxide underground. It could then market those technologies to
the world, forcing China to act."The biggest carrot is to have the U.S. to take a leadership role,"
he said. "Then countries like China are going to say, 'What does the United States know that we
don't know?' and agree to their own cuts," said Hawkins. Hawkins is based in Washington but visits
China often, meeting with government ministers heading the country's science and technology, environmental
protection, agriculture, and development reform agencies. He said they are very concerned about the
possibility that global warming would lead to drastic cuts in water for agriculture.
China reducing emissions now Leader in many areas of renewable energy, multiple pledges to
reduce emissions, and committed officials prove
Coonan, reporter for the independent, 2010
(Clifford, Sep. 3, The Independent, China's renewed effort to clean up its act,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/newenergyfuture/chinas-renewed-effort-to-clean-up-itsact-2068595.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
When it comes to environmental issues, China tends to generate negative headlines its badly
polluted skies, its dirty rivers, and its melting glaciers are all images we associate with Chinas remarkable
economic rise. What is less well known is that China is leading the world in adopting key green
technologies to help to fuel the countrys economic boom. The central government in Beijing
has set a target of generating 15 per cent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and
the effects of China going green will be felt all around the world. There is a lot to do. China assumed
the mantle of the worlds largest carbon emitter from the United States in 2007, and its people are forced to
live with the consequences of rapid industrialisation, mostly driven by burning fossil fuels. Coal provides nearly
70 per cent of Chinas energy needs, and this is not likely to end any time soon, but what is crucial is the mix of
how China supplies its energy. According to REN21s 2010 Renewables Global Status Report, China added
37GW of renewable power capacity, more than any other country, to reach 226GW of total renewables capacity.
Globally, nearly 80GW of renewable capacity was added, including 31GW of hydropower and 48GW of nonhydro capacity. China was the top market for windpower, doubling its windpower capacity for the
fifth year in a row. China added 13.8GW of windpower, representing more than one-third of the world
market up from just a 2 per cent market share in 2004. China has nearly doubled its hydropower
capacity during the five years to 2009, adding 23GW in 2009 to end the year with 197GW. Moreover, more
than 70 per cent of the worlds solar hot-water heaters are in China, and they are the main source of
hot water for many households. In July, Chinas National Development and Reform Commission
18
(Doug, June 26, Skeptical Science, CO2 is Coming from the Ocean,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
We can be confident the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the oxidation of fossil
fuels and not from outgassing from the ocean or from soil/land sources by using two key
observations. Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is
going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 ppm) that we are in no danger of running
out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the
carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen
has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the
form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt
in the atmosphere to produce CO2. Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the
CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be
released by fossil fuel burning each year goes. Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2
ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the
atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the missing CO2, so we can
also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and
biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is
that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up
enough.
19
AT: El Nino
El Nino cant explain warming your authors misfiltered data
Cook, Penn State Metereology Professor, Professor of Environmental Science at Auckland University, and
Climatic Researcher at University of East Anglia, 2010
21
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Aug. 20, National Climatic Data Center, "MidHolocene Warm Period - About 6,000 Years Ago,"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene" or a period roughly from
7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Alti-thermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the
current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of
the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about
the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of
temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the
Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation
reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated
and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the
summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes,
however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was
warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or
"Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at
the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all. In
summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer
and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know
without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the
warming over the last 100 years. For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph
courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here.
22
(Christopher, Odil, June 1996, Worldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 130, p. 43, CBC)
To assist policymakers, several recent studies have begun to explore the limits within which the
energy economy will have to stay if the world is to be protected from overly rapid climate
change. They show that it is the rate of warming as much as the absolute amount that will
determine the scale of the human and ecological impact. While both people and natural
systems may be able to adapt to slow change, they could be devastated by more rapid shifts,
which are more likely to cause major disruptions.
Warming is not inevitable even if temporarily over the tipping point, CO2 concentration can
be brought back down.
Dyer, PhD in Middle Eastern history, MA in military history, and environmental author, 2008
There is no need to despair. The slow-feedback effects take a long time to work their way
through the climate system, and if we could manage to get the carbon dioxide concentration
back down to a safe level before they have run their course, they might be stopped in their
tracks. As Hansen et al. put it in their paper: A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping
level [which puts us on course for an ice-free world] is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice-sheet inertia
permit overshoot, provided the [concentration of carbon dioxide] is returned below the tipping level before
initiating irreversible dynamic change .... However, if overshoot is in place for centuries, the thermal
perturbation will so penetrate the ocean that recovery without dramatic effects, such as ice-sheet
disintegration, becomes unlikely. The real, long-term target is 350 parts per million or lower, if we want the
Holocene to last into the indefinite future, but for the remainder of this book I am going to revert to the 450
parts per million ceiling that has become common currency among most of those who are involved in climate
change issues. If we manage to stop the rise in the carbon dioxide concentration at or not far beyond
that figure, then we must immediately begin the equally urgent and arduous task of getting it
back down to a much lower level that is safe for the long term, but one step at a time will have to
24
Best data proves global temperature averages are higher now than the Medieval warm period
NOAA, 2008
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Aug. 20, National Climatic Data Center, "The
Medieval Warm Period," http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html, accessed
7/12/13, CBC)
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century
indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during
the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become
more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum"
temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little
Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional
patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse
going back in time prior to the last four centuries. The plot below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), shows numerous Northern Hemisphere paleoclimatic
temperature reconstructions. The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying
paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice
Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century
temperatures. In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest
period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. For a summary of the latest available research on the nature of
climate during the "Medieval Warm Period", please see Box 6.4 of the IPCC 2007 Palaeoclimate chapter. To
learn more about the "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written
by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (Click here for complete review reference). Discussion of the last 2,000 years,
including the Medieval Warm Period, and regional patterns and uncertainties, appears in the National
Research Council Report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", available from
the National Academy Press.
25
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late
20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the
20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This
rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should
respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past
century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate
should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic
activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earths climate. When
the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external
factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The
models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are
included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that
which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at
high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are
associated with internal climate processes, such as El Nio. Variations in the Earths climate over time are
caused by natural internal processes, such as El Nio, as well as changes in external influences. These external
influences can be natural in origin, such as volcanic activity and variations in solar output, or caused by human
activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions, human-sourced aerosols, ozone depletion and land use change. The
role of natural internal processes can be estimated by studying observed variations in climate and by running
climate models without changing any of the external factors that affect climate. The effect of external influences
can be estimated with models by changing these factors, and by using physical understanding of the processes
involved. The combined effects of natural internal variability and natural external factors can also be estimated
from climate information recorded in tree rings, ice cores and other types of natural thermometers prior to the
industrial age. The natural external factors that affect climate include volcanic activity and variations in solar
output. Explosive volcanic eruptions occasionally eject large amounts of dust and sulphate aerosol high into the
atmosphere, temporarily shielding the Earth and reflecting sunlight back to space. Solar output has an 11-year
cycle and may also have longer-term variations. Human activities over the last 100 years, particularly
the burning of fossil fuels, have caused a rapid increase in carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, these gases had remained at
near stable concentrations for thousands of years. Human activities have also caused increased
concentrations of fine reflective particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere, particularly during the
1950s and 1960s. Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Nio, can cause variations in global
mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors.
Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the
early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas
concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity.
During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels
and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective
dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when
the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors. Numerous experiments have been
conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These
experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they
only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, as shown in Figure 1, models
are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most
(Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earths History?,"
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.2.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earths history. Some aspects of the current
climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at
an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been
during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming
continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely
unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past
climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50
years is attributable to human activities. When comparing the current climate change to earlier, natural
ones, three distinctions must be made. First, it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse
gas concentration or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value or their rate
of change? Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often
much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift
the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback).
Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in
greenhouse gas concentration or solar activity). Third, it is necessary to distinguish between time scales.
Climate changes over millions of years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental drift)
compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale. The main reason for the current concern
about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some
28
(Rasmus, Dec. 6, RealClimate, Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays,"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galacticcosmic-rays/, accessed 7/13/12, CBC)
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic
cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991),
there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earths climate.
Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from
variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earths cloud
cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and
reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by
both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is
clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also
in papers by Svensmark). Svensmarks failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant
long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming
without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for
recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in
GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number
and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started. The fact that
there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for
earths climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how
solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the
solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earths temperatures respond to
changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the
mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related
to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Recent evidence proves that when the Suns activity increases, it tends to cool the Earth
ScienceDaily, 2010
(Oct. 7, ScienceDaily, Decline in Suns Activity Does Not Always Mean That Earth Becomes Cooler,
Study Shows, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006141558.htm, accessed 7/13/12,
CBC)
The Sun's activity has recently affected Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways,
according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial
College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does
not always mean that Earth becomes cooler. It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and
wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching Earth
decreases. This latest study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a
declining part of its 11-year activity cycle. Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the
new research shows that it may have actually caused Earth to become warmer. Contrary to
expectations, the amount of energy reaching Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than
30
(Andrew, Jan. 14, New York Times, Connecting the Global Warming Dots,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14basics.html?_r=0, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on
the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today.
The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely
undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a
formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and
acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis and the proof that people are driving much of the
warming still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people
to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at
which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific
agreement on the planets warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning
emerges from the broadest view, from the balance of evidence, as the scientific case is described in the
periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panels fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in
Paris on Feb. 2. In the panels last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming
report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused
most of the recent warming. A number of trends have been identified:The global average
minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in
the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating
from the earths surface, even after the sun has gone down.)The stratosphere, high above the earths
surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the
surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the suns output, for example, would instead cause
similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.) There has been a parallel warming
trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot
be the only culprit.) Theres no urbanization going on on the ocean, said Jay Lawrimore, chief of
the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another
important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models
remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and
present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary
Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr.
31
(Richard, Mar. 31, Climate Change Policy Issues, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis, CBC)
Let me now address the problem of Poor Temperature Station Quality Many temperature
stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony
Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology
Network would be ranked "poor" by NOAA's own standards , with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C. Did
such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We've studied this issue,
and our preliminary answer is no. The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50
years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good
stations. Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not
appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important. Our key
caveat is that our results are preliminary and have not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. We have begun that
process of submitting a paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and we are preparing several
additional papers for publication elsewhere. NOAA has already published a similar conclusion - that station quality
bias did not affect estimates of global warming based on a smaller set of stations, and Anthony
Anthony Watts and his team have a paper submitted, which is in late stage peer review, using over 1000 stations, but it
has not yet been accepted for publication and I am not at liberty to discuss their conclusions and how they might differ.
We have looked only at average temperature changes, and additional data needs to be studied, to look at (for example)
changes in maximum and minimum temperatures. In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more
warming in the U.S. than the poor stations by 0.009 0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what might be expected, but
also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and performing the calculation in several different ways.
But we are consistently finding that there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to
the inclusion of the poorly ranked US stations.
The Urban Heat Island Effect has zero influence on climate modeling studies prove
Archer, professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, 2008
One oft-discussed issue with regard to the reconstruction of average temperature is called the
urban heat island effect. Paved land is measurably warmer than vegetated land, no doubt about it, because
vegetated land cools by evaporation. The question is whether any warming in the computed average
temperature could actually be the urban heat island effect instead of global warming. Hot
urban centers are part of the Earth, and they do contribute to the average temperature of the
Earth, but their warmth is not caused by rising CO2 concentration. The easiest solution is to
throw out urban data, by picking it out by hand, to leave the average temperature of the nonurban Earth. This is a subjective, imprecise task, but replicate studies find that it makes little
difference to the global average whether urban areas are excluded or not. It turns out to be a
non-issue. Independent, competing studies produce very similar-looking global average land
temperature records, regardless of how they deal with urban heat island effects (Figure 4). So
33
AT: Volcanoes
Volcanoes are comparatively irrelevant to global warming humans emit over a 100 times
more CO2
Gerlach, geologist at the USGS, 2010
(Terry, June 30, Earth Magazine, Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing
science, http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans. So says geologist Ian
Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing
Science. With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate
change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion. Although discussions of volcanic
carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 5 percent of Heaven and Earths text, the alleged
predominance of volcanic over human carbon dioxide emissions is one of its most publicized
takeaway messages. And one that will reverberate in the media and blogosphere no matter how
vociferously professionals who investigate volcanic carbon dioxide emissions bristle and huff about how
appallingly at odds Plimers claim is with our research findings. The treatment of volcanic versus
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in this book illustrates one of the pathways by which myths,
misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate. Like several climate
skeptic publications, blogs and websites, Heaven and Earth does not provide the published estimates of the
present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. These estimates are, ironically, the missing
science of a book professing to rectify supposed excesses of missing science a book that appears
impressively authoritative by citing a mountain of scientific literature. Several studies containing these
estimates are among its 2,311 citations, but the estimates themselves are never divulged. Moreover, the book
and other purveyors of this myth never explain, nor cite sources that explain, how it is known that volcanoes
wholly outdo humans in adding carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere. Published estimates based on
research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial
and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year,
with an average of about 200 million metric tons, These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed
by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land
use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008,
according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you
take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year,
human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
Occasionally, scaled-down versions of the myth surface for example, Volcanoes produce more carbon
dioxide than the worlds cars and industries combined. The truth is that data from the Carbon Dioxide
Information and Analysis Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the International Energy Agency
indicate that light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, wagons) contribute about 3,040 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and industry adds another 6,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
The combined output is about 35 times greater than estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide
output. Another version of the myth is the all-powerful but poorly understood volcanic source.
For example, Heaven and Earth describes submarine volcanoes as poorly understood because of the lack of
continuous observation and measurement, yet carbon dioxide from tens of thousands of submarine hot
springs associated with these submarine basalt volcanoes quietly dissolves in the cold high-pressure deep
ocean water. Then, this statement: One hot spring can release far more carbon dioxide than a 1,000megawatt coal-fired power station yet they are neither seen nor measured. If this is neither seen nor
measured, then how does Plimer know how much carbon dioxide a hot spring emits? No supporting evidence
or references are offered. In fact, there are measurements on the carbon dioxide flux of mid-ocean ridge
hydrothermal fluids, but they do not support the power station comparison. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the average carbon dioxide emission rate from coal-fired
power generation in the United States is 1.02 metric tons per megawatt-hour. So, 1.02 metric
tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, times 1,000 megawatts, times 24 hours per day,
times 365 days per year, equals 8,935,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, one of
these submarine hot springs allegedly generates far more than 9 million metric tons of
Volcanoes prove that climate models are accurate and that warming is anthropogenic
Science Daily, 2002
(Feb. 1, Science Daily, Pinatubo Volcano Research Boosts Case For Human-Caused Global
Warming, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020220075850.htm, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Feb. 21, 2002 NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, NJ Research into the worldwide climatic
impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption during the 10 years since the eruption has
strengthened the case for human causes of global warming, a Rutgers scientist reports in a
paper published in the February 14 issue of the international journal, Science. Share This: The
Pinatubo research also has improved scientists' ability to forecast the impact of future
volcanoes on weather and climate, says the paper's author, Alan Robock of the university's
Center for Environmental Prediction in the Department of Environmental Sciences, Cook
College. According to Robock, the eruption on Luzon Island in the Philippines on June 15, 1991
produced the largest volcanic cloud of the 20th century and caused changes in worldwide
climate and weather that were felt for years. The changes wrought by Pinatubo's sulfuric acid
cloud, which blocked a large percentage of sunlight from reaching the earth, initially included
cooler summers and warmer winters, an overall net cooling at the earth's surface and altered
winds and weather patterns, Robock said. In certain areas such as the Middle East, it produced
a rare snowstorm in Jerusalem and led to the death of coral at the bottom of the Red Sea, he
noted. The cloud also caused depletion of the ozone layer over Temperate Zone regions of the
Northern Hemisphere where much of the world's population resides, in addition to the regular
ozone "hole" which appears in October over Antarctica, the researcher said. Most significant,
the scientist said, Pinatubo helped validate computer-generated climate models that
demonstrate human-caused global warming. Using computer modeling, said Robock, scientists
have been able to account for natural warming and cooling, as found in Arctic and Antarctic ice
core samples and tree rings covering hundreds of years up to the last century. "If you plug in
volcanic eruptions, El Nios, solar variations and other natural causes and try to simulate past
climate changes, you can do a pretty good job of modeling climate change until the end of the
19th Century," the researcher said. After that period, he said, natural causes alone don't
account for the amount of warming, about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit), that
has taken place in the last century. "But when you factor in Pinatubo and other eruptions along
with anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions," said the scientist, "it accounts for the
observed record of climate change for the past century, including the overall warming and
episodic cooling, and validates the climate models."
35
Impacts
36
Global Instability
Climate change will cause global instability
The Guardian 2007 [Climate Wars Threaten Billions, Common Dreams,
11/5/07,http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5016/] Victor, 7-12-13, KB
A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed
conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilization,
affecting another 1.2 billion individuals. This stark warning will be outlined by the peace group International
Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict, this week. Much of Africa, Asia and South America will suffer
outbreaks of war and social disruption as climate change erodes land, raises seas, melts
glaciers and increases storms, it concludes. Even Europe is at risk. 'Climate change will compound
the propensity for violent conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer and less able to cope with
the consequences of climate change,' the report states. The worst threats involve nations lacking
resources and stability to deal with global warming, added the agency's secretary-general, Dan Smith.
'Holland will be affected by rising sea levels, but no one expects war or strife,' he told The Observer. 'It has the
resources and political structure to act effectively. But other countries that suffer loss of land and water
and be buffeted by increasingly fierce storms will have no effective government to ensure
corrective measures are taken. People will form defensive groups and battles will break out.'
Consider Peru, said Smith. Its fresh water comes mostly from glacier melt water. But by 2015 nearly all Peru's
glaciers will have been removed by global warming and its 27 million people will nearly all lack fresh water. If
Peru took action now, it could offset the impending crisis, he added. But the country has little experience of
effective democracy, suffers occasional outbreaks of insurgency, and has border disputes with Chile and
Ecuador. The result is likely to be 'chaos, conflict and mass migration'. A different situation affects Bangladesh.
Here climate-linked migration is already triggering violent conflict, says International Alert.
Droughts in summer combined with worsening flooding in coastal zones, triggered by
increasingly severe cyclones, are destroying farmland. Millions have already migrated to India,
causing increasingly serious conflicts that are destined to worsen. In Africa, rivers such as the
Niger and Monu are key freshwater resources passing through many nations. As droughts
worsen and more water is extracted from them conflicts will be inevitable. In Europe, most
countries are currently considered stable enough to cope with global warming, apart from the
Balkans; wars have left countries such as Serbia and Montenegro politically weakened. As
temperatures rise and farmland is reduced, population pressures will trigger violence that
authorities will be unable to contain. Some nations on the risk map, such as Russia, may cause
surprise. 'Moscow's control of Russia as a whole will not be undermined by global warming,'
said Smith. 'But loss of farmland in some regions will lead to local rebellions like those already
triggered in Chechnya.' Conflict triggered by climate change is not a vague threat for coming
years, he added. 'It is already upon us.'
37
42
shocks as an instrument for growth shocks.99 Adverse climatic conditions already make societies more prone to violence and conflict across the
developing world, both internally and cross-border. Long periods of drought in the 1970s and 1980s in Sudans
Northern Darfur State, for example, resulted in deep, widespread poverty and, along with many
other factors such as a breakdown in methods of coping with drought , has been identified by some studies as a
contributor to the current crisis there.100 Whilst climate change can contribute to the risk of conflict, however, it is very unlikely to be the single driving
factor. Empirical evidence shows that a changing and hostile climate has resulted in tension and conflict in some countries but not others. The risk
of climate change sparking conflict is far greater if other factors such as poor governance and
political instability, ethnic tensions and, in the case of declining water availability, high water
interdependence are already present. In light of this, West Africa, the Nile Basin and Central Asia have been identified as regions
potentially at risk of future tension and conflict. Box 4.6 indicates areas vulnerable to future tension and past conflicts where an adverse climate has
played an important role. Future risks West Africa: Whilst there is still much uncertainty surrounding the future changes in rainfall in this part
of the world, the region is
already exposed to declining average annual rainfall (ranging from 10% in the wet tropical
falling discharge in major river systems of
between 40 to 60% on average. Changes of this magnitude already give some indication of the
magnitude of risks in the future given that we have only seen 0.7C increase and 3C or 4C more could be on the way in the next 100
to 150 years. The implications of this are amplified by both the high water interdependence in the
region - 17 countries share 25 transboundary watercourses and plans by many of the countries to invest in large dams that will both increase water
withdrawals and change natural water allocation patterns between riparian countries.101 The region faces a serious risk of
water-related conflict in the future if cooperative mechanisms are not agreed . 102 The Nile: Ten countries
zone to more than 30% in the Sahelian zone since the early 1970s) and
share the Nile. 103 While Egypt is water scarce and almost entirely dependent on water originating from the upstream Nile basin countries,
approximately 70% of the Niles waters flow from the Ethiopian highlands. Climate change threatens an increase in
competition for water in the region, compounded by rapid population growth that will increase
demand for water. The population of the ten Nile countries is projected to increase from 280 million in 2000 to 860 million by 2050. A recent
study by Strzepek et al (2001) found a propensity for lower Nile flows in 8 out of 8 climate scenarios, with impacts ranging from no change to a roughly
40% reduction in flows by 2025 to over 60% by 2050 in 3 of the flow scenarios. 104 Regional cooperation will be critical to avoid future climate-driven
conflict and tension in the region.
44
46
47
Climate change impacts stability doubles likelihood of civil war and may have caused one fifth
of global conflicts
Goodman 11 interview conducted by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, A Daily Independent
Global News Hour, 8/29/11, Global Warming & War: New Study Finds Link Between Climate Change and
Conflict, an interview with Solomon Hsiang, lead author of a study linking civil wars with global climate
change, and postdoctoral researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at
Princeton University, Democracy Now!)
We move to another issue around climate. A new study has found that war is associated with global
climate. According to the report, there are links between the climate phenomenon El Nio and
outbreaks of violence in countries from southern Sudan to Indonesia and Peru. In fact, the
scientists find that El Nio, which brings hot and dry conditions to tropical nations, doubles the
risk of civil war in up to 90 countries. The study was published online last week in the journal Nature. El
Nio may help account for a fifth of conflicts worldwide during the past 50 years.
Global warming is real, feedbacks cause rapid escalation, and it causes population
migrations fueling political instability and failed states, escalating to nuclear war and
extinction
Kaku , co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory. 11 Michio Kaku, He received a B.S. (summa
cum laude) from Harvard University in 1968 where he came first in his physics class. (Physics of the Future
http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf PB)
By midcentury, the full impact of a fossil fuel economy should be in full swing: global warming. It is
now indisputable that the earth is heating up. Within the last century, the earths
temperature rose 1.3 F, and the pace is accelerating . The signs are unmistakable everywhere
we look: The thickness of Arctic ice has decreased by an astonishing 50 percent in just the
past fifty years. Much of this Arctic ice is just below the freezing point, floating on water. Hence, it is
acutely sensitive to small temperature variations of the oceans, acting as a canary in a mineshaft,
an early warning system. Today, parts of the northern polar ice caps disappear during the summer
months, and may disappear entirely during summer as early as 2015. The polar ice cap may vanish
permanently by the end of the century, disrupting the worlds weather by altering the flow of
ocean and air currents around the planet. Greenlands ice shelves shrank by twenty-four square
miles in 2007. This figure jumped to seventy-one square miles in 2008. (If all the Greenland ice were
somehow to melt, sea levels would rise about twenty feet around the world.) Large chunks of
Antarcticas ice, which have been stable for tens of thousands of years, are gradually breaking
off. In 2000, a piece the size of Connecticut broke off, containing 4,200 square miles of ice. In 2002, a
piece of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaites Glacier. (If all Antarcticas ice were to melt,
sea levels would rise about 180 feet around the world.) For every vertical foot that the ocean rises,
the horizontal spread of the ocean is about 100 feet . Already, sea levels have risen 8 inches in
the past century, mainly caused by the expansion of seawater as it heats up . According to the
United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Some scientists have said that the UN
report was too cautious in interpreting the data. According to scientists at the University of Colorados
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, by 2100 sea levels could rise by 3 to 6 feet. So gradually the
map of the earths coastlines will change. Temperatures started to be reliably recorded in the late
1700s; 1995, 2005, and 2010 ranked among the hottest years ever recorded; 2000 to 2009 was the
hottest decade. Likewise, levels of carbon dioxide are rising dramatically. They are at the highest
levels in 100,000 years. As the earth heats up, tropical diseases are gradually migrating northward.
The recent spread of the West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes may be a harbinger of things to come.
UN officials are especially concerned about the spread of malaria northward. Usually, the eggs of
many harmful insects die every winter when the soil freezes. But with the shortening of the winter
season, it means the inexorable spread of dangerous insects northward. CARBONDIOXIDE
GREENHOUSEGAS According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists
48
have concluded with 90 percent confidence that global warming is driven by human activity,
especially the production of carbon dioxide via the burning of oil and coal. Sunlight easily passes
through carbon dioxide. But as sunlight heats up the earth, it creates infrared radiation, which does
not pass back through carbon dioxide so easily. The energy from sunlight cannot escape back into
space and is trapped. We also see a somewhat similar effect in greenhouses or cars. The sunlight
warms the air, which is prevented from escaping by the glass. Ominously, the amount of carbon
dioxide generated has grown explosively, especially in the last century. Before the Industrial
Revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the air was 270 parts per million (ppm). Today, it has
soared to 387 ppm. (In 1900, the world consumed 150 million barrels of oil. In 2000, it jumped to 28
billion barrels, a 185-fold jump. In 2008, 9.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were sent into the air from
fossil fuel burning and also deforestation, but only 5 billion tons were recycled into the oceans, soil,
and vegetation. The remainder will stay in the air for decades to come, heating up the earth.) VISIT
TO ICELAND The rise in temperature is not a fluke, as we can see by analyzing ice cores. By drilling
deep into the ancient ice of the Arctic, scientists have been able to extract air bubbles that are
thousands of years old. By chemically analyzing the air in these bubbles, scientists can reconstruct the
temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere going back more than 600,000 years.
Soon, they will be able to determine the weather conditions going back a million years. I had a chance
to see this firsthand. I once gave a lecture in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and had the privilege of
visiting the University of Iceland, where ice cores are being analyzed. When your airplane lands in
Reykjavik, at first all you see is snow and jagged rock, resembling the bleak landscape of the moon.
Although barren and forbidding, the terrain makes the Arctic an ideal place to analyze the climate of
the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. When I visited their laboratory, which is kept at
freezing temperatures, I had to pass through thick refrigerator doors. Once inside, I could see racks
and racks containing long metal tubes, each about an inch and a half in diameter and about ten feet
long. Each hollow tube had been drilled deep into the ice of a glacier. As the tube penetrated the ice, it
captured samples from snows that had fallen thousands of years ago. When the tubes were removed, I
could carefully examine the icy contents of each. At first, all I could see was a long column of white
ice. But upon closer examination, I could see that the ice had stripes made of tiny bands of different
colors. Scientists have to use a variety of techniques to date them. Some of the ice layers contain
markers indicating important events, such as the soot emitted from a volcanic eruption. Since the
dates of these eruptions are known to great accuracy, one can use them to determine how old that
layer is. These ice cores were then cut in various slices so they could be examined. When I peered into
one slice under a microscope, I saw tiny, microscopic bubbles. I shuddered to realize that I was seeing
air bubbles that were deposited tens of thousands of years ago, even before the rise of human
civilization. The carbon dioxide content within each air bubble is easily measured. But calculating the
temperature of the air when the ice was first deposited is more difficult. (To do this, scientists analyze
the water in the bubble. Water molecules can contain different isotopes. As the temperature falls,
heavier water isotopes condense faster than ordinary water molecules. Hence, by measuring the
amount of the heavier isotopes, one can calculate the temperature at which the water molecule
condensed.) Finally, after painfully analyzing the contents of thousands of ice cores, these scientists
have come to some important conclusions. They found that temperature and carbon dioxide levels
have oscillated in parallel, like two roller coasters moving together, in synchronization over many
thousands of years. When one curve rises or falls, so does the other. Most important, they found a
sudden spike in temperature and carbon dioxide content happening just within the last century. This
is highly unusual, since most fluctuations occur slowly over millennia. This unusual spike is not part
of this natural heating process, scientists claim, but is a direct indicator of human activity . There are
other ways to show that this sudden spike is caused by human activity, and not natural cycles.
Computer simulations are now so advanced that we can simulate the temperature of the earth with
and without the presence of human activity. Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a
relatively flat temperature curve. But with the addition of human activity, we can show that there
49
should be a sudden spike in both temperature and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual
spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the amount of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the
earths surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of heat that is reflected into outer space from
the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with input equaling output. But in
reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then if we calculate the
amount of energy being produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human activity
is causing the current heating of the earth. Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing
any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the atmosphere is enough to continue
global warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire. Scientists
have created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels
continue to rise. Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated,
with Wall Street underwater. Governments will have to decide which of their great cities and capitals
are worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a combination of
sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish
under the ocean, creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and population
centers of the world are next to the ocean, this could have a disastrous effect on the world economy.
Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms can send surges of water
into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm surge flooded Manhattan,
paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation flooded, the economy
grinds to a halt. FLOODING BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM A report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change isolated three hot spots for potential disaster: Bangladesh, the Mekong
Delta of Vietnam, and the Nile Delta in Egypt. The worst situation is that of Bangladesh, a country
regularly flooded by storms even without global warming. Most of the country is flat and at sea level.
Although it has made significant gains in the last few decades, it is still one of the poorest nations on
earth, with one of the highest population densities. (It has a population of 161 million, comparable to
that of Russia, but with 1/120 of the land area.) About 50 percent of the land area will be permanently
flooded if sea levels rise by three feet. Natural calamities occur there almost every year, but in
September 1998, the world witnessed in horror a preview of what may become commonplace. Massive
flooding submerged two-thirds of the nation, leaving 30 million people homeless almost overnight;
1,000 were killed, and 6,000 miles of roads were destroyed. This was one of the worst natural
disasters in modern history. Another country that would be devastated by a rise in sea level is
Vietnam, where the Mekong Delta is particularly vulnerable. By midcentury, this country of 87 million
people could face a collapse of its main food-growing area. Half the rice in Vietnam is grown in the
Mekong Delta, home to 17 million people, and much of it will be flooded permanently by rising sea
levels. According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if
sea levels rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt
water, permanently destroying the fertile soil of the area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in
Vietnam, many will flock to Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the city will also be
underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that
showed that, in a worst-case scenario, chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As
millions of refugees cross national borders, governments could lose all authority and collapse, so
countries could descend into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In this desperate situation,
nations, when faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to
nuclear weapons. Envision Pakistan, India, and Chinaall armed with nuclear weapons
skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land, the report said.
Peter Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of the Pentagon study,
confided to me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border
between India and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be
driven out of their homes, sparking one of the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could
rapidly rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass rioting breaks out.
50
Schwartz sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort. In a worst-case scenario, we
could have a greenhouse effect that feeds on itself. For example, the melting of the tundra in the
Arctic regions may release millions of tons of methane gas from rotting vegetation. Tundra covers
nearly 9 million square miles of land in the Northern Hemisphere, containing vegetation frozen since
the last Ice Age tens of thousands of years ago. This tundra contains more carbon dioxide and
methane than the atmosphere, and this poses an enormous threat to the worlds weather. Methane
gas, moreover, is a much deadlier greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It does not stay in the
atmosphere as long, but it causes much more damage than carbon dioxide. The release of so much
methane gas from the melting tundra could cause temperatures to rapidly rise, which will cause even
more methane gas to be released, causing a runaway cycle of global warming.
51
52
XT CCP
Food shortages from warming will threaten the CCP and lead to violent protests and draw in
other major powers
Feffer and Bleicher, co-director of Institute for Foreign Policys Foreign Policy in Focus, and Professor of
Law at Georgetown 2008 (John and Samuel, May 8 2008, Foreign Policy in Focus China: Superpower or
Basket Case? http://fpif.org/china_superpower_or_basket_case/ NMS)
In light of these realities, the West is overly focused on the Chinese emerging superpower threat
and giving far too little attention to the real risks and foreign policy challenges that would flow
from a serious breakdown in Chinese economic, political, or social structures. A crisis might be
triggered by any number of factors. A dramatic slowdown in the Chinese or world economy could
disrupt the lives of millions of factory workers. Serious rationing of water, food, or energy, whether by
dramatic price increases or some other mechanism, could be unacceptably painful for a large part of
the population. The loss of individual savings from a stock market or banking collapse could fuel
popular discontent among the new urban elite. Even with continuing economic progress, widening
income disparities could generate increasingly serious opposition in rural areas. A widespread
farmers strike might cut off food to the urban centers, leaving them in a state of chaos. Systemic
crisis could then lead to an open challenge to the regime. Here are two scenarios to consider. In one,
students, factory workers, and peasants gather again in Tiananmen Square to protest economic
conditions and perceived political non-responsiveness. When urban professionals start to join
them, the central government calls in the army. It begins a brutal campaign of violently repressing
demonstrators, arresting domestic and foreign media representatives, and purging
uncooperative members of the Party and civilian government, entirely disregarding the legal
system. The demonstrations do not stop, and various groups ask for outside help to protect foreign
residents and foreign investment and to end the wholesale disregard of human rights. Overseas Chinese
and major U.S. banks and corporations with investments and supply lines at stake argue that
the situation is too dangerous to ignore.
53
55
Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens.
International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever . Michael Osterholm, an infectious
disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim
against the current of a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a
strain that spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control,
perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot . About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions
swept through the Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which
humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.
57
XT Disease
Warming spreads tropical disease everywhere
Irfan 12 (Umfair Irfan, reporter for Scientific America, a scientific news agency, June 4, 2012,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exotic-diseases-warmer-climate-us-gain)
Diseases once thought to be rare or exotic in the United States are gaining a presence and
getting new attention from medical researchers who are probing how immigration, limited
access to care and the impacts of climate change are influencing their spread. Illnesses like
schistosomiasis, Chagas disease and dengue are endemic in warmer, wetter and poorer areas of the world,
often closer to the equator. According to the World Health Organization, almost 1 billion people are afflicted
with more than one tropical disease. Caused by bacteria, parasites and viruses, these diseases are
spread through bites, excrement and dirty water stemming from substandard housing and
sanitation. Consequently, the United States has been largely isolated from them. But Americans
are traveling more, and as tropical vacationers return home, they may unwittingly bring back dangerous
souvenirs. Immigrants from endemic regions are also bringing in these diseases, some of which can lie
dormant for years. All the while, the flies, ticks and mosquitoes that spread these illnesses are moving north as
rising temperatures make new areas more welcoming. In 2009, dengue emerged in south Florida and
infected more than 60 people, the first outbreak since 1934, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dengue is caused by four closely related viruses spread
by mosquitoes. It results in joint and muscle pain, severe headaches and bleeding. The outbreak
was first detected in a Rochester, N.Y., woman who traveled to Key West, Fla., for one week, with several Key
West residents subsequently reporting infections. The infection rate rose to 5 percent, which CDC said
indicated "a serious risk of transmission." According to the Monroe County Health Department, there
hasn't been a confirmed dengue case in the Florida Keys since November 2010. "We keep the
public aware that they need to be dumping standing water and wearing mosquito repellent,"
explained Chris Tittle, public information officer at the health department. The outbreak may
have been linked to travel from Latin America and the Caribbean, where the disease's incidence
has risen fourfold over the past 30 years. In 2010, Puerto Rico faced the largest dengue
epidemic in its history. However, not every outbreak is imported, and future epidemics may come from
within. "There's a substantial but hidden burden of tropical disease in the United States, particularly among
people in poverty," said Peter Hotez, founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, the first such
school in the United States, at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. Diseases like leishmaniasis often are not
tracked rigorously in this country and are classified as neglected, unlike vector-borne illnesses like Lyme
disease that are monitored.
Warming makes spreads disease misquitos
Surendran et al 12 (Ranjan Ramasamy and Sinnathamby Noble Surendran, National Center for
Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Published online 2012 June 19,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377959/)
Models have been developed for forecasting the impact of global climate change on mosquitoborne diseases, notably the global distributions of malaria (Lindsay and Martens, 1998; Githeko et
al., 2000; Rogers and Randolph, 2000; Paaijmans et al., 2009) and dengue (Hales et al., 2002). One model
used current temperature, rainfall, and humidity ranges that permit malaria transmission to
forecast malaria distribution in 2050 in a global climate change scenario (Rogers and Randolph,
2000). This model found surprisingly few changes, but predicted that some parts of the world
that are presently free of malaria may be prone to a greater risk of malaria transmission while
certain malaria-endemic areas will have a decreased risk of malaria transmission (Rogers and
Randolph, 2000). Larger areas of northern and eastern Australia are expected to become more conducive for
the transmission of dengue (McMichael et al., 2006) and a greater proportion of the global population at risk of
dengue (Hales et al., 2002) as a result of global climate change. While these models did not specifically address
changes in coastal zones, the transmission of malaria (Rogers and Randolph, 2000) and dengue (Hales et al.,
2002; McMichael et al., 2006) were generally predicted to increase in coastal areas of northern and eastern
Australia. Many modeling forecasts are limited by uncertainties in the extent of global climate change as a
62
63
XT Food
Warming reduces global food production, which leads to global starvation
IPCC 2007 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, December 12-17-2007, p. 26 NMS)
At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to
decrease for even small local temperature increases (1 to 2C), which would increase the risk of
hunger (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM} _ Globally, the potential for food production is
projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3C, but above
this it is projected to decrease (medium confidence).
64
65
66
among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation
by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of
wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly
escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an
unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which
escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and
decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster
every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with
substantial risk for the entire
world.
68
XT Mid East
Warming leads to middle east instability and conflicts
Guttman Washington correspondent for the Israeli daily newspaper, 2007 (Nathan, June 13, 2007 The
Jewish Daily, Congress Warned That Global Warming Is Threat to Israel and Moderate Arab States
http://forward.com/articles/10954/congress-warned-that-global-warming-is-threat-to-i/#ixzz2Yxg65IFY
NMS)
Israel is an insignificant player in contributing to global warming, but it suffers from it in a
nonproportional rate, Bar-Or said. The main changes, the Israeli experts predicted, would be a drop
in the water supply already a scarce commodity in the Middle East and an expected rise in
temperature that will make it even more difficult to replenish water sources. According to the
information presented this week, if action is not taken, then Israel might be facing a loss of up to 100
millimeters of rain a year almost 20% of the countrys annual rainfall. For Israel, water
shortages could influence not only its population but also the future of its relations with
neighboring countries. Israel is already facing difficulties fulfilling its agreement as part of its
1994 peace treaty with Jordan to transfer water to the Hashemite kingdom, and will face great problems
when trying to work out water arrangements with Palestinians in a final status agreement. The Jordanian
monarchy, which is based on support of the agricultural communities, might be in danger. The
same is true for the Palestinian leadership, which might encounter an uprising of extremists
who will feed on the poverty and despair caused by the collapse of agriculture due to lack of
water.
69
70
increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high
priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may
be only imperfect analogs to current conditions. Over the past 250 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) levels increased by nearly 40%, from preindustrial levels of approximately 280 ppmv (parts per
million volume) to nearly 384 ppmv in 2007 (Solomon et al. 2007). This rate of increase, driven by
human fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is at least an order of magnitude faster than has
occurred for millions of years (Doney & Schimel 2007), and the current concentration is higher
than experienced on Earth for at least the past 800,000 years (Lthi et al. 2008). Rising
atmospheric CO2 is tempered by oceanic uptake, which accounts for nearly a third of
anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere (Sabine & Feely 2007, Sabine et al. 2004), and
without which atmospheric CO2 would be approximately 450 ppmv today, a level of CO2 that would
have led to even greater climate change than witnessed today. Ocean CO2 uptake, however, is not
benign; it causes pH reductions and alterations in fundamental chemical balances that together
are commonly referred to as ocean acidification . Because climate change and ocean acidification
are both caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, acidification is commonly referred to as the other
CO2 problem (Henderson 2006, Turley 2005). Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence
of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties associated with climate
change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs, are well verified
from models, hydrographic surveys, and time series data (Caldeira & Wickett 2003,2005; Feely et al.
2004, 2008; Orr et al. 2005; Solomon et al. 2007). At the Hawaii Ocean Time-Series (HOT) station
ALOHA the growth rates of surface water pCO2 and atmospheric CO2 agree well (Takahashi et al.
2006) (Figure 1), indicating uptake of anthropogenic CO2 as the major cause for long-term increases
in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and decreases in CaCO 3 saturation state. Correspondingly, since
the 1980s average pH measurements at HOT, the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series Study, and European
Station for Time-Series in the Ocean in the eastern Atlantic have decreased approximately 0.02 units
per decade (Solomon et al. 2007). Since preindustrial times, the average ocean surface water pH has
fallen by approximately 0.1 units, from approximately 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society 2005), and is
expected to decrease a further 0.30.4 pH units (Orr et al. 2005) if atmospheric CO2 concentrations
reach 800 ppmv [the projected end-of-century concentration according to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenario]. Fossil fuel combustion and
agriculture also produce increased atmospheric inputs of dissociation products of strong acids (HNO 3
and H2SO4) and bases (NH3) to the coastal and open ocean. These inputs are particularly important
71
close to major source regions, primarily in the northern hemisphere, and cause decreases in surface
seawater alkalinity, pH, and DIC (Doney et al. 2007). On a global scale, these anthropogenic inputs
(0.8 Tmol/yr reactive sulfur and 2.7 Tmol/yr reactive nitrogen) contribute only a small fraction of the
acidification caused by anthropogenic CO2, but they are more concentrated in coastal waters
where the ecosystem responses to ocean acidification could be more serious for humankind .
Seawater carbon dioxide measurements have been conducted since the beginning of the nineteenth
century (Krogh 1904) but were sparse until the middle of the twentieth century (Keeling et al. 1965,
Takahashi 1961) and particularly until the Geochemical Sections (GEOSECS) (19731979) (Craig &
Turekian 1976, 1980) and Transient Tracers in the Ocean (TTO) (19811983) (Brewer et al. 1985)
programs. Even so, the GEOSECS and TTO measurements were significantly less precise than those
of today. Although researchers recognized that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the surface
ocean was more or less in equilibrium with overlying atmosphere CO2, they largely dismissed the
potential impact on the ocean biota because calcite (the assumed CaCO 3 mineralogy of most calcifying
organisms) would remain supersaturated in the surface ocean. Since then, multiple studies revealed
several issues that elevate ocean acidification as a threat to marine biota : (a) the calcification
rates of many shell-forming organisms respond to the degree of supersaturation (e.g.,Smith &
Buddemeier 1992, Kleypas et al. 1999); (b) aragonite, a more soluble CaCO3 mineral equally
important in calcifying organisms, may become undersaturated in the surface ocean within the early
21st century (Feely & Chen 1982, Feely et al. 1988, Orr et al. 2005); and (c) the biological effects of
decreasing ocean pH reach far beyond limiting calcification.
Marine ecosystems are critical to the survival of all life on earth.
Craig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for
terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example,
besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide,
worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth
more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, nonextractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that
represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and
sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense,
therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems.
Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems
are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is
higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that
produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species
have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the
biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive
preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should
not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we
know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United
States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect
73
74
The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate change are
defensive and offensive. The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around
their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency. With diverse growing
climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United States could likely survive shortened
growing cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be
strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an
especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be shored up through expensive
(economically, politically, and morally) alternatives such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle
Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be
commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges on the 1944 treaty
that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be commissioned to respond
to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this
continuous state of emergency the U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The
intractable problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting military tension around
the world. As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate
change, many countries needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of
desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine
eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and
energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy
supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water
supply, eying Russias Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants
and energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China all armed with nuclear
weapons skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and
Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the
United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching
multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and
transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs
through seven.
Proliferation leads to a global nuclear war.
Taylor 6 [Theodore B., Chairman of NOVA. July 6 2006, Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
http://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html]
Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence
on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall
into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world.
Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to
use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of
vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear
wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars
between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself
losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in
desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major
superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global
nuclear war.
75
77
78
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a
real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate
our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be
used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large
nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an
existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.
79
81
83
85
movement is inexorably toward the poles and totals more than one hun dred miles over the past
several decades. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm
movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade . Species at the most immediate risk
are those in polar climates and the biologically diverse slopes of alpine regions. Polar animals, in effect, will be pushed off the
planet. Alpine species will be pushed toward higher altitudes, and toward smaller, rockier areas with thinner air ; thus, in effect, they will also be pushed off the planet. A few
such species, such as polar bears, no doubt will be "rescued" by human beings, but survival in zoos or managed animal reserves will be small consolation to bears or nature
lovers. Earth's history provides an invaluable perspective about what is possible. Fossils
the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the
underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually
a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish
stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hances post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years,
over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of
control population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that
ecosystems provide for us, such as fisheries. One
which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australias Great Barrier Reef. This research
examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The over-fishing was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from
them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem the coral became overgrown with algae. When the
time came to remove the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a
coral dominated ecosystem. But, surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed unimportant species the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was
previously thought to feed on invertebrates small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore a cow of the sea grazing the
87
Warming destroys the US Navys ability to win the artic conflict facilitates belligerence
MSNBC 11
Navy's got new challenges with warming, experts say Report: Arctic role will grow; bases will be vulnerable to storms, rising
seas,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41990999/ns/us_news-environment/t/navys-got-new-challenges-warming-experts-say/, 7-12-13, KB
The U.S. Navy should plan for climate change impacts from costly base repairs, to mobilizing for
humanitarian aid and geopolitical conflicts in the Arctic the National Research Council said in a
report Thursday. "Even the most moderate predicted trends in climate change will present new
national security challenges," retired Adm. Frank Bowman, co-chair of the committee that wrote the
report at the Navy's request, said in a statement. "Naval forces need to monitor more closely and
start preparing now for projected challenges climate change will present in the future ," he
added. As rising temperatures continue to melt sea ice, Arctic sea lanes could be regularly
open across the Arctic by 2030, the report noted. The region is already seeing ships testing the
waters, as well as nations lining up to seek energy and mineral deposits. Russia has been among the
most aggressive in seeking energy riches, while Canada has beefed up its patrols. "The geopolitical
situation in the Arctic region has become complex and nuanced, despite the area being essentially
ignored since the end of the Cold War," the experts wrote. In order to protect U.S. interests, they
added, "the Navy should begin Arctic training and the Marine Corps should also reestablish a
cold-weather training program. Rising sea levels and more extreme storm surges tied to
warming could also become costly for the Navy. A rise of three feet , the experts said, would
place at risk 56 Navy installations worth $100 billion. The Navy should expect a rise by 2100
anywhere between a foot and six feet, they added. The report also urged the Navy to increase its
capacity for helping climate refugees via hospital ships. "Naval forces must be prepared to provide
more aid and disaster relief in the decades ahead," said panel co-chair Antonio Busalacchi,
director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland.
89
92
93
XT Water
Water shortages will lead to conflict and nuclear war between India and Pakistan
Lynas, Environmental Journalist, 2008 (Mark National Geographic Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter
Planet National 336p.)
With India particularly dependent on hydroelectric power generation, dwindling summer flows
may lead to blackouts and energy shortages during the hottest months of the year. Two of the
Indus River's major tributaries-the Chenab and the Sutlej-arise in India and flow into Pakistan. Both
will also be suffering the effects of deglaciation in their upper reaches. Conflicts may well break
out between these two nuclear-armed countries as water supplies dwindle and political leaders
quarrel over how much can be stored behind dams in upstream reservoirs.
94
Warming Good
95
Defense
96
98
widely varying strengths of mixing, and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in the global
warming debate, as is aerosol cooling. I believe much of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be
due to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system.
The 4th possibility (the climate system is relatively insensitive to forcing ) is the top contender in the opinion of
a few other climate researchers who work in this field . The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs
dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC. Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding
would normally be Nobel Prize territoryexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically
correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites dont like the idea humans might not be destroying the Earth. The longer
we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something
seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove
the science of AGW.unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.
100
102
XT Adaptation
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts---warming wont cause war
Singer et al 11, Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the
International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist
and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder
and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological
Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate
Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including
the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and
deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth
century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on societys
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and
human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain
technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater wealth and
technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated. Even
accepting the IPCCs and Stern Reviews worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded
annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in
developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in
2200. Thus, even developing countries future ability to cope with climate change would be
much better than that of the U.S. today. The IPCCs embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found even the best
biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity (Delucchi, 2010).
Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops
and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worlds
demand for fuels. The notion that global warming might cause war and social unrest is not
only wrong, but even backwards that is, global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the
past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and social
stability.
103
XT No Warming
104
105
Impact Defense
106
Idso, Founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Craig, Keith, and Sherwood, 12-11, Recent Reflection of Sea Level Rise Reflect Poorly On IPCC,
http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N50/EDIT.php]
It has long been the practice of the world's climate alarmists to promote fear about the future in
terms of anthropogenic-CO2-induced increases in various types of climatic extremes. As noted by
Lee (2011), for example, "in 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested
that, for a 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas forcing scenario, global sea level could rise by 8-29
cm by 2030 and 31-110 cm by 2100," as reported by Houghton et al. (1990), which report also stated that
"even with substantial decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases, future rises in sea level
were unavoidable owing to 'lags in the climate system'." And he also noted that "the Second World Climate
Conference (Jager and Ferguson, 1991) reached similar conclusions, which in the case of the British Isles was
that there could be a [sea level] rise of between 50 and 70 cm over the next 100 years." Noting that "the IPCC
projections set the framework for the coastal policy response to sea-level rise in England and Wales," which
was developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, 1991), Lee says it was widely
predicted that the expected relative sea-level rise (RSLR) would result in an increase in wave energy at the base
of coastal cliffs that would lead to accelerated cliff recession that "inevitably would lead to increased risk to
properties behind actively retreating cliff-lines," adding that Bray and Hooke (1997) suggested that "significant
increases in recession rate could be expected to occur," as their analysis pointed towards "a 22-133% increase
in cliff recession rates on the south coast of England by 2050." As a result of these projections, Lee decided to
analyze the most recent 50-year recession records of the United Kingdom's Holderness Cliffs, stating that
"twenty years on from the IPCC First Assessment Report seems an appropriate moment to reflect on what has
actually happened." So what did he find? As Lee describes it, "relative sea level has risen over the second half
of the 20th century," and "so have Holderness cliff recession rates, from around 1.2 m/year in the early 1950s
to around 1.5 m/year by 2000." However, as he continues, "there has been no significant acceleration in the
rate of global sea-level rise since 1990 and no rapid increase in the recession rate." Thus, he states that
"predictions of 20-year recession distances made in the early 1990s that took account of the RSLR advice from
MAFF (1991) are likely to have overestimated the risk to cliff-top property and the benefits of coast
protection." In a candid expression of his feelings after conducting his analysis, Lee writes that "as someone
who was heavily involved in providing technical support to policymakers through the research and
development of methods for predicting cliff recession that took account of RSLR (see Lee et al., 2001; Hall et
al., 2000; Lee and Clark, 2002; Lee, 2005), I feel somewhat awkward about the absence of accelerated cliff
recession over the last two decades," acknowledging that "perhaps we were all too keen to accept the
unquestioned authority of the IPCC and their projections." Thus, he ends by stating "I am left with the feeling
that a healthy skepticism of the climate change industry might not be such a bad thing," suggesting that people
see, in this regard, the report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was edited by Idso and
Singer (2009).
Green House Gases Are Too Abundant, Leading To Warming
Roach, 2005
[John, 3-17-2005, National Geographic News, Global Warming Unstoppable For 100 Years, Study Says,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html
Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrownot likelywe've already spewed enough
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for
at least another century. That's the message from two studies appearing in tomorrow's issue of the
journalScience. Researchers used computer models of the global climate system to put numbers to the
concept of thermal inertiathe idea that global climate changes are delayed because it water takes longer to
has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together
have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate
state includes large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic
ice sheet, and much of Greenlands ice. Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these
feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an environment far
outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within
any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of
coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas
through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a
great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater
source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
Too late
Rahn 11
(Richard W. Rahn, 1/25/2011, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, Obama's regulatory
reform test, Lexis)
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding up the permitting of
new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it will cause a significant drop in U.S. economic growth and job creation, yet it will have no
measurable benefit. China, India and many other countries are rapidly increasing CO2 emissions,
overwhelming whatever actions the United States may take. Even if all new CO2 emissions were
stopped globally, it would be decades before there would be even a minor effect on global
temperatures. Now, new research is indicating that sunspot activity is much more important than CO2 when
it comes to influencing the earths temperature. The EPA ban is nothing more than national
economic suicide. Let us see if Mr. Obama has the courage to tell the EPA to stop.
Ice melting irreversibly now
FP 11
(Foreign Policy, Beating a retreat, http://www.economist.com/node/21530079, September 24, 2011)
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square
miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record lownot quite. But the
actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from
mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the
fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979 ,
when satellite records began, and
there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any
time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age. That Arctic sea ice is
Arctic is small and has been falling in recent decades. He does not believe it is the missing
factor in the models. Carbon dioxide, in his view, is the main culprit. Black carbon deposited on the Arctic snow and ice, he says, will have
only a minimal effect on its reflectivity. The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice , then, illuminates the difficulty of
modelling the climatebut not in a way that brings much comfort to those who hope that fears about the future climate might prove
exaggerated. When reality is changing faster than theory suggests it should, a certain amount of
nervousness is a reasonable response . It's an ill wind The direct consequences of changes in the Arctic are mixed. They should
not bring much rise in the sea level, since floating ice obeys Archimedes's principle and displaces its own mass of water. A darkerand so more
heat-absorbentArctic, though, will surely accelerate global warming and may thus encourage melting of the
land-bound Greenland ice sheet. That certainly would raise sea levels (though not as quickly as News
Corporation's cartographers suggest in the latest edition of the best-selling Times Atlas, which claims that 15% of the Greenland sheet has melted in the
past 12 years; the true figure is more like 0.05%). Wildlife will also suffer . Polar bears, which hunt for seals along the ice's edge, and
walruses, which fish there, will both be hard-hit.
112
Tech Solves
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts---warming wont cause war
Singer et al 11, Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the
International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist
and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder
and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological
Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate
Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including
the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and
deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth
century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on societys
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and
human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain
technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater wealth and
technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated. Even
accepting the IPCCs and Stern Reviews worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded
annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in
developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in
2200. Thus, even developing countries future ability to cope with climate change would be
much better than that of the U.S. today. The IPCCs embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found even the best
biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity (Delucchi, 2010).
Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops
and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worlds
demand for fuels. The notion that global warming might cause war and social unrest is not
only wrong, but even backwards that is, global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the
past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and social
stability.
113
XT Cant Solve
Asia pollution offsets any US action global warming is inevitable
Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, 12
(Chip, Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions 7/12/06,
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/, 06/asian-air-pollution-warming/)
The whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced
by U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions. So, whats the point of forcing Americans into different energy choices? A
new study provides evidence that air pollution emanating from Asia will warm the U.S. as much or
more than warming from U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The implication? Efforts by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (and otherwise) to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is moot. If the future temperature rise in
the U.S. is subject to the whims of Asian environmental and energy policy, then what sense does it make for Americans to
have their energy choices regulated by efforts aimed at mitigating future temperature increases
across the countryefforts which will have less of an impact on temperatures than the policies
enacted across Asia? Maybe the EPA should reconsider the perceived effectiveness of its greenhouse gas emission regulationsat least when
it comes to impacting temperatures across the U.S. New Study A new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is
authored by a team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper is titled Potential Impacts
of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US Warming. Skipping the details of this climate modeling study and cutting to the chase, here is the abstract of the
paper: This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US
climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed
carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005
2024. The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating
anomalies that force large-scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an additional 0.4C warming over the
eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone experiment with
specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols. Usually, when considering the climate
impact from carbon aerosol emissions (primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot), the effect is thought to be
largely contained to the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is
only on the order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Oceana distance which requires about a
week for air masses to navigatewe usually arent overly concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the
time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean. But in the Teng et al. study, the authors find that, according to their climate
model, the
local heating of the atmosphere by the Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing
impart changes to the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation pattern s.
And these changes to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and
sunlight) can
thus induce a change in the climate here characterized by 0.4C [surface air temperature] warming on average over the eastern US during winter and
over almost the entire US during summer averaged over the 20052024 period. While most of the summer warming doesnt start to kick in until Asian
carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large
(several tenths of a C) even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions. Now lets revisit just how much global warming that stringent U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across the country. In my Master Resource post Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based
arithmetic of no gain) I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction
of global temperatures (from where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly more than the global average
(land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05C of global temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075C of temperature savings averaged
across the U.S., by the year 2050. Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian
black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points
out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how
easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. And even if the traditional form of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across
Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new
greenhouse gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again,
pointing out that a reduction in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught , at least when it comes to mitigating climate
change. So, whats the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy choices? As I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it
comes to greenhouse gas emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes to influences on the climate. What the
powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it
doesnt hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large developing nations will follow our
lead. Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a difference.
China is a greater cause of warming- destroys all solvency
Wortzel, Former Director of Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, 08
(Larry, Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Nov, p. google, js)
114
China argues that developed countries are the primary cause of climate change and therefore places primary responsibility for reducing emissions on
those countries rather than on China and other developing countries, a concept identified as "common but differentiated responsibilities." 190 The
United States is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and far exceeds China in emissions per capita.191 However, in the past two
years China has overtaken the United States in total production of greenhouse gas emissions. All
projections indicate that, in the absence of major energy consumption changes in China, both China's aggregate emissions and
its share of global emissions will continue to increase dramatically for the foreseeable future. The
consequent reality is that it will be impossible for the international community to resolve the climate
change problem by sufficiently reducing emissions unless China contributes to the effort . The
solution also is unachievable unless the United Statesas currently the world's second largest emitter and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse
gases makes a substantial contribution. Any efforts to address this problem will require global participation by developed and developing nations.
No modeling or momentum
Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, '10
(Walter Russell, The Death of Global Warming, http://blogs.the-americaninterest.com/wrm/2010/02/01/the-death-of-global-warming/, February 1, 2010, js)
The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during
the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the
Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for
a politically binding agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding
treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid
decline. The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics . After years in which global
warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious
agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making
inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet
another shocker; the IPCCs claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global
warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by
2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didnt care about whether it
was reality-based.Gore_Pachauri With this in mind, climategate the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists looks
sinister rather than just unsavory. The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the
global warming with much of its key data, had violated Britains Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics
could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isnt just science as
usual, as the global warming movements embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you
indeed have something to conceal. The urge to make the data better than it was didnt just come
out of nowhere. The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their
realization that the actual evidence they had which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in
my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing
fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources was not sufficient to get the worlds governments to do
what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesnt look like an accident: it looks
like it was a conscious political strategy. Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia
Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best
serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture . New leadership might help, but
everything these two agencies have done will now have to be re-checked by independent and objective sources. The global warming
campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy. They were
never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing
international system. The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international
agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and
substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet. As it happened, the movement
never got to the first step it never got the worlds countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties, transfers and policies that would constitute, at least
on paper, a program for achieving its key goals. Even if that first step had been reached, the second and third would almost surely not have been. The
United States Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements would require before
the midterm elections, much less ratify a treaty. (It takes 67 senate votes to ratify a treaty and only 60 to overcome a filibuster.) After the
midterms, with the Democrats expected to lose seats in both houses, the chance of passage would be even more remote especially as polls show that
global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters priorities. American public opinion supports doing something about global warming, but not
very much; support for specific measures and sacrifices will erode rapidly as commentators from Fox
News and other conservative outlets endlessly hammer away. Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share
of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed
global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart. From Gallup Since the United States was never very likely to accept these
agreements and ratify these treaties, and is even less prepared to do so in a recession with the Democrats in retreat, even success
it would also very likely erode what would in any case be an extremely fragile consensus in rich
countries to keep forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries many of whom would not be in anything like full compliance with
their commitments. For better or worse, the global political system isnt capable of producing the kind of result
the global warming activists want. Its like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can
cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just cant get and at the end of the day, you wont get it. The grieving friends
and relatives arent ready to pull the plug; in a typical, whistling-past-the-graveyard comment, the BBC first acknowledges that even if the current
promises are kept, temperatures will rise above the target level of two degrees Celsius but lets not despair! The BBC quotes one of its own reporters:
BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the accord lacks teeth and does not include any clear targets on cutting emissions. But if most countries
at least signal what they intend to do to cut their emissions, it will mark the first time that the UN has a comprehensive written collection of promised
actions, he says.
that if the US and other innovating nations just pushed hard on technology
that there wouldnt be much need for emission limits, cap and trade or carbon taxes . Thats too
simplistic. Theres no question that we need a big push on technology and that all nations, collectively,
massively under-invest in energy R&D. But a technology push with no pull from the markets a recipe for waste . I
like the carbon tax like the one Australia introduced this week to create an incentive not just to invent new low-carbon technologies but also to deploy
them. One implication for technology R&D policy is that in a world of cheap gas theres probably a lot
of value in looking carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for use on gas-fired power plants . To date,
most CCS investment has focused on coal on the assumption that coal is cheap and that the
technologies needed for CCS on gas are too expensive . That conventional view could change in a world where the full cost
of burning coal is high and gas is cheap. Some of the technologies for CCS are genericthey work whether the original fuel is coal or gasbut others
(including the costliest parts of CCS systems) must be tailored to the fuel. Ive always thought that CCS was an inelegant way to lick the carbon problem
because it involves burning fuels and then corralling a huge mass of pollution rather than avoiding the pollution in the first placebut if gas is to be a
real bridge to a low emission future rather than a nice-looking dead end then we must seriously explore ways to further cut emissions from gas plants.
[Here's a link to an article by Jesse Ausubel on one such technology.] Fifth, all these surprises are a reminder of how much we dont know about how
technology and markets will unfold. Earlier this year the Energy Information Administration published a rather brave study: a retrospective on how well
its forecasters have done predicting things like demand for energy, the cost of oil and such. One lesson from that study is that a lot of forecasting is done
by looking in the rear view mirrorforecasts typically start with current conditions, and as facts on the ground change radically so do the forecasts.
Another lesson from that study is that the record of forecasting energy pricesgas in particular but also oilis pretty abysmal. Since so much, even CO2,
depends on relative energy prices we should be sober about what we can realistically predict for the future. Sixth, I see the gas revolution
as just one of a large class of strategies for getting serious about climate change in ways that are
politically expedient. In a few countries and jurisdictionssuch as Europe, California, and Vermontpeople will invest lots of their own
money to control emissions in an effort to slow global warming. But most of the world isnt so keen, yet, to spend handsomely
on this global goal. Ive always thought that the way to make progress on climate change, especially in reluctant countries like China and
even the U.S., is to start by focusing on places where climate goals overlap with other national prioritieslike clearing the air or making energy supplies
more reliable. (For another example, focused on the tremendous potential for slowing climate change through action on soot, see the last issue of foreign
affairs for an article co-authored with two colleagues here in La Jolla, V. Ramanathan and C. Kennel.) We probably cant lick global warming with selfinterested actions alone, but at least we can point countries in the right direction and build political support for the deeper and more expensive cuts that
will be essential. As Victor notes, simply moving from coal to gas is hardly a climate solution on its own, and
others challenge the idea that natural gas can serve as a bridge along the road to a post-fossil
energy future. And certainly if Chinas gas push comes with the same wasteful , leaky practices that American
oil and gas companies have only slowly abandoned (and that still abound in Russia and elsewhere), thats not a reasonable bridge at
all. Nothing I, or anyone else writes, will change the reality that the gas age is here for many years to come. But my hope is that progress in avoiding
environmental regrets can come through constructive discussion of ways to cut risks and waste and to sustain a long-term energy quest that extends
beyond fossil fuels even while they remain abundant and cheap. Thats no easy task.
116
XT Irreversible
More evidence- theres too much CO2 in the air even if we stop
Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, 8
(James E. Hanson.. Al Gores science advisor. Introductory chapter for the book State of the Wild. Tipping
point: Perspective of a Scientist. April. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf)
The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks is that additional climate change is
already in the pipeline: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming
will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present status of Earths climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past
12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and
Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene.3 The warming that
has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together
have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate
state includes large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic
ice sheet, and much of Greenlands ice. Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these
feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an environment far
outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within
any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of
coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas
through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a
great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater
source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
Too late
Rahn 11
(Richard W. Rahn, 1/25/2011, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, Obama's regulatory
reform test, Lexis)
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding up the permitting of
new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it will cause a significant drop in U.S. economic growth and job creation, yet it will have no
measurable benefit. China, India and many other countries are rapidly increasing CO2 emissions,
overwhelming whatever actions the United States may take. Even if all new CO2 emissions were
stopped globally, it would be decades before there would be even a minor effect on global
temperatures. Now, new research is indicating that sunspot activity is much more important than CO2 when
it comes to influencing the earths temperature. The EPA ban is nothing more than national
economic suicide. Let us see if Mr. Obama has the courage to tell the EPA to stop.
Ice melting irreversibly now
FP 11
(Foreign Policy, Beating a retreat, http://www.economist.com/node/21530079, September 24, 2011)
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square
miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record lownot quite. But the
actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from
mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the
fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979 ,
when satellite records began, and
there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any
time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age. That Arctic sea ice is
disappearing has been known for decades. The underlying cause is believed by all but a handful of climatologists
to be global warming brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions . Yet the rate the ice is vanishing confounds these
climatologists' models. These predict that if the level of carbon dioxide, methane and so on in the atmosphere
continues to rise, then the Arctic Ocean will be free of floating summer ice by the end of the
century. At current rates of shrinkage, by contrast, this looks likely to happen some time between 2020 and 2050. The reason
is that Arctic air is warming twice as fast as the atmosphere as a whole . Some of the causes of this are
understood, but some are not. The darkness of land and water compared with the reflectiveness of snow
and ice means that when the latter melt to reveal the former, the area exposed absorbs more
Arctic is small and has been falling in recent decades. He does not believe it is the missing
factor in the models. Carbon dioxide, in his view, is the main culprit. Black carbon deposited on the Arctic snow and ice, he says, will have
only a minimal effect on its reflectivity. The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice , then, illuminates the difficulty of
modelling the climatebut not in a way that brings much comfort to those who hope that fears about the future climate might prove
exaggerated. When reality is changing faster than theory suggests it should, a certain amount of
nervousness is a reasonable response . It's an ill wind The direct consequences of changes in the Arctic are mixed. They should
not bring much rise in the sea level, since floating ice obeys Archimedes's principle and displaces its own mass of water. A darkerand so more
heat-absorbentArctic, though, will surely accelerate global warming and may thus encourage melting of the
land-bound Greenland ice sheet. That certainly would raise sea levels (though not as quickly as News
Corporation's cartographers suggest in the latest edition of the best-selling Times Atlas, which claims that 15% of the Greenland sheet has melted in the
past 12 years; the true figure is more like 0.05%). Wildlife will also suffer . Polar bears, which hunt for seals along the ice's edge, and
walruses, which fish there, will both be hard-hit.
118
XT No Impact
Consensus of experts agree that there is no impact to warming
Hsu 10
(Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinctiondoomsday-100719.html)
His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans.
Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity,
catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the
technological tools to begin tackling climate change , if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added
that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term,
high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action ," Pielke
explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive ."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon
capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise
of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. " The rise in CO2
isn't going to kill people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet,
melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains
uncertain."
paper
implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23% in Poland, which was presumed to be
caused by global warming, would be detrimental . (Imagine stating this in a country where 38% of the area suffers from
permanent surface water deficit!) The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster. Truly, a
possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes
for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper. Newspapers continuously write about
the increasing frequency and power of the storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only
some few data from Poland, but there are plenty of data from all over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995, the number of storms with
hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms
decreased. (26) In 1813 to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River in Cracow not only did not increase but, since 1940, have
paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The
significantly decreased. (27) Also, measurements in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number of gales has not increased between 1901 a
119
120
122
AT: Biodiversity
Extinction Is Not Cause By Climate Change
Idso, Founder of and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Craig, Sherwood, and Keith, 11-23-11, CO2 Science, Thoughts on Species' Abilities to Survive Rapid Climate
Change, http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N47/EDIT.php]
In an Opinion article published in Global Change Biology, Hof et al. (2011) note that recent and projected
climate change is assumed to be exceptional because of its supposedly unprecedented velocity; and they
say that this view has fuelled the prediction that CO2-induced global warming "will have
unprecedented effects on earth's biodiversity," primarily by driving many species to extinction,
because of the widespread belief that earth's plants and animals are unable to migrate poleward in latitude or
upward in altitude fast enough to avoid that deadly consequence, as well as the assumption that current climate
change simply outpaces evolutionary adaptation. But are these assumptions correct? The four
biological researchers address this important question in stages. First, they present evidence
demonstrating that "recent geophysical studies challenge the view that the speed of current and
projected climate change is unprecedented." In one such study, for example, they report that Steffensen
et al. (2008) showed that temperatures in Greenland warmed by up to 4C/year near the end of the last glacial
period. And they state that this change and other rapid climate changes during the Quaternary (the last 2.5
million years) did not cause a noticeable level of broad-scale, continent-wide extinctions of species. Instead,
they state that these rapid changes appeared to "primarily affect a few specific groups, mainly large mammals
(Koch and Barnosky, 2006) and European trees (Svenning, 2003)," with the result that "few taxa became
extinct during the Quaternary (Botkin et al., 2007)." So how were the bulk of earth's species able to survive
what many today believe to be unsurvivable? Hof et al. speculate that "species may have used strategies other
than shifting their geographical distributions or changing their genetic make-up." They note, for example, that
"intraspecific variation in physiological, phenological, behavioral or morphological traits may have allowed
species to cope with rapid climatic changes within their ranges (Davis and Shaw, 2001; Nussey et al., 2005;
Skelly et al., 2007)," based on "preexisting genetic variation within and among different populations, which is
an important prerequisite for adaptive responses," noting that "both intraspecific phenotypic variability and
individual phenotypic plasticity may allow for rapid adaptation without actual microevolutionary changes." So
do these observations imply that all is well with the planet's many and varied life forms? Not necessarily,
because, as Hof et al. continue, "habitat destruction and fragmentation, not climate change per se,
are usually identified as the most severe threat to biodiversity (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Stuart et al.,
2004; Schipper et al., 2008)." And since Hof et al. conclude that "species are probably more resilient to
climatic changes than anticipated in most model assessments of the effect of contemporary climate change on
biodiversity," these several observations suggest to us that addressing habitat destruction and
fragmentation, rather than climate change, should take center stage when it comes to striving
to protect earth's biosphere, since the former more direct and obvious effects of mankind are
more destructive, more imminent and more easily addressed than are the less direct, less
obvious, less destructive, less imminent, and less easily addressed effects of the burning of
fossil fuels.
Adaption Forces Warming To Increase Biodiversity
Singer, Research Professor at George Mason and Dennis, Director Of The Center For Global
Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, 2006
[Fred, 28-10-06, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,]
We know that species can adapt to abrupt global warming because the climate shifts in the 1,500year cycle have often been abrupt. Moreover, the world's species have already survived at least six
hundred such warmings and coolings in the past million years. The major effect of global
warming will be more biodiversity in our forests, as most trees, plants, birds, and animals extend their
ranges. This is already happening. Some biologists claim that a further warming of 0.8 degrees
124
AT: Disease
Warming doesnt cause diseases scientists admit
Donnelly 7 (John, 12-5, Staff, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/05/a_tussle_over_link_of_warming_disease/)
Donald S. Burke,
dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, noted that the 2001 study found that
weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence the spread of infectious disease. But he also noted that such conclusions
should be interpreted with caution. "There are no apocalyptic pronouncements," Burke said. "There's an awful lot
we don't know." Burke said he is not convinced that climate change can be proven to cause the spread of many
diseases, specifically naming dengue fever, influenza, and West Nile virus.
Warming definitively does not cause disease their authors distort science and ignore bigger
alt causes
Reiter 98 (Paul, prof of entomology @ the Pasteur Inst., fellow of Royal Entomological Society, The Lancet, Vol. 351, Issue 9105,
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)78979-0/fulltext)
In your news item on the Kyoto Summit (Dec 20/27, p 1825) Justin McCurry reports on warnings that man-made climate change may unleash a publichealth disaster. Specifically he mentions adamant claims by Paul Epstein and Andrew Haines that global warming has already caused
malaria, dengue, and yellow fever to invade higher latitudes in the temperate regions and higher altitudes in the tropics. Such claims, oft
repeated, plainly ignore the past. Until the 20th century, malaria was a common disease throughout much of the USA,
and it remained endemic until the 1950s. Yellow fever played a major part in US history. Widespread epidemics of dengue were also
common, and continued until the 1940s. In Europe, malaria was probably present in neolithic times. In ancient Greece, Hippocrates clearly
distinguished between the symptoms of vivax and falciparum malaria. Throughout history, nearly all countries of that continent were
affected. Even in the present century, devastating epidemics occurred as far north as Archangel on the Arctic Circle, and the disease remained
endemic in such un-tropical countries as Holland, Poland, and Finland until after World War II. Yellow fever also killed tens of thousands
in many European countries until the end of the 19th century, and a devastating epidemic of dengue, with an estimated 1 million
cases and 1000 deaths, occurred in Greece in 192728. Claims that malaria and dengue have recently climbed to higher
altitudes are equally uninformed. Highland malaria was widespread throughout the world until the era of DDT and cheap
malaria prophylaxis. The figure shows the maximum altitude of autochthonous cases in 11 countries in the early half of this century. Transmission
occurred to 2600 m in Kenya, and 2450 m in Ethopia. In the Himalayas, the disease was present to 2500 m in India and 1830 m in
China. In the Andes, epidemics were recorded to 2180 m in Argentina and 2600 m in Bolivia. In the latter country, cases actually
occurred to 2773 m, transmitted by mosquitoes breeding at 35C in thermal springs. Recent epidemics of malaria in the highlands of Madagascar
have been attributed to global warming, although they occurred well below the maximum altitude for transmission (figure) and
were clearly a sequel to a breakdown of control infrastructure. Moreover, similar epidemics had taken place in the
same areas in 1878 and 1895, and local records show no great change in temperature. Similarly, recent dengue transmission at 1250 m
in Costa Rica followed the reappearance of the vector Aedes aegypti (Linn) after a successful period of control, and there is no evidence to
support the suggestion that transmission was due to putative climate change . Lastly, repeated claims that the disease has
ascended to new altitudes in Colombia consistently cite a publication by Nelson et al but ignore its content, for although the vector was present to 2200
m, the investigators clearly stated there were no cases at high altitude, and none have been reported since that study. The distortion of science
to make predictions of unlikely public-health disasters diverts attention from the true reasons for the
recrudescence of vector-borne diseases. These include the large-scale resettlement of people (often associated
with major ecological change), rampant urbanisation without adequate infrastructure, high mobility through
air travel, resistance to antimalarial drugs, insecticide resistance, and the deterioration of vector-control
operations and other public-health practices.
125
AT: Drought
Climate Change Didnt Bring Upon Droughts
Bastasch, 2013
[Michael, 4-12-2013, Government report: Historic drought not caused by global warming, The DC,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/government-report-historic-drought-not-caused-by-global-warming/]
Despite claims made by environmentalists and the Obama administration, a study released Thursday suggests
the record-high drought that ravaged agricultural production across the Great Plains region
last year was not caused by manmade global warming. The Central Great Plains drought during MayAugust of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather, read a report by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administrations drought unit. Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors
that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits
over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains. According to the report, the jet stream, that
typically pushes moist air from the Gulf region northward, was stuck too far north in Canada and did not bring
spring rains. The lack of thunderstorms and rainfall in July and August made last summer the
driest and hottest on record, creating drought conditions across two-thirds of the U.S. which
were even hotter and drier than the infamous dust bowl of the Great Depression era. The
report stated that a sequence of unfortunate events occurred suddenly, making the drought unpredictable.
This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years, Martin Hoerling, a NOAA
research meteorologist and lead author of the report, told the Associated Press. Climate change was not a
significant part, if any, of the event. Hoerling factored climate change into computer simulations of the
the drought, but found it was not a factor in this particular drought. Hoerling previously used the same method
to determine that climate change had been a factor in a 2011 drought in Texas. Environmentalists and the
Obama administration have held up extreme weather events, including the severe drought, to highlight the
need to immediately address climate change. Yes, its true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is,
the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15, Obama said in his State of the Union address. Heat
waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe
that superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever
seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science
and act before its too late. Other scientists have challenged the NOAA study. Climate scientists Kevin
Trenberth with the National Centre for Atmospheric Research said the study failed to take into account the lack
of snowpack in the Rockies or how climate change could have kept the jet stream away.
Warming Wont Cause Massive and Severe Droughts
Idso, PH.D and Founder of and Current Chairman of the Board of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Sherwood, Keith, and Craig, 10-12-2011, Droughts of Southwestern North America: Past and Present, CO2
Science, http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N41/EDIT.php]
The world's climate alarmists claim that rising temperatures will bring ever worse droughts to
precipitation-deficient regions of the earth. One such region is Southwest North America, for which
Woodhouse et al. (2010) developed a 1200-year history of drought that allowed them to compare recent
droughts with those of prior centuries; and in spite of the fact that the warmth of the last few decades
is said by alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past millennium or more, the review
and analysis presented by the five U.S. researchers demonstrates that major 20th century
droughts "pale in comparison to droughts documented in paleoclimatic records over the past
two millennia (Cook et al., 2009)," which suggests that recent temperatures have not been unprecedented.
Presenting a little more detail, Woodhouse et al. report that "the medieval period, ~AD 900-1300," was "a
period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America," with paleoclimatic evidence suggesting
that drought in the mid-12th century (AD 1146-1155) "far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of
subsequent droughts," including the 21st century drought of 2000-2009; and they also state that the AD 11461155 period was "anomalously warm," which would seem to confirm the climate-alarmist contention that
greater warmth leads to greater droughts. However, the five scientists contend that temperature was
127
AT: Extinction
Consensus of experts agree that there is no impact to warming
Hsu 10
(Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinctiondoomsday-100719.html)
His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans.
Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity,
catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the
technological tools to begin tackling climate change , if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added
that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term,
high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action ," Pielke
explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive ."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon
capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise
of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. " The rise in CO2
isn't going to kill people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet,
melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains
uncertain."
paper
implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23% in Poland, which was presumed to be
caused by global warming, would be detrimental . (Imagine stating this in a country where 38% of the area suffers from
permanent surface water deficit!) The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster. Truly, a
possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes
for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper. Newspapers continuously write about
the increasing frequency and power of the storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only
some few data from Poland, but there are plenty of data from all over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995, the number of storms with
hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms
decreased. (26) In 1813 to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River in Cracow not only did not increase but, since 1940, have
paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The
significantly decreased. (27) Also, measurements in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number of gales has not increased between 1901 a
These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities, if it
weren't for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a
global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a
"catastrophe" and the beginning of the "extinction" of the human race. This is simply silly. His
evidence? That 4C would mean that all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term
sea level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear, seeing billions of people die. Clearly,
Tickell has maxed out the campaigners' scare potential (because there is no more ice to melt,
this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let us just remember that the UN
climate panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the century between 1.8 and
6.0C. Within this range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise 1859 centimetres Tickell is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly
claim that he was talking about what could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous.
First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a century scale this is what we talk about and can plan for.
Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries to come, the models
unanimously show that Greenland's ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase
even more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for the next three centuries. What
will happen beyond that clearly depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that
CO2 stays in the atmosphere about a century, what happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now
mainly depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it seems unlikely non-carbon emitting technology
such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive). Third, Tickell tells us how the 80m
sea-level rise would wipe out all the world's coastal infrastructure and much of the world's
farmland "undoubtedly" causing billions to die. But to cause billions to die, it would require
the surge to occur within a single human lifespan. This sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong
and misleading, mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims the earth is coming to an end and
we need to repent. While it is probably true that the sun will burn up the earth in 4-5bn years' time, it does
give a slightly different perspective on the need for immediate repenting. Tickell's claim that 4C will be the
beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond wrong and misleading, and, of course,
made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such a 4C
temperature rise. For the Copenhagen Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary
Yohe, did a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a temperature rise
over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as
temperatures rise, more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold; agricultural yields will
decline in the tropics, but increase in the temperate zones, etc. The model evaluates the impacts on
agriculture, forestry, energy, water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease.
131
132
133
AT: Flooding
Climate Change Doesnt Cause Flooding
Idso, PH.D and Founder of and Current Chairman of the Board of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Craig, Keith, Sherwood, Climate Change Reconsidered Interlim Report,
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf]
The IPCC claims flooding has become more frequent and severe in response to twentieth century
global warming. But it is important to establish whether floods are truly becoming more frequent
or severe, and whether other factors might be behind such trends if they in fact exist. In this
section we highlight studies addressing both questions. To test for long-term changes in flood magnitudes and
frequencies in the Mississippi River system of the United States, Pinter et al. (2008) constructed a hydrologic
database consisting of data from 26 rated stations (with both stage and discharge measurements) and 40 stageonly stations. Then, to help quantify changes in flood levels at each station in response to construction of
wing dikes, bendway weirs, meander cutoffs, navigational dams, bridges, and other modifications, they put
together a geospatial database consisting of the locations, emplacement dates, and physical characteristics of
over 15,000 structural features constructed along the study rivers over the past 100150 years. As a result of
these operations, Pinter et al. write, significant climate- and/or land use-driven increases in flow
were detected, but they indicate the largest and most pervasive contributors to increased
flooding on the Mississippi River system were wing dikes and related navigational structures,
followed by progressive levee construction. In discussing the implications of their findings, Pinter et al. write,
the navigable rivers of the Mississippi system have been intensively engineered, and some of these
modifications are associated with large decreases in the rivers capacity to convey flood flows. Hence, it
would appear man has indeed been responsible for the majority of the increased flooding of the
rivers of the Mississippi system over the past century or so, but not in the way suggested by the IPCC.
The question that needs addressing by the regions inhabitants has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to
do with how to balance the local benefits of river engineering against the potential for large-scale flood
magnification. In a study designed to determine the environmental origins of extreme flooding events
throughout the southwestern United States, Ely (1997) wrote, paleoflood records from nineteen rivers in
Arizona and southern Utah, including over 150 radiocarbon dates and evidence of over 250 flood deposits,
were combined to identify regional variations in the frequency of extreme floods, and that information was
then compared with paleoclimatic data to determine how the temporal and spatial patterns in the occurrence of
floods reflect the prevailing climate. The results of this comparison indicated long-term variations in
the frequency of extreme floods over the Holocene are related to changes in the climate and
prevailing large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns that affect the conditions conducive to
extreme flood-generating storms in each region. These changes, in Elys view, are very plausibly
related to global-scale changes in the climate system. With respect to the Colorado River watershed, which
integrates a large portion of the interior western United States, she writes, the largest floods tend to be from
spring snowmelt after winters of heavy snow accumulation in the mountains of Utah, western Colorado, and
northern New Mexico, such as occurred with the cluster of floods from 5 to 3.6 ka, which occurred in
conjunction with glacial advances in mountain ranges throughout the western United States during the
cool, wet period immediately following the warm mid-Holocene. The frequency of extreme floods also
increased during the early and middle portions of the first millennium AD, many of which coincided with
glacial advances and cool, moist conditions both in the western U.S. and globally. Then came a sharp drop
in the frequency of large floods in the southwest from AD 1100-1300, which corresponded, in her words, to
the widespread Medieval Warm Period, which was first noted in European historical records. With the advent
of the Little Ice Age, however, there was another substantial jump in the number of floods in the
southwestern U.S., which was associated with a switch to glacial advances, high lake levels, and cooler,
wetter conditions. Distilling her findings down to a single succinct statement and speaking specifically of the
southwestern United States, Ely writes, global warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period,
are times of dramatic decreases in the number of high-magnitude floods in this region
[emphasis added].
134
136
139
140
142
AT: Wars
Warming Is Empirically Proven To Not Cause Wars
Schiemeier, Statistic and Geographer, 2010
[Quirin, 9-6-2010 Climate Change Not Link To African War ,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100906/full/news.2010.451.html]
Halvard Buhaug, a political scientist with the Peace Research Institute Oslo in Norway. In research
published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1, he finds virtually no
correlation between climate-change indicators such as temperature and rainfall variability and
the frequency of civil wars over the past 50 years in sub-Saharan Africa arguably the part of the world
that is socially and environmentally most vulnerable to climate change. "The primary causes of civil war
are political, not environmental," says Buhaug. The analysis challenges a study published last year that
claimed to have found a causal connection between climate warming and civil violence in Africa. Marshall
Burke, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues, reported a strong historical
relationship between temperature and the incidence of civil war. They found that the likelihood of armed
conflict across the continent rose by around 50% in unusually warm years during 1981-20022. Projected future
warming threatens to offset the positive effects of democratization and eradicating poverty in Africa, they
warned. Data-set discord The two rival groups are now disputing the validity of each other's findings. Buhaug
says that Burke's study may have been skewed by the choice of climate data sets, and by their narrow definition
of 'civil war' as any year that saw more than 1,000 fatalities from intra-national conflict. The definition is at
odds with conventional measures of civil war in the academic literature, says Buhaug: "If a conflict lasts for 10
years, but in only 3 of them the death toll exceeds 1,000, [Burke et al] may code it as three different wars."
"You'd really like to apply as many complementary definitions as possible before proclaiming a robust
correlation with climate change," Buhaug adds. Burke maintains that his findings are robust, and counters that
Buhaug has cherry-picked his data sets to support his hypothesis. "Although we have enjoyed discussing it with
him, we definitely do not agree with Halvard on this," says Burke. "There are legitimate disagreements about
which data to use, [but] basically we think he's made some serious econometric mistakes that undermine his
results. He does not do a credible job of controlling for other things beyond climate that might be going on."
Buhaug disagrees vigorously. "If they accuse me of highlighting data sets in favour of my hypothesis, then this
applies tenfold more to their own paper." The debate has much wider implications for policy-makers.
The link between climate and civil war has been mooted several times before for example, in a
2003 report for the Pentagon on the national-security implications of climate change; in the Stern Review on
the Economics of Climate Change, prepared for the UK government in 2006; and in the United Nations' postconflict environmental assessment of Sudan in 2007, which suggested that climate change was an aggravating
factor in the Darfur conflict. Given the many causes of unrest, it is not surprising that a meaningful correlation
with climate is hard to pin down, says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research in Germany. "Even if the data and methods were up to the task which they aren't
the 'causal noise' would be too loud to discern the currently still weak climate signals in civil wars." It is
extremely difficult to identify simple, robust cause-and-effect relationships between changes in
climate and societal outcomes, agrees Roger Pielke, a political scientist and climate policy expert at the
University of Colorado in Boulder. "The climate signals are small in the context of the broader social
factors," Pielke says. "This does not at all diminish the importance of responding to climate
change, but it does offer a stark warning about trying to use overly simplistic notions of cause
and effect to advocate for such actions.
Climate Change Doesnt Cause War- Model Proves
Koubi, PH.D, 2012
[Vally, Center for Comparative and International Studies, Climate variability, economic growth, and civil
conflict, http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/113.full]
Whether increasing local or regional climate variability due to large-scale, human-induced changes in the
global atmosphere is associated with an increased risk of violent conflict remains contested,
145
146
***Ice Age***
147
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the ice age. In this case, we
should give tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they
release.
148
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- need to keep up emissions to survive
Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, 8
(Phil, April 23th 2008, The Australian, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and
Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that
there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming , the average
temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite
the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global
temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley
Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York,
the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California )
report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007 . This is the fastest temperature change in the
instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first
time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James
Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally
dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of
somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after
that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and
lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another
little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is
that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The
previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold
period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand
Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline
in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it
is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are
moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice
age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything
warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US
and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it
(such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote
but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has
almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of
ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have
enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur
quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is
inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even
faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be
14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing
under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees.
Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
The coming Ice Age outweighs any impacts of Warming
Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food
Issues at the Hudson Institute, 7
(Fred, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Page 13, JA
The climate event that deserves real concern is the next Big Ice Age . That is inevitably
approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may plummet 15
degrees Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder . Humanity and food
production will be forced closer to the equator, as huge ice sheets expand in Canada. Scandinavia. Russia, and
Argentina. Even Ohio and Indiana may gradually be encased in mile-thick ice, while California and the Great Plains could suffer
150
Warming cant trigger another Ice Age prefer our science over their unwarranted fearmongering
Gibbs, journalist for the New York Times, 2007
(Walter, May 15th 2007, The New York Times, Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming
World, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/earth/15cold.html?
pagewanted=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/%20Environment&_r=2%3E, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of
cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about
that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held
climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of
the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of
Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that
warm-water current, Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would
be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries,
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- need to keep up emissions to survive
Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, 8
(Phil, April 23th 2008, The Australian, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time
image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point
between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on
158
added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010 . That is about
a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and
marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning
back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles,
with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined
substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the
current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASAs Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, Indeed, the sun could
be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest
in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening
trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots . Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar
Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any
sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their
conclusion. That is even more significant because NASAs climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who
recently announced his retirement. But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give
way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly
temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.
That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year
cycle doesnt bring about considerable climate change only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year
cycle is greater up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200250 years. In other words, another Little Ice Age.
An ice age is coming
National Post 8 (February 25th 2008, the National Post, Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice
Age. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab721adbdbb1d0d0, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any
time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered
record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler
than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the
normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had
toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the
real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of
February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the
pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its
"lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much
greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic
winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this
time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our
most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the
natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder
whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma. According to
159
Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical
dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping
the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward
from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by
over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year
cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in
the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as
"a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not
alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long
period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth
suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through
killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did
rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the
global warmers, too.
An ice age is cooling due to lower sun activity- solar science proves
Svensmark, PhD., director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space,9
(Henrik, 9/10/09, Whatsupwiththat.com, Svensmark: global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning
enjoy global warming while it lasts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warmingstopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the
Suns magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, It
is likely that the current years number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is
going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for
us on Earth. If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the
answer is a reassuring nothing. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Lets take a closer look. Solar
activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm
Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and
explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, Chinas population doubled in this period. But after about 1300
solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the
Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But
more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of
disease and hunger. "The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish
king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjlland). The risky
but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image. Its
important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the
past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed
again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a grand minimum such as we saw in
the Little Ice Age. The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes
explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not
just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high
and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a
cooling Earth the result. You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Suns changing activity affects the climate.
The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate a bit like turning up
and down the brightness of a light bulb. Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar
radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another,
much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earths climate . In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the
Sun its impact on Earths cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. When the
Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the
Earths cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity
and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Suns magnetism doubled in strength during the
20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then. That also explains why most climate scientists try
to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun
provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller. Ever since we put forward our
theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science. First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity
could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that
demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation. Then came the
criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just
rejected that criticism emphatically. It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause
the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the
amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect indeed so great that in popular terms the Earths
clouds originate in space. So we have watched the Suns magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s. That the
Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder
160
and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts. In fact
global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate
Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years . His explanation was a natural
change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a
comeback.
161
confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising
CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age . Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our research shows why
atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It
shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The
result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we
would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result .' Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern
of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is
not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important. Humanity has to date
burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of
about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.
162
who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of
cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about
that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held climate
theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of the Gulf
Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of Europe with
warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that warm-water current, Americans
on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain,
northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of
the world sweltered. All that has now been removed from the forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced
by scientists worldwide in recent years has also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue. The concern had previously been that we were
close to a threshold where the Atlantic circulation system would stop, said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and
the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously thought. After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it
163
164
(Zbigniew, winter 2004, Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate, 21st Century Science and
Technology, p. 64, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Will mankind be able to protect the biosphere against the next returning Ice Age? It depends on how much
time we still have. I do not think that in the next 50 years we would acquire the knowledge and resources
sufficient for governing climate on a global scale. Surely we shall not stop climate cooling by
increasing industrial CO2 emissions. Even with the doubling of CO2 atmospheric levels, the increase in
global surface air temperature would be trifling. However, it is unlikely that permanent doubling of the
atmospheric CO2 , even using all our carbon resources, is attainable by human activities.29 (See also
Kondratyev, Reference 59.) Also, it does not seem possible that we will ever gain influence over the
Suns activity. However, I think that in the next centuries we shall learn to control sea currents and clouds,
and this could be sufficient to govern the climate of our planet. The following thought experiment illustrates
how valuable our civilization, and the very existence of mans intellect, is for the terrestrial biosphere. Mikhail
Budyko, the leading Russian climatologist (now deceased), predicted in 1982 a future drastic CO2 deficit in
the atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire surface
of the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said, would survive on the active volcano
edges.60 Budykos hypothesis is still controversial, but 10 years later it was discovered that 700 million years
ago, the Earth already underwent such a disaster, changing into Snowball Earth, covered in
white from Pole to Pole, with an average temperature of minus 40C.15 However lets assume
that Budyko has been right and that everything, to the very ocean bottom, will be frozen. Will
mankind survive this? I think yes, it would. The present technology of nuclear power, based on
the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, would secure heat and electricity supplies for 5
billion people for about 10,000 years. At the same time, the stock of hydrogen in the ocean for
future fusion-based reactors would suffice for 6 billion years. Our cities, industrial plants,
food-producing greenhouses, our livestock, and also zoos and botanical gardens turned into
greenhouses, could be heated virtually forever, and we could survive, together with many
other organisms, on a planet that had turned into a gigantic glacier. I think, however, that such a
passive solution would not fit the genius of our future descendants, and they would learn how to
restore a warm climate for ourselves and for everything that lives on Earth.
Warming melts arctic sea ice that leads to an ice age
The Telegraph 2/27/12
(The Telegraph, news agency, 27 Feb 2012, Freezing winters ahead due to melting Arctic Sea ice,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9109106/Freezing-winters-ahead-due-to-melting-Arctic-Seaice.html)
Climate change means autumn levels of sea ice have dropped by almost 30 percent since 1979 but this is likely to trigger more frequent cold snaps such as those that brought blizzards to the
UK earlier this month. And Arctic sea ice could be to blame. Dr Jiping Liu and colleagues
studied the extensive retreat of the ice in the summer and its slow recovery focusing on the
impacts of this phenomenon on weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Information about snow
cover, sea level pressure, surface air temperature and humidity was used to generate model simulations for the
years 1979-2010. The researchers say dramatic loss of ice may alter atmospheric circulation
patterns and weaken the westerly winds that blow across the North Atlantic Ocean from
Canada to Europe. This will encourage regular incursions of cold air from the Arctic into
Northern continents - increasing heavy snowfall in the UK. Dr Liu said: "The results of this study
add to an increasing body of both observational and modeling evidence that indicates
diminishing Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in driving recent cold and snowy winters over
(Oct. 10, Croatian Times, Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years,
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-0210/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
*quoting Vladimir Paarphysicist at Croatias Zagreb University. **This card has been gender
modified
The Zagreb based scientist says it will still be possible for humans to survive in the ice age, but
the spending on energy will be enormous. "Food production also might be a problem. It would
need to be produced in greenhouses with a lot of energy spent to heat it", commented the
professor, who remains optimistic despite his predictions. He said: "The nuclear energy we
know today will not last longer than 100 years as we simply do not have enough uranium in the
world to match the needs in an ice age. But I'm still optimistic. There is the process of nuclear
fusion happening on the Sun. The fuel for that process is hydrogen and such a power plant is
already worked on in France as a consortium involving firms from Marseille and the European
Union, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. The head of the project is a Japanese
expert, and former Japanese ambassador in Croatia", Vladimir Paar revealed. He said the
building of the new technology power plant will take at least another 10 years. "In 40 years we'll
know how it functions. That would be a solution that could last for thousands of years. We have
a lot of hydrogen and the method is an ecological one", the professor concluded.
The most recent scientific consensus is that an ice age will not occur for at least 70,000 years
Berger, professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain and MF Loutre, 2002
(Andre, Aug. 23, Science, An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, EBSCO, Vol. 297,
accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
When paleoclimatologists gathred in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm period
would end ( 1), a slide into the next glacial seemed imminent. But more recent studies point
toward a different future: a long interglacial that may last another 50,000 years. An
interglacial is an uninterrupted warm interval during which global climate reaches at least the
preindustrial level of warmth. Based on geological records available in 1972, the last two
interglacials including the Eemian, 125,000 years ago) were believed to have lasted about
10,000 years. This is about the length of the current warm intervalthe Holoceneto date.
Assuming a similar duration for all interglacials, the scientists concluded that it is likely that
the present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene ( 1,p.
267). Some assumptions made 30 years ago have since been questioned. Past interglacials may
have been longer than originally assumed ( 2). Some, including marine isotope stage 11 (MIS-11,
400,000 years ago), may have been warmer than at present ( 3). We are also increasingly aware
of the intensification of the greenhouse effect by human activities ( 4). But even without human
perturbation, future climate may not develop as in past interglacials ( 5) because the forcings
and mechanisms that produced these earlier warm periods may have been quite different from
today's. Most early attempts to predict future climate at the geological time scale ( 6, 7)
prolonged the cooling that started at the peak of the Holocene some 6000 years ago, predicting
a cold interval in about 25,000 years and a glaciation in about 55,000 years. These projections
were based on statistical rules or simple models that did not include any CO2 forcing. They thus
implicitly assumed a value equal to the average of the last glacial-interglacial cycles [225 parts
(Andrew, March 2, The New York Times, Skeptics on Human Climate Impact seize on cold spell,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past
year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with
a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop
in the globes average temperature. It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers,
political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused
global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment. Earths Fever Breaks: Global
COOLING Currently Under Way, read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc
Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts,
including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good oldfashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La
Nia phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Nio pattern. If
anything else is afoot like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and
atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures an array of scientists who have staked
out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to
pinpoint whether such a new force is at work. Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no
way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted
weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. The current downturn is not very
unusual, said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in
Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose
findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar
drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Nia event is over, he said. Mr. Morano,
in an e-mail message, was undaunted, saying turnabout is fair play: Fair is fair. Noting (not
hyping) an unusually harsh global winter is merely pointing out the obvious. Dissenters of a
man-made climate crisis are using the reality of this record-breaking winter to expose the silly
warming alarmism that the news media and some scientists have been ceaselessly promoting
for decades. More clucking about the cold is likely over the next several days. The Heartland
Institute, a public policy research group in Chicago opposed to regulatory approaches to
environmental problems, is holding a conference in Times Square on Monday and Tuesday
aimed at exploring questions about the cause and dangers of climate change. The event will
convene an array of scientists, economists, statisticians and libertarian commentators holding
a dizzying range of views on the changing climate from those who see a human influence but
think it is not dangerous, to others who say global warming is a hoax, the suns fault or
beneficial. Many attendees say it is the dawn of a new paradigm. But many climate scientists
and environmental campaigners say it is the skeptics last stand. Michael E. Schlesinger, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on
the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating
greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a
harmful distraction. Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, involves finding a
signal in a noisy background. He added, The only way to do this within our noisy climate
system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished,
169
170
1NC Agriculture DA
High-risk of short-term food shortages CO2 emissions is key to prevent extinction
Sherwood and Idso 10 (Keith and Craig, "The World's Looming Food and Water Shortage," CO2 Science
Magazine, Volume 13, Number 49:8, December, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N49/EDIT.php)
Every now and then, various astute observers of man's precarious position on planet earth call
our attention to a developing global crisis that seems destined to wreak havoc on the human
race a mere forty years from now: a lack of sufficient land and freshwater resources to produce
the food that will be required to sustain our growing population. The most recent of this community
of researchers to address the approaching problem are Hanjra and Qureshi (2010), who begin their treatment
of the subject by quoting Benjamin Franklin's well-known homily: "when the well is dry, we know the worth of
water." "Food policy," as the two Australian researchers write, "must not lose sight of surging water scarcity."
Stating that "population and income growth will increase the demand for food and water," they
indicate that "irrigation will be the first sector to lose water, as water competition by nonagricultural uses increases and water scarcity intensifies." And noting that "increasing water
scarcity will have implications for food security, hunger, poverty, and ecosystem health and
services," they report that "feeding the 2050 population will require some 12,400 km3 of water, up
from 6800 km3 used today." This huge increase, in their words, "will leave a water gap of about
3300 km3 even after improving efficiency in irrigated agriculture, improving water
management, and upgrading of rainfed agriculture," as per the findings of de Fraiture et al. (2007),
Molden (2007) and Molden et al. (2010). This water deficiency, according to Hanjra and Qureshi,
"will lead to a food gap unless concerted actions are taken today." Some of the things they propose,
in this regard, are to conserve water and energy resources, develop and adopt climate-resilient crop varieties,
modernize irrigation, shore up domestic food supplies, reengage in agriculture for further development, and
reform the global food and trade market. And to achieve these goals, they say that "unprecedented global
cooperation is required," which by the looks of today's world is an even more remote possibility than that
implied by the proverbial wishful thinking. So, on top of everything else they suggest (a goodly portion of which
will not be achieved), what can we do to defuse the ticking time-bomb that is the looming food and
water crisis? We suggest doing nothing. But not just any "nothing." The nothing we suggest is
to not mess with the normal, unforced evolution of civilization's means of acquiring energy. We
suggest this, because on top of everything else we may try to do to conserve both land and
freshwater resources, we will still fall short of what is needed to be achieved unless the air's
CO2 content rises significantly and thereby boosts the water use efficiency of earth's crop
plants, as well as that of the plants that provide food and habitat for what could be called "wild
nature," enabling both sets of plants to produce more biomass per unit of water used in the
process. And to ensure that this happens, we will need all of the CO2 that will be produced by
the burning of fossil fuels, until other forms of energy truly become more cost-efficient than
coal, gas and oil. In fact, these other energy sources will have to become much more costefficient before fossil fuels are phased out; because the positive externality of the CO2-induced
increase in plant water use efficiency provided by the steady rise in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels will be providing a most important service in
helping us feed and sustain our own species without totally decimating what yet remains of
wild nature.
CO2 solves food shortages no habitat destruction
Sherwood and Idso 10 (Keith and Craig, "Surviving the Perfect Storm," CO2 Science Magazine, Volume 13,
Number 44:3 November, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N44/EDIT.php)
In introducing their review of food security publications pertinent to the challenge of feeding nine billion
people just four decades from now, Godfray et al. (2010) note that "more than one in seven people today
still do not have access to sufficient protein and energy from their diet and even more suffer
some form of micronutrient malnourishment," citing the FAO (2009); and they write that although
"increases in production will have an important part to play" in correcting this problem and
173
Idso squared 1 (Craig and Keith, Two Crises of Unbelievable Magnitude: Can We Prevent One Without
Exacerbating the Other? Volume 4, Number 24: 13 June,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N24/EDIT.php)
So how do we resolve the knotty issue of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, when they are claimed to create one
crisis but are deemed capable of averting another? We do it by invoking the precautionary principle, wherein
we consider the question of risk; and in this regard we have already completed, with a little help from our
friends, one phase of the required analysis. We have determined with a good degree of confidence
that the agriculturally-driven environmental crisis will likely occur in spite of all we can do to
stop it with what we already know, and even in spite of all we can do to stop it with what we can
reasonably hope to learn over the next fifty years (Idso and Idso, 2000; Tilman et al., 2001). The
second task, therefore, is to determine if the likelihood of catastrophic CO2-induced global
warming occurring sometime in the foreseeable future is anywhere near as certain as the
looming agricultural crisis. We could, of course, argue this question back and forth with
various climate alarmists until both of our groups turned blue in the face; and so we will take a
different tack. What we will do instead is refer to the recent News Focus article of Kerr (2001) in the 13 April
issue of Science. In spite of the bad marks we gave the journal's Editor-in-Chief a few weeks ago for his
extremely biased comments about the subject (see our Editorial of 18 April 2001), news writer Kerr has
produced an amazingly balanced piece of science journalism aimed at this topic that provides
all the information needed for our purposes. Kerr begins by pointing out something about the
latest report from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that
176
179
-- EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
Wall Street Journal 2013(Wall Street Journal, No Need to Panic About Global Warming July 4, 2013
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do
about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all
scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a
large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global
warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever , a supporter of President Obama in the last
election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I
did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The
evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken,
significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to
discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence
of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the
"pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the
opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason
is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to
the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin
Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we
can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving
water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years
since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionssuggests that
computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this
embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to
enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high
concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so
much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations
by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals
evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant
varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in
agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from
additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while
they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not
being promotedor worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the
journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually
correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past
thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr.
de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was
able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforefor example, in the frightening
period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they
believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were
sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
186
2NC UQ Wall
Uniqueness Debate Group It
The next agricultural revolution is underway. Absent CO2, food demand will devastate wild
nature.
Idso squared, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 01
(Craig and Keith, The Most Important Global Change, February 2001, Volume 4, Number 8: 21,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N8/EDIT.php)
It thus behooves us to seriously consider the findings of Tilman et al. (2001), reported just four days later in the pages of Science, which Leo and Gergen
had obviously not the advantage of seeing when they composed their essays. In an analysis of the global environmental
impacts of agricultural expansion that will likely occur over the next 50 years, which was based upon
projected increases in population and concomitant advances in technological expertise, the group of
ten respected researchers concluded that the task of meeting the doubled global food demand they
calculated to exist in the year 2050 will likely exact an environmental toll that "may rival climate change in
environmental and societal impacts." What are the specific problems? For starters, Tilman and his colleagues note that
"humans currently appropriate more than a third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and
about half of usable freshwaters, have doubled terrestrial nitrogen supply and phosphorus liberation, have
manufactured and released globally significant quantities of pesticides , and have initiated a major extinction
event." Now, think of doubling those figures. In fact, do even more; for the scientists calculate global nitrogen fertilization and
pesticide production will likely rise by a factor of 2.7 by the year 2050.
Agricultural demand will triple by 2050only increased CO2 emissions can solve
Idso Cubed 5 (Craig, president of CO2 Science, Keith, Vice president of CO2 Science, Sherwood, Will
Farming Destroy Wild Nature? APRIL 13TH 2005 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N15/EDIT.php)
In an article in Science entitled "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature," Green et al. (2005) address a looming problem of
incredible proportions and significance: how to meet the two- to three-fold increase in food demand that
will exist by 2050 (Tilman et al., 2002; Bongaarts, 1996) without usurping for agriculture all the land that is
currently available to what they call "wild nature." The four scientists demonstrate the immediacy of the
problem by discussing the relationship between farming and birds . They begin by noting that "farming
(including conversion to farmland and its intensifying use) is the single biggest source of threat to bird species listed as
Threatened (accounting for 37% of threats) and is already substantially more important for species in developing countries than those in developed
countries (40% and 24% of threats, respectively)," and by reporting that " for developing and developed countries alike, the
scale of the threat posed by agriculture is even greater for Near-Threatened species (57% and
33% of threats, respectively)." Clearly, a little more taking of land by agriculture will likely be
devastating to several species of birds; and a lot more usurpation (using words employed by climate alarmists the world over) will likely be
catastrophically deadly to many of them, and numerous other animals as well . So how does one solve the
problem and keep from driving innumerable species to extinction (using more words that climate alarmists
relish) and still feed the masses of humanity that will inhabit the planet a mere 45 years hence? The answer is simple: one has
to raise more food without appreciably increasing the amounts of land and water used to do it. The
problem is that it is getting more and more difficult to do so. Already, in fact, Green et al. report that annual growth in yield is now higher in the
developing world than it is in the developed world, which suggests we may be approaching the upper limits of the benefits to be derived from the types of
technology that served us so well over the last four decades of the 20th century, when global food production outstripped population growth and kept us
largely ahead of the hunger curve, at least where political unrest did not keep food from reaching the tables of those who needed it. This is also the
conclusion of Green et al., who report that "evidence from a range of taxa in developing countries suggests that high-yield farming may allow more
species to persist." But will the high-yield farming we are capable of developing in the coming years be high enough to keep the loss of wild nature's land
at an acceptable minimum? This question was addressed by Idso and Idso (2000), who developed a supply-and-
demand scenario for food in the year 2050. Specifically, they identified the plants that currently supply 95% of the world's food
needs and projected historical trends in the productivities of these crops 50 years into the future. They also evaluated the growthenhancing effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on these plants and made similar yield
projections based on the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration likely to occur by that future date. This
work indicated that world population would be 51% greater in the year 2050 than it was in 1998, but that world food production would be only 37%
greater, if its enhanced productivity were solely a consequence of anticipated improvements in agricultural technology and expertise. However, they
determined that the consequent shortfall in farm production could be overcome - but just barely - by
the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from the aerial fertilization effect of the expected
187
188
189
2NC Quals
Not a reason to reject Even if theyre unqualified, the aff should be able to provide warranted
arguments to disprove our claims. Privilege debate over ad homs.
The Idsos are qualified.
A. Scholastic background
Hayashi, Managing Director at The Dillard Anderson Group, 05
(Stuart, July 1, When Hot Tempers Not Hot Temperatures Create a Harsh Climate available at
http://50thstar.blogspot.com/2005/07/whenhot-tempers-not-temperatures.html)
When Robinsons paper cites a scientist who is not a climatologist, such as Sherwood B. Idso, it is done in a reasonable
fashion. When Idso, for example, was going for his Ph.D., his focus was on soil sciences while his
minor was meteorology, and he served as an adjunct professor of geology, geography, and
botany in the past So it makes sense that the 56th note of Robinsons paper cites Idso about how increases in
carbon dioxide can benefit the growth of plants. As far as professional credentials go, Idso is
qualified to make that assessment.
B. The Economist confirms quals.
Kjos, Author of Brave new schools, 08
(Berit, February 8, 2008 Saving the Earth, http://www.crossroad.to/Books/BraveNewSchools/5-Earth.htm,
Ch5)
In spite of the world's fear of carbon dioxide, science shows that a rise in CO2, the major "greenhouse gas", would help food
production. In a CFACT report on the Greenhouse Effect, Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Institute for Biospheric Research,
explains that "a simple doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, increases the productivity of essentially all plants
by about one-third, while decreasing the amount of water they lose through evaporation by an
equal amount. These effects essentially double the water use efficiencies of all plants, making them more productive and
drought resistant."[35] (Notice, all green plants, not just trees, use CO2 for photosynthesis.) The editors of The Economist seems
to agree. "Environmentalists are dismayed," they wrote in an April 1995 issue. "Their efforts to scare the
world over global warming seems not to have worked.... Some areas of the world would benefit
from a warmer climate.
C. ICSC coalition recognizes the Idsos as qualified experts.
ICSC 8
(International Climate Science Coalition, ellipse removes the alphabetical listing of other qualified scientists,
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=1)
QUALIFIED ENDORSERS NOT AT CONFERENCE: The following individuals, all well-trained in science and
technology or climate change-related economics and policy , have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change: Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe,
Arizona, U.S.A
And theyre a leading and respected group in the global warming debate.
Exchange Morning Post 8 (An intelligent discussion about climate change, Exchange, April 23rd,
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week17/Wednesday/0423016.html)
The International Climate Science Coalition is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy
experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change . ICSC is committed
to providing a highly credible alternative to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thereby
fostering a more rational, open discussion about climate issues .
All sides of the climate debate receive funding from interested parties and Idso reached and
published his conclusion before and funding controversy arose.
Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 06
191
(Craig D., Robert, and S. Fred, 2011, NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered, 2011 Interim Report, Chapter
7, http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html, accessed 7/5/13, AK)Moving on to C4 plants
where the enzyme PEP carboxylase allows CO2 to be taken in very quickly and delivered
directly to RuBisCO for photosynthetic incorporation into a 4-carbon compoundVu and Allen
(2009) note such vegetation represents fewer than 4% of all angiosperm species, yet their
ecological and economic significance is substantial. On a global basis, for example, they write, up
to onethird of terrestrial productivity is provided by C4 plants, citing Cerling et al.
(1997), Ghannoum et al. (1997), and Brown et al. (2005), and they note in many tropical regions, the
food source is primarily based on C4 crops, among [which] maize, millet, sorghum and
sugarcane are the most agriculturally important monocots in terms of production (Brown, 1999),
with up to 75% of the world sugar production provided by sugarcane (De Souza et al., 2008). In
addition, they indicate the emerging use of sugarcane as a source for biofuel production has
been highly recognized, citing Goldenberg (2007). So what will happen to the productivity of this important
crop as the airs CO2 content continues its upward climb, especially if global air temperatures rise along with
it? Historically, C4 crops have been thought to be relatively unresponsive to atmospheric CO2
enrichment, as they possess a CO2-concentrating mechanism that allows them to achieve a
greater photosynthetic capacity than C3 plants at the current atmospheric CO2 concentration,
particularly at high growth temperatures (Matsuoka et al., 2001). Thus, simple reasoning might
suggest C4 plants may be little benefited, if at all, in a CO2-enriched and warmer world of the
future. However, in the case of sugarcane, as the research of Vu and Allen demonstrates,
simple reasoning would be incorrect, especially with respect to the most important measure of
sugarcanes economic value: stem juice production. The two researchers with the USDAs Agricultural
Research Service, who hold joint appointments in the Agronomy Department of the University of Florida
(USA), grew two cultivars of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) for a period of three months in pairedcompanion, temperature gradient, sunlit greenhouses under daytime CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720 ppm
and air temperatures of 1.5C (near ambient) and 6.0C higher than outside ambient temperature, after which
they measured several different plant properties. On a main stem basis, Vu and Allen write, leaf
area, leaf dry weight, stem dry weight and stem juice volume were increased by growth at
doubled CO2 [as well as at] high temperature, and they state these increases were even greater
under the combination of doubled CO2 and high temperature, with plants grown under these
conditions averaging 50%, 26%, 84% and 124% greater leaf area, leaf dry weight, stem dry
weight and stem juice volume, respectively, compared with plants grown at [the] ambient
CO2/near-ambient temperature combination. In addition, they write, plants grown at [the]
doubled CO2/high temperature combination were 2- to 3-fold higher in stem soluble solids
than those at [the] ambient CO2/near-ambient temperature combination. Consequently, as Vu and
Allen conclude, sugarcane grown under predicted rising atmospheric CO2 and temperature in
the future may use less water, utilize water more efficiently, and would perform better in
sucrose production. This bodes well for tropical-region agriculture, especially, as they note,
with the worldwide continued increase in demand for sugarcane as a source of food and
biofuel. Last, they add that significant improvements in stem sucrose and biomass through
classical breeding and/or new biotechnology may also be achieved; and, hence, they state,
studies to identify the cultivars with high efficiency in water use and stem sucrose production
under future changes in CO2 and climate are of great importance and should be initiated and
explored. Working hand-in-hand with the benefits provided by the ongoing rise in the airs CO2
content, therefore, as well as those provided by the possibility of still higher air temperatures to
come, we may yet be able to meet the increasing food needs of our expanding numbers without
194
196
197
198
199
suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. A set of controlled experiments known as FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experiments
have been performed in which ambient CO2 levels are elevated in forest stands and changes in various
measures of productivity are made over several years. Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in
agreement with models), that any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly
offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity. This is due in part to the fact that other
conditions (e.g. availability of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus) appear to quickly become limiting, even when carbon
availability is removed as a constraint on plant growth when ambient CO 2 concentrations are sufficiently
increased. A few simple calculations indicate that any hypothesized co2 fertilization response is unlikely to offset a significant fraction of projected
increases in atmospheric co2 concentration over the next century. At present, about 600 billion tons of carbon are tied up in the
above-ground vegetation. About 2-3 times this much is tied up in roots and below ground carbon, which is a
more difficult carbon pool to augment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century
range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if the world increases its
reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically. These numbers clearly indicate that sequestering
a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very difficult, especially as forests are cleared to make way for
agriculture and communities. While there are possibilities of storage in wells and deep in the ocean, stabilizing the atmospheric CO2
concentration would require gathering up the equivalent of 1 to 2 times the worlds existing above ground
vegetation and putting it down abandoned oil wells or deep in the ocean . While CO2 fertilization could help to increase above
ground vegetation a bit, storing more than a few tens of percent of the existing carbon would be quite surprising, and this is likely to be more like a few
percent of global carbon emissions projected for the 21st century.
He joined the Times last year after a dozen years as an editor and reporter at The Washington Post, and before that, a dozen years at The Miami Herald.
A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Now, the latest scientific research suggests that a previously discounted factor is helping to destabilize the food system:
climate change. Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in
the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia. Scientists believe some, though not all, of those events
were caused or worsened by human-induced global warming. Temperatures are rising rapidly during the
growing season in some of the most important agricultural countries , and a paper published several weeks ago found that this
had shaved several percentage points off potential yields, adding to the price gyrations. For nearly two decades, scientists had predicted that
climate change would be relatively manageable for agriculture, suggesting that even under worst-case assumptions, it would
probably take until 2080 for food prices to double. In part, they were counting on a counterintuitive ace in the hole: that rising carbon
dioxide levels, the primary contributor to global warming, would act as a powerful plant fertilizer and offset many of the ill
effects of climate change. Until a few years ago, these assumptions went largely unchallenged. But lately, the destabilization of the
food system and the soaring prices have rattled many leading scientists . The success of agriculture has been astounding, said
Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher at NASA who helped pioneer the study of climate change and agriculture. But I think theres starting to
be premonitions that it may not continue forever. A scramble is on to figure out whether climate science has been too sanguine about
the risks. Some researchers, analyzing computer forecasts that are used to advise governments on future crop prospects, are pointing out what
they consider to be gaping holes. These include a failure to consider the effects of extreme weather, like the floods and the
heat waves that are increasing as the earth warms. A rising unease about the future of the worlds food supply came through during interviews this year
with more than 50 agricultural experts working in nine countries. These experts say that in coming decades, farmers need to
withstand whatever climate shocks come their way while roughly doubling the amount of food they produce
to meet rising demand. And they need to do it while reducing the considerable environmental damage caused
by the business of agriculture.
Heat capacity, financial and tech constraints outweigh CO2 benefits
James McCarthy, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Full Text of Third Assessment WG #2,
1.2.1.1, http://www.ipcc.ch
Human production factors notwithstanding, food production is influenced mostly by the availability of water and nutrients, as well as by
temperature. Increases in temperatures could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk
of
heat or drought stress in other areas. Livestock (e.g., cattle, swine, and poultry) are all susceptible to heat
stress and drought (Gates, 1993). The effects of climatic changeseven smooth trends will not be uniform in space or time. For smoothly
evolving climatic scenarios, recent literature (see Chapter 5) tends to project that high latitudes may experience increases in productivity for global
warming up to a 1C increase, depending on crop type, growing season, changes in temperature regimes, and seasonality of precipitation. In the
tropics and subtropics -where some crops already are near their maximum temperature
tolerance and where dry land, no irrigated agriculture predominates the literature suggests
that yields will tend to decrease with even nominal amounts of climate change (IPCC, 1998; Chapter 5).
Moreover, the adaptive capacity of less developed countries in the tropics is limited by financial
and technological constraints that are not equally applicable to more temperate. developed
countries. This would increase the disparity in food production between developed and
developing countries, For global warming greater than 2.5c Chapter 5 reports that most studies agree that
world food prices a key indicator of overall agricultural vulnerability would increase . Much of
the literature suggests that productivity increases in middle to high latitudes will diminish, and yield
decreases in the tropics and subtropics are expected to be more severe (Chapters 5 and 19). These
projections are likely to be. underestimates, and our confidence in them cannot be high because they are
based on scenarios in which significant changes in extreme events such as droughts and
floods are not fully considered or for which rapid nonlinear climatic changes have not been,
assumed (Section 2.3.4 notes that vulnerability to extreme events generally is higher than vulnerability to changing mean conditions).
The ingenuity of farmers, breeders, and agricultural engineers, and the natural resilience of
biological systems, will help buffer many of the negative effects of climate change on
agriculture. However, experts believe that over the longer term, the accumulated stresses of
sustained climate change stand a good chance of disrupting agro-ecosystems and reducing
global food productivity.
industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care
aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon. Thats the news release from a major 21-author Science paper, The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew
from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred.
But this study looked back over 300 million and found that the
We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political
debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other
environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all
the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." In a very real and
direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to
support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine
ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in
the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse
ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among
component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This
implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is
also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining
the rest of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine
ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide.
ecosystems provide. More generally,
Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values
for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also
have considerable force and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that
most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory
almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." More
stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing
the United
States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few
fishers go out of business as a result.
frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that
Their studies are flawed they were done in greenhouses rather than open fields
Mittelstaedt 9 (Martin, The Globe and Mails environment reporter, The Globe and Mail, 3-31,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article743395.ece, 7-3-11)
Scientists have made another worrisome discovery , this time about carbon dioxide itself, the main
greenhouse gas, which is vital for plant development. It had been assumed in the 1980s, based on greenhouse experiments , that an
atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide would stimulate plant growth , raising some crop yields by as much as
30 per cent. That is part of the reason why, up until now, few people worried much about agriculture and global warming. It was thought that, while
climate change might wreak havoc on ice-dependent polar bears and low-lying coastal cities, it held a verdant lining for farmers. But new
research published last year based on experiments in the U.S., Japan, Switzerland and New Zealand
found the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide were vastly overrated when crops were grown in
the more realistic setting of open farm fields, rather than in greenhouses. Corn yields didn't rise at
all, and the rise in wheat and rice yields was less than half previous estimates.
203
***Russia DA***
204
1NC- Russia DA
Arctic warming is key to Russias economy
Mahoney 11 (Honor Mahony, is editor of the EUobserver in Brussels and has also written for The Irish Times, Sunday Business Post and Spiegel
Online, 6/7/11, Ocnus.net, http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Business_1/Arctic-Shipping-Routes-Unlikely-to-be-Suez-of-the-North.shtml
Late last year a cargo ship made maritime history. It became the first foreign bulk carrier to make a commercial
trip across Russian Arctic waters. Carrying over 40,000 tonnes of iron ore, the MV Nordic Barents left
Kirkenes port in Norway on 4 September. It sailed the North Sea route, a path that runs eastwards from
northern Europe, along Russia's north coast and through the Bering Strait. Some three weeks later, it docked in
Xingang, northern China. The North Sea route has become freer of ice, but the navigation season is
still just two-four months "The whole trip went very well. There were no big delays and it was a
lot cheaper. Just compared to going via the Cape of Good Hope, the savings for fuel alone was
around $550,000," said Christian Bonfils, CEO of Nordic Bulk Carriers, operator of the ship.
The Russians have been using Arctic waters all year round for decades. Retreating sea ice due
to global warming in recent years has seen foreign shipping companies start to look
northwards for the possibility of commercial shipping routes. But until recently the area has
been closed to foreign ships wanting to get to hungry Asian markets. Instead companies use
the Suez Canal - a trip which, counted from Norway, is almost twice as long. Last year Tschudi
Shipping, which owns a mine in Kirkenes, approached the Russians about the possibility of using the North Sea
route to get to China, the mine's biggest customer. "We got a very clear message from the Russians. It was: 'We
want to compete with Suez'," said CEO Felix Tschudi. The Norwegian company hooked up with Nordic Bulk
Carriers, who had the right type of ice ship, to make the trip. Until then uncertainty about how much the
Russians would charge for the mandatory use of their ice-breakers meant the trip was not economically viable.
"The rate we paid last year [$210,000] for ice-breaker services was very comparable with the Suez Canal," said
Bonfils. Getting Russian natural resources out So what prompted the Russian thaw? According to Professor
Lawson Brigham, an expert on Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, it comes down to Russia
wanting to exploit natural resources in the area. "The bottom line is that Russia's GNP is tied to Arctic
natural resources development. The real driver is building up a transport system to move the cargoes of
natural resources to global markets and one of the big global markets sitting there is China," he said. The
region has a wealth of natural resources including nickel, iron ore, phosphate, copper and
cobalt. There are huge reserves of gas in the Shtokman gas field, while a 2008 report by the US
Geological Survey suggested oil in the Arctic circle could amount to 13 percent of the world's
undiscovered supply. Tschudi and Bonfils have an additional, more prosaic explanation. The obligation
to use Russian ice-breakers is a money spinner. "If they can employ their icebreakers in the
summer season, then it's good business for them," said Bonfils. Problems Several more such transarctic trips are planned this year. According to Tschudi the North Sea route "will be important for those who
are shipping from fairly high north." "It will be quite important for mines in the Kola Peninsula [in north west
Russia], mines in Finland. You can also save by shipping from Rotterdam." But for all the buzz it has been
creating - shipping companies are also thrilled at the prospect of pirate-free waters caveats abound. Good
trade depends on predictability Global warming has meant the North Sea route has become freer of
ice. But this is the case only for about four months a year at most, sometimes only two. An
impact study on Arctic marine shipping by the Arctic Council notes that the navigation season
for the North Sea route is expected to be 90-100 days only by 2080. "Despite all of the change,
the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered for most of the year." said Brigham, adding: "The global maritime
industry works on just-in-time cargoes and the regular nature of marine traffic." "There is a little bit of a
misperception that this is a new global regime with new global shipping lanes that will replace Panama and
Suez [canals]." In addition, businesses need to feel less that they are subject to Russia's whim when it comes to
tariffs. "We need predictability [on prices] in order to plan," said Tschudi. There are a host of other problems
too. There is little infrastructure in Arctic territory. If a ship gets into trouble, help is far away. There are also
no clear rules on standards for ships sailing in the area. The waters are not as well chartered as elsewhere.
More oceangraphic and meterological data is needed as well as information on icebergs. At the political level,
there is a dispute over the waters. Russia considers the Northern Sea route as national territory, so
it makes the rules. The US disagrees.
205
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is
rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of
the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both
intimately acquainted with their nations history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect
that Russias economic crisis will endanger the nations political stability, achieved at great cost
after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among
rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that
the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are
the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a
desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where
economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious
accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical
dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic
vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations
on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we
know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake
at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and
destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obamas
national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in
Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by
the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis
represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political
instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding
the nations nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel
would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia
were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It
may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous
consequence.
206
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that mighthave been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There
was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear
Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.
[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation,
either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large
nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for
instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted.
Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the
existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
Russian economic weakness causes nuclear war, prolif, disease, terrorism, CBW use, and US
intervention
Oliker and Charlick-Paley 2 ( (Olga and Tanya, OLIKER AND CHARLICK-PALEY 2002 RAND Corporation
Project Air Force, Assessing Russias Decline, www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1442/)
The preceding chapters have illustrated the ways in which Russias decline affects that country and may evolve
into challenges and dangers that extend well beyond its borders. The political factors of decline may
make Russia a less stable international actor and other factors may increase the risk of internal
unrest. Together and separately, they increase the risk of conflict and the potential scope of
other imaginable disasters. The trends of regionalization, particularly the disparate rates of economic
growth among regions, combined with the politicization of regional economic and military interests, will be
important to watch. The potential for locale, or possibly ethnicity, to serve as a rallying point for internal
conflict is low at present, but these factors have the potential to feed into precisely the cycle of
instability that political scientists have identified as making states in transition to democracy
more likely to become involved in war. These factors also increase the potential for domestic turmoil,
which further increases the risk of international conflict, for instance if Moscow seeks to united a divided
nation and/or demonstrate globally that its waning power remains something to be reckoned with. Given
Russias conventional weakness, an increased risk of conflict carries with it an increased risk of
nuclear weapons use, and Russias demographic situation increases the potential for a major
epidemic with possible implications for Europe and perhaps beyond. The dangers posed by
Russias civilian and military nuclear weapons complex, aside from the threat of nuclear
weapons use, create a real risk of proliferation of weapons or weapons materials to terrorist
groups, as well as perpetuating an increasing risk of accident at one of Russias nuclear power
plants or other facilities. These elements touch upon key security interests, thus raising serious concerns
for the United States. A declining Russia increases the likelihood of conflictinternal or otherwise
and the general deterioration that Russia has in common with failing states raises serious
questions about its capacity to respond to an emerging crisis. A crisis in large, populous, and nucleararmed Russia can easily affect the interests of the United States and its allies. In response to such a
scenario, the United States, whether alone or as part of a larger coalition, could be asked to
208
209
211
Opinions among Russian experts vary, however. Mikhail Kozakov, financial markets director with
investment company Grandis Capital, says: In the medium term, Russia is a more attractive
investment destination than the developed markets. And besides, we have a trump card in the
shape of our commodities. With the currency exchange situation as uncertain as the outlook for the
economically developed countries, the commodity market is also becoming more interesting, at least for
speculative capital. Some other positive factors will not escape investors notice. In spite of the
overall mood of recession in Russia, the countrys economy is performing in a moderately
positive manner. According to the State Statistics Committee (Goskomstat), industrial output increased by
5.1pc from January to October and GDP in the third quarter is expected to grow by an estimated 4.8pc. When
times are hard, investors always look for alternative markets, says Georgy Aksyonov, an analyst with the Net
Trader company. I think the Russian market, which is part of Brics and is still growing, albeit at a
slower pace in recent years, may be promising in this situation. Another cause for optimism
is that, in the current situation, the single European currency did not go into a tailspin, as many
predicted: at the time of going to press, the euro/dollar rate has not once dropped below 1.30
since January of this year. It should also be noted that the European debt crisis is changing the attitude to
protective mechanisms such as government bonds. Investors today are clearly shifting their focus from
sovereign to corporate debt. This is good news for Russia, because Russian corporations are much
cheaper than their Western counterparts. Russias financial authorities appear to be
optimistic. Sergey Shevtsov, vice-president of the Central Bank, does not anticipate any serious threats to the
domestic economy, though he admits that the crisis might lead to a shortage of liquidity. We expect it to peak
in mid-December and, thereafter, the budget will be disbursing actively, he said on the fringes of an
international financial conference sponsored by Sberbank. The liquidity deficit will grow but it will not,
on the whole, create problems for the banking sector and the economy in general.
212
(Reuters) - With a sovereign debt of just 10 percent of GDP and half a trillion dollars in reserves,
Russia has a balance sheet that the United States and Europe can only envy as they battle their
debt crises. But a closer look at Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin's latest fiscal plans reveals two concerns: he
is betting that oil prices will stay high for years; and even if he is right, the pace of budget consolidation
will slow significantly. By his own reckoning, the books would only balance with oil at $125 per
barrel next year, reflecting the impact on the public finances of the global slump that put an end
to years of surpluses generated at much lower oil prices. Kudrin has only managed to keep the
projected deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the three-year budget
horizon by hiking his oil price forecast to the mid-$90s from the high $70s previously. Even
then, the fiscal strategy abandons a previous goal of balancing the budget by 2015. After
stripping out energy revenues -- which account for nearly half of the tax take -- the deficit will
stay over 10 percent of GDP. "Given the very high oil price forecast, the slow fiscal consolidation is
disappointing," said Ivan Tchakarov, chief economist at Renaissance Capital. "The oil sensitivity of the budget
has increased dramatically." "It's a retrograde step," agreed Edward Parker, sovereign analyst at Fitch Ratings
in London. The biggest risk for Russia remains "a sharp and sustained" drop in oil prices.
LOCKED IN In rough terms, a $10 fall in the oil price would translate into an increase of one
percentage point in the deficit for the world's largest oil and gas producer. "With oil at $95
everybody's happy," said Sergei Guriev, rector of Moscow's New Economic School. "But at $70,
borrowing becomes hard for both companies and the government." On the spending side, the
government has locked itself into higher pension outlays, increasing budget transfers from 1.5 percent of GDP
in 2008 to 5.2 percent in 2010, Yevsei Gurvich, head of the Economic Expert Group, wrote in a recent study.
An offsetting hike in payroll taxes will be partly unwound next year on the orders of President Dmitry
Medvedev, who is likely to run for a second term next March if Prime Minister Vladimir Putin chooses not to
return to Russia's highest office. That will swell the largest budget item, social spending, which will rise in 2012
by 20 percent to 3.8 trillion roubles ($135 billion), accounting for 31 percent of federal outlays. Put another
way, Russia will spend four-fifths of its energy revenues on welfare. The cost of the pension
system, if left unreformed, could "completely undermine the stability of the budget system,"
Gurvich wrote. Kudrin will present his budget to parliament in the autumn. DOWNSIDE ACCELERATORS
Even if those costs are bearable under a sanguine view on oil, they would become difficult to
sustain in the event of a sharp and sustained oil price crash due to other contingent liabilities
that are, effectively, derivatives on the oil price. Chief of those are debts owed by large state-controlled
firms, such as energy majors Gazprom and Rosneft and banks Sberbank and VTB. Economists at Deutsche
Bank have estimated that a contingent liability shock caused by such "quasi-sovereign" entities could add 10
percentage points to Russia's national debt by 2020.
Past recessions prove
Pirani 10 researcher and journalist, senior research fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy studies (Simon, 05/10/10, RUSSIAN ECONOMY:
Russia's oil problem http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/2682714/RUSSIAN-ECONOMY-Russias-oil-problem.html)
214
To ask whether the Russian economy will rid itself of its dependence on oil is to ask whether
ideology will trump economics. Many people in Russiaincluding President Medvedevseem
to believe Russia should de-emphasize the role of oil, gas, and other commodities because they
are primitive. Relying on them, they argue, is degrading. From the economic point of view, this makes no
sense. Oil is Russias comparative advantage. It is the most competitive part of the economy. Oil
and gas are something everyone wants, and Russia has more of them than anyone else. It is true
that the Russian economy is backward, and that oil plays a role in that backwardness. But oil is
not the root cause. The causes of Russias backwardness lie in its inherited production structure. The physical structure of
the real economy (that is, the industries, plants, their location, work forces, equipment, products, and the production chains in which they
participate) is predominantly the same as in the Soviet era. The problem is that it is precisely the oil
wealth (the so-called oil rent) that is used to support and perpetuate the inefficient structure .
For the sake of social and political stability, a large share of Russias oil and gas rents is
distributed to the production enterprises that employ the inherited physical and human capital .
The production and supply chains in that part of the economy are in effect rent distribution
chains. A serious attempt to convert Russias economy into something resembling a modern
Western economy would require dismantling this rent distribution system . This would be both
highly destabilizing, and costly in terms of current welfare . Current efforts for diversification
do not challenge the rent distribution system . On the contrary, the kinds of investment envisioned in those efforts will
preserve and reinforce the rent distribution chains, and hence make Russia more dependent on oil rents. Even under optimal
conditions for investment, any dream of creating a non-oil Russia that could perform as well
as todays commodity-based economy is unrealistic. The proportion of GDP that would have to
be invested in non-oil sectors is impossibly high . Granted, some new firms, and even entire sectors,
may grow on the outside of the oil and gas sectors and the rent distribution chains they
support. But the development of the new sectors will be difficult, slow, and costly . Even if successful, the
net value they generate will be too small relative to oil and gas to change the overall profile of the economy. Thus, while it is fashionable to
talk of diversification of the Russian economy away from oil and gas, this is the least likely
outcome for the countrys economic future. If Russia continues on the current course of
pseudo-reform (which merely reinforces the old structures), oil and gas rents will remain important because
they will be critical to support the inherently inefficient parts of the economy . On the other hand, if
Russia were to somehow launch a genuine reform aimed at dismantling the old structures, the
only realistic way to sustain success would be to focus on developing the commodity sectors .
Russia could obtain higher growth if the oil and gas sectors were truly modern. Those sectors need to be opened to new entrants, with a level playing field
for all participants. Most important, oil, gas, and other commodity companies need to be freed from the requirement to participate in the various
informal schemes to share their rents with enterprises in the backward sectors inherited from the Soviet system. Certainly, there are issues with oil. It is a
highly volatile source of wealth. But there are ways to hedge those risks. A bigger problem is that oil will eventually lose its special status as an energy
source and therefore much of its value. But that time is far off. It will not happen suddenly. In the meantime, sensible policies can deal with the
problems. Otherwise, the approach should be to generate the maximum value possible from the oil and protect that value through prudent fiscal policies.
Russia should not, can not, and will not significantly reduce the role of oil and gas in its
economy in the foreseeable future. It will only harm itself by ill-advised and futile efforts to try.
215
218
219
In particular, within our lifetimes and possibly in less than a single generation, we may
witness the opening up of Arctic sea lanes that are fully navigable year round, he added. The
economic and military impact will be enormous, and the social impacts could also be both
powerful and positive. I imagine a world where international shipping can take the direct
northern route linking Asian markets to Europe, cutting consumption of fuel and reducing
carbon emissions from the shorter shipping routes; the potential for maritime commerce to
stimulate the economic development of Arctic ports, from James Bay to the High Arctic; secure sea
lanes for the shipping of strategic commodities, enabling northern oil producers to deliver product to market
without having to navigate through chokepoints vulnerable to terrorism. Among other likely benefits, Zellen
mentions an emergence of a more efficient military supply distribution network, enabling NATO,
the United States and allied Asian nations to operate securely across the top of the world to
bolster military bases and troops deployed in distant military theaters. Ultimately, he says, the
most positive outcome of the thawing ocean could be a true reconciliation between Russia, the
United States and the West, and the full integration of Russia into a Western security alliance.
Even with the increasing security and economic strains, Russia prioritized the social aspect of development in
the Arctic during its chairmanship of the Arctic Council from 2004 to 2006. Alexander Ignatiev, an official at
Russias Foreign Ministry who served as head of Senior Arctic Officials at the Arctic Council, says the socioeconomic plight in the countrys northern regions prompted Russia to put emphasis on this dimension of the
institutions agenda.
Relations solve extinction
Allison, Director Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards Kennedy
School, 2011 (10-31 -- Graham, Director Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards
Kennedy School, and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Robert D. Blackwill, Senior Fellow Council
on Foreign Relations, 10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters, Politico, 2011,
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9C-C5B3396CA0E6)
That central point is that Russia
matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests. Prime
Minister Vladimir Putins decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to
manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing
state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose
choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to advance our nations interests by engaging and working with
Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every
president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russias
preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems . As Washington seeks to
stop Irans drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between
failure and the possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and
cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational
terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As
U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries.
Sixth, Russia is the worlds largest oil producer and second largest gas produce r. Over the past decade,
Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in
Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily,
Americans feel Russias impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in todays international
provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S.
economy. Ninth, Russias brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places
first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International
Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei
Brin. Tenth, Russias potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate. Consider what a Russian
president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do from stopping the supply flow to
Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N.
Security Council resolutions.
221
[Daily
Reckoning Australia, October 10th, Northwest Passage Reopens Shipping Routes With Global Economic Impact, Mayer is a veteran of the banking
industry, specifically in the area of corporate lending. A financial writer since 1998, Mr. Mayer's essays have appeared in a wide variety of publications,
from the Mises.org Daily Article series to here in The Daily Reckoning. He is the editor of Mayer's Special Situations and Capital and Crisis - formerly the
Fleet Street Letter, http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/northwest-passage/2007/10/10/]
It started with a Russian expedition planting the Russian flag in a polar seabed. Though largely symbolic, it touched off a scramble among a handful of
nations, all trying to lay claim to the Arctic. Among these claimants: the U.S., Canada, Russia and Denmark. Why the sudden interest in the Arctic?
There are two big reasons. First, thanks to global warming, deposits of natural resources once layered over
in impenetrable ice are now easier to get at. Second, thanks to melting ice, some previously
icebound shipping lanes like the Northwest Passage are opening up . The available resources are still a long way
from being developed. The climate is incredibly harsh, and easier-to-get-at resources still exist on the fringes of the Arctic. As an oil and gas story, this
one has a long fuse. The Arctic thaws more immediate and bigger impact will be as a shipping lane. Since Aug. 21, the Northwest Passage
has been open to navigation and free of ice for the first time. Analysts confirm that the
passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in
1972, reports the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. The fabled passage through the Arctic Ocean connects the Pacific and Atlantic oceans along
the northern coast of North America. To pass through here from China on your way to Europe is about 5,000 miles shorter than going through the
Panama or Suez canals. As the Financial Times observes, A ship traveling at 21 knots between Rotterdam and Yokohama takes 29 days if it goes via the
Cape of Good Hope, 22 days via the Suez Canal and just 15 days if it goes across the Arctic Ocean. An oil tanker could make the trip
from the Russian port city of Murmansk to the east coast of Canada in a week by crossing the Arctic Ocean. That is about half the time it
takes to get an oil tanker from Abu Dhabi to Galveston, Texas. In the early 1900s, it took the famed Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and his team
nearly two years to pick their way through the ice and narrow waterways. Now the Northwest Passage could revolutionize shipping . More than
90% of all goods in the world, measured by tonnage, make their way by se a. And as Ive noted in the past, the
rapid surge in trade with China and India is putting a lot of strain on ports around the world. In recent years, the volume of container shipments has
grown 5-7% annually - basically, doubling every 10-15 years. The ships carrying those containers are getting bigger, and the old canals cant hold these
new seafaring beasts of burden as they once did. The Suez Canal can still handle the largest current container ships, but not the next generation. The
Panama Canal is even smaller. Its too small for ships that are now common on longer shipping routes. Panama plans to deepen its channels and make
them wider. But even so, the new Panama Canal wont be able to service the next generation of ships. So it looks like the world will have a new navigable
ocean with the Northwest Passage. The effects on trade could be immense. Much shorter shipping distances
and quicker shipping times will lower the cost of doing business. It could lead to big increases
in trade and, certainly, a major shift in sea lanes. A freer-flowing Arctic Ocean would also bring fish
stocks north - with fishing fleets not far behind. It could mean a new boom in fishing for salmon, cod, herring and smelt.
It could also mean that sleepy old ports could become important new hubs in international
trade. As the Financial Times recently wrote, Leading world powers have an unprecedented chance to win navigation rights and ownership of
resources in the Arctic seabed untouched since its emergence during the twilight of the dinosaurs. The U.S. alone could lay claim to
more than 200,000 square miles of additional undersea territory . The specific investment implications of this
are still too early to say. But the cracking open of new trade routes or reopening of old ones - and their
impact on global trade - always has ripple effects across financial markets. As for the Arctic, the
Northwest Passage has got to be one of the most important new developments on that front in a
long time.
Economic growth is key to prevent major wars
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and
Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on
the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the
global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition
from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution
of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the
risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment
for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles
222
combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes
and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000 )
theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable
in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states . He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations , However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult
to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access
to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because
it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline
and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify
the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with
an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when
facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect . Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency
towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states , due to the fact
that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided
evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of
economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied
connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
223
Copley News Service, privately held newspaper business, founded in Illinois, but later based in La
Jolla, California.Its flagship paper was The San Diego Union-Tribune ,99 (December 1)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by
nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists
protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth
is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but
also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a
worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters
clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades
past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia
about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace
activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament
movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other.
These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss
economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are
trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a
major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the
WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese
prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of
hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations
benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of
all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And
those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs
225
227
***SO2 Screw***
228
disruption of human societies and natural systems, and potentially bring about abrupt or "runaway
climate change," the report says. The task force, led by former British cabinet Secretary Stephen Byers and
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), was established under the auspices of the Institute for Public Policy Research
in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States, and the Australia Institute. Calling itself a
"unique international cross-party, cross-sector collaboration," the task force says its goal is to propose ways to
bring the United States and Australia, which both rejected the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas
emissions, back into multilateral negotiations on climate change. It is also meant to inform the next meeting of
the group of eight nations, which will be led by Blair and feature climate change as a key topic. The report
"provides ambitious but achievable policy solutions that reach across partisan lines and national boundaries to
build momentum for a new global energy agenda that can make important progress on this critical problem,"
said Center for American Progress President and Chief Executive Officer John Podesta in a statement. The
1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto agreement, committed
signatories to averting "dangerous" human interference with the climate system but left open the question of
what would constitute such interference. "Scientific evidence suggests that there is a threshold of
temperature increase above which the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change
increase sharply," the report states. The 2 degrees Celsius threshold has been increasingly discussed in
scientific and policy circles during the past few years and has been adopted as official policy by the European
Union, which represents the largest bloc of countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing
greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the United States has steered clear of any such predictions of a threshold level
that would constitute dangerous human interference under the UNFCCC. "No one can say with certainty what
that threshold is, but it is important that we make an educated judgment at this time based on the best
available science," the task force report states. It found that a net warming of about 2 degrees Celsius likely
would be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations above 400 parts per million, a level that is likely to be
surpassed on a business as usual emissions scenario as early as the next few decades. The emissions picture
is a complicated one, in part because some of the warming effects of the CO2 are blunted by
atmospheric particles such as sulfate aerosols, which exert a cooling influence on the climate.
Decreases in sulfur emissions will cause warming due to an increase in methane emissions
from wetlands and a decrease in radiative forcing
Gauci, Professor of Earth Sciences, Open University, 2004 [Vincent Gauci, Department of Earth
Sciences, Open University, Sulfur pollution suppression of the wetland methane source in the 20th and 21st
centuries, Environmental Sciences, http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/v.gauci/pics/d39285.pdf]
Our estimates of the combined effects of climate change, sulfate aerosol radiative effects, and SDEP
(GHGAEROSDEP) on CH4 emissions show that anthropogenic SDEP may have been sufficient to have
decreased the global wetland CH4 source to a level below preindustrial estimates by 1015 Tg during the
second half of the 20th century (Fig. 3). The combined effect of SO4 2 aerosols (cooling) and SO4 2deposition (limiting methane production at the source by microbial competition) are predicted
to offset the effect of GHG warming on CH4 emissions by 26 Tg in 2030 and by 15 Tg in 2080. In this
scenario, CH4 emissions will exceed preindustrial emissions by 14 Tg by 2080. The influence of
production and deposition of oxidized sulfur compounds through economic growth in North America and
Europe between 1960 and 1980, followed by increases in the economic growth in South America, Africa, and
This evidence is particularly devastating for them, not only is it a link to both of our climate
turns, but it proves that the turns function simultaneously and are consistent. If they appear in
the literature and the studies together, there is no inconsistency between them. Also, we only
need to win one of these scenarios to access our rapid warming impacts.
231
2NC Overview
DECREASING EMISSIONS AS A WHOLE CAUSES Loss of sulfate they wash out of the
environment within days and cause massive warming. Happens literally centuries before your
warming impact THATS HENSON
Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols cool the earth and cancel out global warming, but they are
extremely short-lived
NASA Atmospheric Sciences Division, 1996 [Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They
So Important?, NASA.gov, August 1996, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html]
The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in
the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols
created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the
atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current
production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally
produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where
industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby
reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to
survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days.
The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the
droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the
presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying
clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been
seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the
clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to
last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.
Climatic Effects of Aerosols
The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the
climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases.
The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric
trace gases - cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.
NEW LINK Decreases in sulfur emissions will cause warming due to an increase in methane
emissions from wetlands and a decrease in radiative forcing
Gauci, Professor of Earth Sciences, Open University, 2004 [Vincent Gauci, Department of Earth
Sciences, Open University, Sulfur pollution suppression of the wetland methane source in the 20th and 21st
centuries, Environmental Sciences, http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/v.gauci/pics/d39285.pdf]
Our estimates of the combined effects of climate change, sulfate aerosol radiative effects, and SDEP
(GHGAEROSDEP) on CH4 emissions show that anthropogenic SDEP may have been sufficient to
have decreased the global wetland CH4 source to a level below preindustrial estimates by 1015
Tg during the second half of the 20th century (Fig. 3). The combined effect of SO4 2- aerosols (cooling)
and SO4 2-deposition (limiting methane production at the source by microbial competition) are predicted
to offset the effect of GHG warming on CH4 emissions by 26 Tg in 2030 and by 15 Tg in 2080. In this
scenario, CH4 emissions will exceed preindustrial emissions by 14 Tg by 2080. The influence of production and
deposition of oxidized sulfur compounds through economic growth in North America and Europe between
1960 and 1980, followed by increases in the economic growth in South America, Africa, and (primarily) Asia,
are responsible for this pattern. Beyond 2030, however, a decline is predicted in sulfur pollution
because of anticipated cleaner technologies. Together with the additional effect of enhanced
greenhouse warming, we predict this reduction in sulfur pollution will result in a rapid
increase in CH4 emission (15% enhancement between 2030 and 2080) that may exacerbate climate
warming during that time.
233
235
[Dennis. L., P., UW Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Hawaii Institute Director of Geophysics and
Planetology, NASA Earth Observation Systems Group EOS Science Plan #339, Volcanoes and
Climate Effects of Aerosols, http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/science_plan/Ch8.pdf, 7/12/13, JZ]
Modeling of tropospheric aerosols present a greater challenge, because of the large number of
heterogeneously distributed aerosols and the evidence that aerosols can alter cloud properties.
The predominant anthropogenic aerosol is probably sulfate originating from the burning of
fossil fuels. The regional distribution of these aerosols can be estimated from aerosol formation models
(Langner and Rodhe 1991) and used to calculate an approximate anthropogenic sulfate climate forcing (Kiehl
and Briegleb 1993). There is a qualitative consistency among the regions of heavy aerosol amounts
(Eastern United States, Europe, and China), calculated aerosol coolings (Taylor and Penner 1994), and
the observed temperature change of the past century (Karl et al. 1995).
237
240
242
Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air
to form sulfate aerosols;
Tropospheric sulfate aerosols from coal combustion cancel out anthropogenic global warming
Hartmann and Mouginis, NASA Earth Observation Systems Group, EOS Science Plan #339, 96
(D. L. Hartmann and P. Mouginis, , Volcanoes and Climate Effects of Aerosols,
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/science_plan/Ch8.pdf)
Aerosols in the troposphere are also important for global climate. A wide variety of aerosol types
244
246
Basically the Global Dimming we saw in the North Indian Ocean, it was contributed on the one
hand by the particles themselves shielding the ocean from the sunlight, on the other hand making
the clouds brighter. So this insidious soup, consisting of soot, sulphates, nitrates, ash and what have you, was
having a double whammy on the Global Dimming. NARRATOR: And when he looked at satellite images,
Ramanathan found the same thing was happening all over the world. Over India. Over China, and extending
into the Pacific. Over Western Europe... extending into Africa. Over the British Isles. But it was when scientists
started to investigate the effects of Global Dimming that they made the most disturbing discovery of all. Those
more reflective clouds could alter the pattern of the world's rainfall. With tragic consequences.
NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER: Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of
night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers
here is the closest thing to hell on earth. NARRATOR: The 1984 Ethiopian famine shocked the world. It was
partly caused by a decade's long drought right across sub-Saharan Africa - a region known as the Sahel. For
year after year the summer rains failed. At the time some scientists blamed overgrazing and poor land
management. But now there's evidence that the real culprit was Global Dimming. The Sahel's lifeblood has
always been a seasonal monsoon. For most of the year it is completely dry. But every summer, the heat of the
sun warms the oceans north of the equator. This draws the rain belt that forms over the equator northwards,
bringing rain to the Sahel. But for twenty years in the 1970s and 80s the tropical rain belt consistently failed to
shift northwards - and the African monsoon failed. For climate scientists like Leon Rotstayn the disappearance
of the rains had long been a puzzle. He could see that pollution from Europe and North America blew right
across the Atlantic, but all the climate models suggested it should have little effect on the monsoon. But then
Rotstayn decided to find out what would happen if he took the Maldive findings into account. DR LEON
ROTSTAYN (CSIRO Atmospheric Research): What we found in our model was that when we allowed the
pollution from Europe and North America to affect the properties of the clouds in the northern
hemisphere the clouds reflected more sunlight back to space and this cooled the oceans of the
northern hemisphere. And to our surprise the result of this was that the tropical rain bands moved
southwards tracking away from the more polluted northern hemisphere towards the southern hemisphere.
NARRATOR: Polluted clouds stopped the heat of the sun getting through. That heat was needed to draw
the tropical rains northwards. So the life giving rain belt never made it to the Sahel. DR LEON
ROTSTAYN: So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the
1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting the
properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere. NARRATOR:
Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what
came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people
in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in
store. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system. Let me
take you to anther part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point six billion
people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the Global
Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about
few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people. NARRATOR: For Ramanathan the
implications are clear. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: There is no choice here we have to cut
down air pollution, if not eliminate it altogether.
Magma contains dissolved gases that are released into the atmosphere during eruptions. Gases
are also released from magma that either remains below ground (for example, as an intrusion) or is rising
toward the surface. In such cases, gases may escape continuously into the atmosphere from the soil, volcanic
vents, fumaroles, and hydrothermal systems. At high pressures deep beneath the earth's surface, volcanic gases
are dissolved in molten rock. But as magma rises toward the surface where the pressure is lower, gases held in
the melt begin to form tiny bubbles. The increasing volume taken up by gas bubbles makes the magma less
dense than the surrounding rock, which may allow the magma to continue its upward journey. Closer to the
surface, the bubbles increase in number and size so that the gas volume may exceed the melt volume in the
magma, creating a magma foam. The rapidly expanding gas bubbles of the foam can lead to explosive eruptions
in which the melt is fragmented into pieces of volcanic rock, known as tephra. If the molten rock is not
fragmented by explosive activity, a lava flow will be generated. Together with the tephra and entrained air,
volcanic gases can rise tens of kilometers into Earth's atmosphere during large explosive eruptions. Once
airborne, the prevailing winds may blow the eruption cloud hundreds to thousands of kilometers from a
volcano. The gases spread from an erupting vent primarily as acid aerosols (tiny acid droplets), compounds
attached to tephra particles, and microscopic salt particles. Volcanic gases undergo a tremendous increase in
volume when magma rises to the Earth's surface and erupts. For example, consider what happens if one cubic
meter of 900C rhyolite magma containing five percent by weight of dissolved water were suddenly brought
from depth to the surface. The one cubic meter of magma now would occupy a volume of 670 m3 as a mixture
of water vapor and magma at atmospheric pressure (Sparks et. al., 1997)! The one meter cube at depth
would increase to 8.75 m on each side at the surface. Such enormous expansion of volcanic
gases, primarily water, is the main driving force of explosive eruptions. The most abundant gas
typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by
carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of
others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He). The volcanic gases that pose
the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide,
and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a
volcano. Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols
into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the
Earth's ozone layer. Because carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air, the gas may flow into in low-lying areas
and collect in the soil. The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in these areas can be lethal to people, animals,
and vegetation. A few historic eruptions have released sufficient fluorine-compounds to deform or kill animals
that grazed on vegetation coated with volcanic ash; fluorine compounds tend to become concentrated on finegrained ash particles, which can be ingested by animals. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) The effects of SO2 on people and
the environment vary widely depending on (1) the amount of gas a volcano emits into the atmosphere; (2)
whether the gas is injected into the troposphere or stratosphere; and (3) the regional or global wind and
weather pattern that disperses the gas. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that irritates
skin and the tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat. Sulfur dioxide chiefly affects upper
respiratory tract and bronchi. The World Health Organization recommends a concentration of no greater than
0.5 ppm over 24 hours for maximum exposure. A concentration of 6-12 ppm can cause immediate irritation of
249