Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case

First Our defense 1. Biodiversity loss does not lead to extinction. They exaggerate their impacts
Sagoff 97 senior research fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland at College Park (Mark, William and Mary Law Review. INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825)

Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified
two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other

biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to
the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the

of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment
Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen.

One might argue that the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress.
Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.")

In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is
because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is
becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepycrawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case

we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish,

The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361
plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359

biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363
[*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property,

About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not

a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow
economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.

creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the

2. Species loss is key to long-term evolutionary change

BOULTER 2002
(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 170)
The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob Mays group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group are vociferous wailers of gloom and doom: Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a pruned tree of life. But they go on to argue that the vast majority of groups survive this pruning, so that evolution goes on, albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed, the fossil record has taught us to expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem changes significantly. This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims demise

enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just the same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The
harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms.

3. This prevents total extinction of life on earth

BOULTER 2002
(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 67)
If biological evolution really is a self-organised Earth-life system there are some very important consequences. One is that life

on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet

Now our offence:

Warming Frontline
1. Warming is slow their authors subscription to overestimated scenarios that havent occurred means we can adapt.
Michaels 08 (Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies Cato Institute, 6/27/2008, Hansen Unhinged, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php? pub_id=9510)
This week marks 20 years since NASA's James E. Hansen testified before a joint Congressional hearing that there was a strong "cause and effect" relationship between "current" climate conditions and emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Current conditions in 1988 were a big heat wave and drought in the eastern U.S. The public bit. Two days later, 70 percent of the respondents to a CNN poll agreed with the proposition that 1988's misery was caused by global warming. Yet in fact, no climate scientist can ever blame an individual weather event, like a heat wave or drought, on global warming. Hansen's testimony that year included a graph of annual temperatures, with a dramatic spike on the last point, the January-May temperatures. He knew, as does any scientist, that a sample of monthly data will vary much more than yearto-year temperatures, and that monthly data could give a false impression of extremely hot (or cold) conditions, compared to annual temperatures. Hansen has long employed stagecraft for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As thenSen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC's Frontline: "We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room . . . it was really hot." Hansen offered three scenarios for future warming. "Scenario A," was business as usual, meaning carbon dioxide emissions would continue with no stringent curbs. It forecast an ever-increasing rate of emissions, but the rate of increase turned out to be constant. So this scenario predicted too much warming. Indeed, even though there was no major curb on emissions, they still didn't increase exponentially. "Scenario B," which forecast a slower increase, is pretty close to what has happened, as far as global carbon dioxide emissions go. It projected that increasing CO2 concentrations would result in global temperatures about 1.48F above the 1951-80 average in 2007. But that's 33 percent more warming than has actually been observed, according to data published by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Scenario C" stopped the growth of carbon dioxide emissions altogether in 2000, which obviously hasn't happened. Every climate scientist knows there's been no zero net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unless you throw in a volcano (there hasn't been a decent one in the last decade), none of Hansen's valid 1988 models predict what's actually happened. He simply predicted too much warming, especially for the last ten years. Why should we believe what he forecasts for the rest of the 21st century? Hansen's 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniversary of his original testimony, Hansen said that people "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" for spreading doubts about the promised global warming holocaust. He named names, too: the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy. Excuse me, Inquisitor Hansen, but what exactly are their crimes against humanity? Being demonstrably wrong about climate science? Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that "John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face." Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes. Yet Hansen persists. He recently said "the 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen," maybe we'll be able to save the planet from the doom he envisions this century. Hansen also wants to tax fossil fuels, making them much more expensive than they are already. So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn't explain the ten-year hiatus we've experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public. The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren't supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he's a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people.

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case

Warming Frontline
2. C02 levels are capped greenhouse equilibrium proves the atmosphere is C02 saturated
Gregory 08 (Climate Change Science, Ken Gregory, Climatologist, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Revised September 11, 2008. The Friends of Science Society, non-profit organization [comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals] Scientific Advisory )
The paper, Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in Miskolczi's paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a saturated greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. Considering that we are told "the science is settled", one would think that the strength of the greenhouse effect (GHE) on Earth would be calculated based on atmospheric physics. That is, the computer models of the atmosphere would incorporate the physics of how the greenhouse effect works, so that by inputting some measured physical properties, the atmospheric gases, the models would determine the strength of the greenhouse effect and the surface temperatures. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no physics, there are no equations in the models that determines the strength of the GHE. Parameters are just set to obtain the observed temperature. The GHE is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical. All the General Circulation Models, also know as Global Climate Models (GCM) just set various evaporation and precipitation parameters to achieve approximately the result: Relative humidity = constant. This result is based on short term observations of temperature changes while CO2 concentrations were approximately constant, so they only hold true over periods when CO2 does not change much. It is invalid to extrapolate these observations to long term periods with increasing CO2. The modellers just assume relative humidity is also constant while CO2 concentrations change. There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas. The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. This violates fundamental energy conservation laws. There are not separate energy balance equations for different greenhouse gases. There is not one set for water vapor, and a different set for CO2; there is one set of energy balance equations for the total atmosphere including all greenhouse gases. So it makes no sense to assign an arbitrary rule for one of the greenhouse gases. There is a near infinite supply of greenhouse gases available to the atmosphere in the form of water vapor from the ocean to provide the greenhouse effect, but the relative humidity in the atmosphere is much less than one. Therefore, there must be some greenhouse equilibrium mechanism to control the strength of the greenhouse effect and the relative humidity. Otherwise, climate would be very unstable. The global average relative humidity at the surface is about 78%. It generally decreases with altitude and is about 37% at an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 300 millibars (mb). Relative humidity is the fraction of water vapour in a small parcel of air relative to the total amount of water vapour the air could contain at the given temperature and pressure. So why isnt the relative humidity 90%, or vary randomly? Relative humidity is at its current value because it is controlled by the laws of physics. Specific humidity is the total mass of water vapor in a parcel of air divided by the mass of the moist air. Warmer air can hold more water vapor, so specific humidity increases with temperature. If some temporary disturbance adds a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, temperatures will temporarily increase, as it did in 1998 due to the super El Nino. If it is true that a temperature rise will cause more water vapor, which will cause more temperature rise, and more water vapor yet again, one would expect temperatures to continue to rise after 1998, and result in a run-away effect. But the opposite happened; temperatures fell as the greenhouse equilibrium mechanism restored the balance. The extra greenhouse gases rained out to restore the equilibrium. The new Miskolczi theory describes this missing greenhouse equilibrium mechanism. He shows that the classical theory does not include all the

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case necessary energy constraints. When these constraints are included in a new theory, the strength of the GHE is determined analytically. The result shows that the Earth's atmosphere is maintained at a nearly saturated greenhouse effect. Detailed calculation show that the greenhouse sensitivity to a doubling CO2 is about 0.24 K. This greenhouse equilibrium mechanism doesnt care if an initial increase of greenhouse gases was water vapor or CO2. If somehow we suddenly released an amount of CO2 to the atmosphere equal in GHG effect of the 1998 El Nino water vapor, the temperature effect would be the same

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case

Warming Frontline
3. C02 is locked in for the next 200 years means plan cant solve two centuries of warming
ARIC 02 (Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme, Department fro environment food and rural affairs, Climate and Ozone, Carbon Dioxide 2001)
What are the sources of carbon dioxide? Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans. Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions. Another important man-made source of carbon dioxide is deforestation. Trees and plants take in carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis, and store it as carbon in their tissues and wood fibre. In many regions of the world, forests are being destroyed to clear land for development. This allows the large amount of carbon in the wood to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. What are the sinks of carbon dioxide? A sink is a method by which a gas can be removed from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has several sinks within the atmosphere, including trees and plants (mentioned earlier in the text). Hence the process of deforestation removes an important sink for carbon dioxide. In addition to this, if the wood is then burnt as in the 'slash and burn' technique the CO2 is released through the burning process. Another sink for carbon dioxide is the ocean (Figure 2). (The ocean is both a source and a sink for CO2.) The ocean acts as a big reservoir holding CO2 within its watery depths. A molecule of carbon may stay in the ocean for anything up to 200 years. How much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had hardly changed over hundreds of years. This was because the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by the CO2 sinks equalled the amount released to the atmosphere from the CO2 sources. Human activity has resulted in CO2 being released from sources faster than it can be absorbed by the sinks, so the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. Since 1957 a record of the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere has been kept at Mauna Loa in Hawaii (Figure 3). This record show a clear increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about 1.2 ppmv or 0.3% per year. The sawtooth shape is due to the annual fluctuation of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere arising from the annual growth cycle. Both Table 1 and Figure 4 show the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 250 years. How long does carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere? All gases stay in the atmosphere for a certain length of time before they are removed by their sinks. This time is known as the atmospheric lifetime of a gas. Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of between 50 - 200 years. This means that carbon dioxide will be present in the atmosphere for at least 50 years before it is absorbed by a sink or becomes part of another chemical reaction. Consequently, carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere today could cause global warming for up to two centuries to come. What can be done to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? A group of scientists brought together by the United Nations, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimate that in order to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations at present day levels a 60% reduction of global CO2 emissions would be needed. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by over 150 nations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The Convention says that all countries that sign the Treaty must produce a programme describing the steps they will take to limit the amount of greenhouse gases they produce. The programme must also state how they are going to protect sinks of carbon dioxide such as forests. The developed countries such as the UK, USA and Japan were committed to return their emissions of greenhouse gases to the levels that were emitted in 1990 by the year 2000. Developing countries were offered helped to produce their own programmes by countries like the USA, the UK and Japan. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol called for developed nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 5% by 2012. This Protocol will become legally binding when enough countries have ratified it.

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case

Warming Frontline
4. S02, a fossil fuels emission, cools and decreases global temperatures. Turn warming only a reduction in S02 causes warming.
Cotton 07 (William Cotton Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University Human Impacts on Weather And Climate, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Press April 9, 2007 )http://icecap.us/docs/change/aerosols.pdf
Clouds, we have seen, are good reflectors of solar radiation and therefore contribute significantly to the net albedo of the Earth system. We thus ask, how might aerosol particles originating through anthropogenic activity influence the radiative properties ofclouds and thereby affect climate? First of all, there are indications that in urban areas aerosols make clouds `dirty' andthereby decrease the albedo of the cloud aerosol layer and increase the absorptance of the clouds Kondrat'yev et al., 1981. This effect appears to be quite localized; being restricted to over and immediately downwind of major urban areas, particularly cities emitting large quantities of black soot particles. Kondrat'yev et al.\ noted that the water samples collected from the clouds they sampled were actually dark in color. A potentially more important impact of aerosol on clouds and climate is that they can serve as a source of cloud condensation nuclei CCN and thereby alter the concentration of cloud droplets. Twomey 1974 first pointed out that increasing pollution results in greater CCN concentrations and greater numbers of cloud droplets, which, in turn, increase the reflectance of clouds. Subsequently, Twomey 1977 showed that this effectwas most influential for optically thin clouds; clouds having shallow depths or littlecolumn integrated liquid water content. Optically thicker clouds, he argued, are already very bright, and are therefore susceptible to increased absorption by the presence of dirty aerosol. In Twomey's words: ``it an increase in global pollution could, at the same time, make thin clouds brighter and thick clouds darker, the crossover in behavioroccurring at a cloud thickness which depends on the ratio of absorption to the cube root of drop nucleus concentration. The sign of the net global effect, warming or cooling,therefore involves both the distribution of cloud thickness and the relative magnitude ofthe rate of increase of cloud-nucleating particles vis-a-vis particulate absorption.}"Subsequently, Twomey et al. 1984 presented observational and theoretical evidence indicating that the absorption effect of aerosols is small and the enhanced albedo effect plays a dominate role on global climate. They argued that the enhanced cloud albedo has a magnitude comparable to that of greenhouse warming see Chapter 11 and acts to coolthe atmosphere. Kaufman et al.1991 concluded that although coal and oil emit 120 times as many CO2 molecules as SO2 molecules, each SO2 molecule is 50-1100 times as effective in cooling the atmosphere than each CO2 molecule is in warming it. This is by virtue of the SO2 molecules' contribution to CCN production and enhanced cloud albedo.Twomey suggests that if the CCN concentration in the cleaner parts of the atmosphere, such as the oceanic regions, were raised to continental atmospheric values, about 10%more energy would be reflected to space by relatively thin cloud layers. He also points out that an increase in cloud reflectivity by 10% is of greater consequence than a similar increase in global cloudiness. This is because while an increase in cloudiness reduces the incoming solar radiation, it also reduces the outgoing infrared radiation. Thus both cooling and heating effects occur when global cloudiness increases. In contrast, an increase in cloud reflectance due to enhanced CCN concentration does not appreciably affect infrared radiation but does reflect more incoming solar radiation which results in a net cooling effect.

Shagun/Amnomonomo Environment case