Singer Good..................................................................................................................................................165Lindzen Good...............................................................................................................................................166***Warming Good – No Solvency***........................................................................................................167No Solve – Alt Cause – Deforestation (1/3).................................................................................................168No Solve – Alt Cause – Contrails (1/2)........................................................................................................171No Solve – Alt Cause – Several Gasses.......................................................................................................173No Solve – Alt Cause – Cows......................................................................................................................174No Solve – Alt Cause – Sun (1/2)................................................................................................................175No Solve – Alt Cause – Plants (1/2).............................................................................................................177No Solve – Alt Cause – Arthropods (1/2)....................................................................................................179No Solve – China (1/2).................................................................................................................................181No Solve – India...........................................................................................................................................183No Solve – Developing Nations...................................................................................................................184No Solvency – Larger CO2 Decrease Needed.............................................................................................185No Solve – 1990 Levels Fail........................................................................................................................186No Solve – Price Caps Bad..........................................................................................................................187No Solve – Aviation.....................................................................................................................................188No Solve – Pipeline......................................................................................................................................189No Solve – Wavelength Saturation..............................................................................................................190No Solve – Wavelength Saturation..............................................................................................................191***Warming Good – A2: Aff Impacts***...................................................................................................192AT: Warming Impacts – A2: War (1/2).......................................................................................................193AT: Warming Impacts – A2: War (2/2).......................................................................................................194AT: Warming Impacts – Forests (1/2)..........................................................................................................195AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Disease..........................................................................................................197AT: Warming Impacts – Water Shortages...................................................................................................198AT: Warming Impacts – Natural Disasters..................................................................................................199AT: Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (1/3).............................................................................................200AT: Warming Impacts – Fires......................................................................................................................203AT: Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (1/10)...........................................................................................204AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees (1/2)...............................................................................................215AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees (2/2)...............................................................................................216AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees – Security K (1/2)..........................................................................217AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Biod (1/3)......................................................................................................219AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Biod – Turn: Wetlands (1/2).........................................................................222AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Plankton – Turn: Pollution Good..................................................................224AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Plankton – Turn: Marine Mammals (1/2).....................................................225AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Plankton – No Impact....................................................................................227A2: Warming Impacts – A2: Coral – Turn: Calcification............................................................................228
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 4Scholars Warming
Warming Advantage – 1AC (1/5)
Advantage One – Climate Change
Overwhelming scientific evidence concludes global warming is real – in particular, the RATE of warming is rapidly increasing Avi-Yonah and Uhlman ‘8 (Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, the Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and the Director of the International Tax LLM Program at the University of Michigan Law School, and David M. Uhlmann, the Jeffrey F. Liss Professor from Practice and the Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School, March 18, 2008, “Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1109167, accessed June 23, 2008)
The scientific evidence that global warming is occurring is overwhelming. In its synthesis report released in November 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) stated that “[e]leven of the last twelve years (1995- 2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures (since 1850).”5 The IPCC reported that temperature increases have occurred throughout the world, but most significantly at higher northern latitudes.6 The melting of Arctic ice has often been called “the canary in the coal mine” of global warming.7 In 2007, Arctic ice melted at record levels, causing the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage to navigation for the first time.8 During the same summer, a record 552 billion tons of ice melted from the Greenland ice sheet.9 It is hard to overstate the significance of melting in Greenland. If global warming continues unabated, climatologists predict that the entire Greenland ice sheet would melt, causing several meters of sea level rise and coastal flooding that could imperil much of the Eastern United States.10 While some skeptics argue that global warming is part of normal climate change,11 few climatologists agree. The earth has experienced periods of cooling and warming over time, but warming has never occurred at the rate that it is happening today. The most recent IPCC report noted that “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] concentrations.”12 Anthropogenic greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide is by far the most significant of the greenhouse gases, accounting for approximately seventy-five percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions between 1970 and 2004.13 Annual global emissions of carbon dioxide increased “almost fivefold in the past century,” and these emissions “have tripled since 1950.”14 The most significant contributing factor in the carbon dioxide emissions increase is the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, air conditioning, and transportation; land- use changes, particularly deforestation, also have played a significant but smaller role.15
Multiple studies prove warming is anthropogenic – no other explanation is possible Peter Scott 7/16/3 Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research “Attribution of temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes” http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/stott_regional_attribution_GRL_2003.pdf
An increasing body of evidence indicates that global warming that has been observed over the course of the last century cannot be explained by natural externally forced or internal variability [Mitchell et al., 2001]. A number of recent studies [eg., Stott et al., 2001; Tett et al., 2002] have used optimal detection [Hasselmann, 1997], a form of linear regression [Allen and Tett, 1999], to estimate the contributions, with their uncertainties, of anthropogenic and natural forcings to recent temperature changes. Optimal detection studies consistently show that anthropogenic forcings were the dominant factor controlling global warming in the latter half of the 20th century, leading the IPCC to conclude in the Third Assessment Report that ‘‘most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities’’. [3] Most detection studies investigating atmospheric temperature changes have considered global scale patterns of change. [Zwiers and Zhang, 2003] showed
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 5Scholars Warming
that the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols may be detected on sub-global scales, and showed a detectable anthropogenic influence on warming in Eurasia and North America.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 6Scholars Warming
Warming Advantage – 1AC (2/5)
Three impacts:First is weather - Global warming increases extreme weather events to collapse the global economy.Brown ‘8 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 64)
As the climate changes, more extreme weather events are expected. Andrew Dlugolecki, a consultant on climate change and its effects on financial institutions, notes that damage from atmospherically related events has increased by roughly 10 percent a year. “If such an increase were to continue indefinitely,” he notes, “by 2065 storm damage would exceed the gross world product. The world obviously would face bankruptcy long before then.” Few double-digit annual growth trends continue for several decades, but Dlugolecki’s basic point is that climate change can be destructive, disruptive, and very costly.69
Economic collapse causes nuclear war and extinction.Bearden 00 (Thomas, Lt. Col.In US Army, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”, 6/24, Free Republic,p. np)
Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the aresenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacked Taiwan. In addition to the immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades
Second is the environment - Warming leads to environmental collapse through biodiversity loss, natural disasters, and destruction of water and food supplies.IPCC ‘7 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
_ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources). {WGII 4.1-4.6, SPM} _ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even reverse16, thus amplifying climate change. {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence). {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply. {WGII 4.4, Box TS.6, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 7Scholars Warming
Warming Advantage – 1AC (3/5)
Environmental collapse means human extinction.Irish Times 02 (7/27, LN)
Such pleasure is probably the least important reason why biodiversity is a good thing: human survival is more to the point. Conservationists insist that biodiversity is basic to the Earth's life-support system and that the progressive loss of species - as in the current destruction of natural forest - could help destabilise the very processes by which the planet services our presence and wellbeing. Most ecologists, probably, go along with the idea that every species matters. Like rivets in an aeroplane, each has its own, small importance: let too many pop and things start to fly apart. But some are now arguing that since so many species seem to do much the same job, mere "species richness" may not be essential: so long as "keystone species" are identified and cared for, their ecosystems will probably still function.
Third is water – Warming causes huge water shortages.Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 5-6, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources. On a regional scale, mountain snowpack, glaciers, and small ice caps play a crucial role in fresh water availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change. In Africa by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
Water scarcity will cause World War 3.Stonehill 6/19 (Alex, co-founder of Common Language Project for humane international journalism, Z Magazine, “World Water Crisis”, 08, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ezAcQF4xJZMJ:www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/water/2008/0619ethiopconflict.htm+water+scarcity+world+war+3&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us)
Water is the new oil. While western politicians and consumers fret over the declining economy and increasing oil prices, the news from East Africa is that with a growing majority of the world living on less than a dollar a day, the liquid that fuels bodies is becoming even more contentious than the liquid that fuels cars. I've spent the last four months reporting stories about water from Ethiopia and Kenya, two countries at the forefront of the world's coming water crisis. The director of a local water NGO told me a few days after I arrived in Ethiopia in January 2008, "As you may know, Alex, the coming World War III will be fought over water, not oil." Variations on that refrain were echoed by aid workers and researchers across the region over the next several months. Women walk for miles each day to collect drinking water; farmers are pushed into deadly conflict by dwindling river flows, and city water supplies are drained by overzealous irrigation. The bigger picture that the smaller stories hint at is one of ecological disaster and conflict over resources that will affect millions and have repercussions around the world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 8Scholars Warming
Warming Advantage – 1AC (4/5)
( ) Cap-and-trade programs effectively regulate CO2 and prevent climate change Albert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government at Harvard and Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, October 2007, “A U.S. Cap and Trade System to Address Global Climate Change,” online: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/10climate_stavins/10_climate_stavins.pdf, accessed June 20, 2008
The first criterion any proposed climate policy must meet is environmental effectiveness: Can the proposed instrument achieve its intended targets? This will depend, in the case of a standards-based approach, on the technical ability of policymakers to design and the administrative ability of governments to implement standards that are sufficiently diverse to address all of the sources of CO2 emissions in a modern economy. In the case of a tax, it will depend on the ability of political systems to impose taxes that are sufficiently high to achieve meaningful emissions reductions (or limits on global greenhouse gas concentrations, or limits on temperature changes).The evaluation must also consider how certain it is that the proposed policy will achieve its emissions or other targets. Different policy designs may be expected to achieve identical targets, but with different degrees of certainty. A cap-and-trade system can achieve emissions targets with high certainty because guaranteed emissions levels are built into the policy. With a carbon tax or technology standards, on the other hand, actual emissions are difficult to predict because of current and future uncertainty about future energy prices or how quickly new technologies will be adopted. Such policies may aim to achieve particular emissions targets, but actual emissions may either exceed or fall below those targets, depending on factors beyond policymakers’ control.Moreover, the tendency for exemptions to be granted from taxes and standards so as to address distributional issues weakens the environmental effectiveness of these instruments (Ellerman 2007). By contrast, distributional battles over the allowance allocation in a cap-and-trade system neither raise the total cost of the program nor affect its climate impacts.
( ) In particular, upstream emissions trading is essential to solve warming Tim Hargrave, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Clean Air Policy, March 1998, “US Carbon Emissions Trading: Description of an Upstream Approach,” online: http://www.ccap.org/pdf/upstpub.pdf, accessed June 20, 2008
An upstream system as described here would capture virtually all fossil fuel use and carbon emissions in the US economy. The only emissions not covered would come from fossil energy used in fuel extraction; natural gas that went directly from the point of production to the end user and thus escaped the regulatory system; and unsustainable biomass use. In contrast, a downstream system would likely cover no more than one-half of total emissions. While requiring allowances and measuring the emissions of electricity generation units and large industrial establishments would be relatively simple, the same would not be true for small sources such as automobiles, households and small industry. There are approximately 380,000 industrial establishments in the US, millions of commercial buildings and hundreds of millions of homes and automobiles. A downstream system that included no more than electric utilities and other large major stationary sources would cover less than one-half of total US carbon emissions.5There are numerous significant problems associated with low coverage of total potential emissions. First, the burden of making all emissions reductions needed to meet the cap would fall solely on sources captured within the system, leaving activities outside of the system untouched. This would be unfair to the sources included in the system and would drive up the total cost to the country of complying with a target, because many low-cost reduction options would fall outside of the regulatory system and therefore not be taken. Second, low coverage of emissions could undermine the achievement of the environmental goal of meeting the national emissions target. Because they would not be required to obtain allowances, sources not captured in the system could gain a competitive advantage over those that were included. Thus, carbon dioxide emissions to some extent might simply shift to sources outside the system, rather than being reduced. In this situation, covered sources taken as a whole would meet their targets but overall US emissions would be above target levels.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 9Scholars Warming
Warming Advantage – 1AC (5/5)
( ) Command and control regulations are inevitable as climate change spins out of control – implementing cap-and-trade now saves the economy and prevents catastrophic climate change Gary C. Bryner, Research Associate, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, and Professor, Public Policy Program, Brigham Young University, Summer 2004, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 17 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 267, p. 299
Finally, carbon trading programs can produce valuable experience about how market-based systems can work to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help secure a stable climate. Beyond the benefits that accrue to more efficient operations, voluntary carbon trading programs can produce experience that can guide policy makers in designing future regulatory programs. Companies that established voluntary greenhouse gas reduction programs have found that establishing that goal has provided an additional incentive to identify and invest in improved efficiency and waste reduction. In many cases, emission reductions goals have been achieved while also reducing costs. In one sense, such voluntary programs have clearly been shown to work. However, unless every company adopts emission reduction goals very soon, we will not likely be able to achieve the emission reductions that scientists suggest are critical to reduce the threat of catastrophic climate change to a manageable level. Mandatory programs are inevitable, but voluntary programs can help generate support for the development of a regulatory program that, if well designed, will harness emissions trading to achieve the kind of emission reductions required to stabilize the climate, and produce valuable experience for designing such a program.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 10Scholars Warming
***Advantages***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 11Scholars Warming
1AC Crazy Weather ADV
Global warming increases extreme weather events to collapse the global economy.Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 64)
As the climate changes, more extreme weather events are expected. Andrew Dlugolecki, a consultant on climate change and its effects on financial institutions, notes that damage from atmospherically related events has increased by roughly 10 percent a year. “If such an increase were to continue indefinitely,” he notes, “by 2065 storm damage would exceed the gross world product. The world obviously would face bankruptcy long before then.” Few double-digit annual growth trends continue for several decades, but Dlugolecki’s basic point is that climate change can be destructive, disruptive, and very costly.69
Economic collapse causes nuclear war and extinction.Bearden 00 (Thomas, Lt. Col.In US Army, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”, 6/24, Free Republic,p. np)Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the aresenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacked Taiwan. In addition to the immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere , at least for many decades
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 12Scholars Warming
1AC Sea Level ADV – (1/2)
Warming is causing unprecedented increases in sea level.Gornitz 07 (Dr. Vivien, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies scientist, “Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today”, Jan., http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/)
Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level. Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.
Sea level rise kills biodiversity by destroying wetlands, changing water salinity, and increasing hazardous waste leakage.Titus 84 (James G., EPA, Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for This Generation, “An Overview of the Causes and Effects of Sea Level Rise”, p. 1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsRisk_of_rise.html)Like the physical effects, the environmental impacts of sea level rise fall into the categories of shoreline retreat, salt intrusion, and increased flooding. Perhaps the most serious environmental consequence would be the inundation and erosion of thousands of square miles of marshes and other wetlands. Wetlands (areas
that are flooded by tides at least once every 15 days) are critical to the reproductive cycles of many marine species. Because
marsh vegetation can collect sediment and build upon itself, marshes can "grow" with small rises in sea level. But for faster rates of sea level rise, the vegetation will drown. Its resulting deterioration may significantly erode land previously held together only by the marsh vegetation. Relative sea level rise of one meter per century is eroding over one hundred square kilometers (about fifty square miles) per year of marshland in Louisiana. Salt intrusion is a threat to marine animals as well as vegetation. Many species must swim into fresher water during reproduction. In response to sea level rise, fish might swim farther upstream, but water pollution could prevent such an adaptation from succeeding. Some species, on
the other hand, require salty water, such as the oyster drill and other predators of oysters. Consequently, salinity increases have been cited for the long-term drop in oyster production in the Delaware Bay (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979; Haskin
and Tweed, 1976), as well as recent drops in the Chesapeake Bay. Salt intrusion could also be a serious problem for the Everglades. Flooding could have a particularly important impact on environmental protection activities. As Chapter 9 indicates, regulations for hazardous waste sites promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act currently
impose special requirements for sites in 100-year flood zones. Another EPA program, Superfund, has responsibility for abandoned waste sites, some of which are in low-lying areas such as Louisiana and Florida that could be inundated. There are over one thousand active hazardous waste facilities in the United States located in 100-year floodplains (Development Planning and Research Associates, 1982) and perhaps as many inactive sites. Sea level rise could increase the risk of flooding in these hazardous waste sites. For example, if a hazardousSea Level Rise: Overview of Causes and Effects waste facility is subjected to overwash by strong waves or simply to flooding that weakens the facility's cap, the wastes can be spread to nearby areas, thus exposing the population to possibly contaminated surface water. Moreover, by intruding into clay soils (which are often used as liners for hazardous
waste disposal) saltwater can increase leaching of wastes.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 13Scholars Warming
1AC Sea Level ADV – (2/2)
Biodiversity loss risks human extinction.Diner ’94 (David, JD Ohio State, Military Law Review, Winter, l/n)
4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is better than simplicity. As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist stress... [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 14Scholars Warming
1AC Environment ADV
Warming leads to environmental collapse through biodiversity loss, natural disasters, and destruction of water and food supplies.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)_ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources). {WGII 4.1-4.6, SPM} _ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even reverse16, thus amplifying climate change. {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence). {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply. {WGII 4.4, Box TS.6, SPM}
Environmental collapse means human extinction.Irish Times 02 (7/27, LN)Such pleasure is probably the least important reason why biodiversity is a good thing: human survival is more to the point. Conservationists insist that biodiversity is basic to the Earth's life-support system and that the progressive loss of species - as in the current destruction of natural forest - could help destabilise the very processes by which the planet services our presence and wellbeing. Most ecologists, probably, go along with the idea that every species matters. Like rivets in an aeroplane, each has its own, small importance: let too many pop and things start to fly apart. But some are now arguing that since so many species seem to do much the same job, mere "species richness" may not be essential: so long as "keystone species" are identified and cared for, their ecosystems will probably still function.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 15Scholars Warming
1AC Starvation ADV
Warming decreases global food production, causing widespread starvation.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), 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 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, 5.5, SPM}
Insufficient production causes world resource wars and famine. WILLIAM H. CALVIN, prof @ University of Washington [Atlantic Monthy] 98
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands-if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem-and could lead to a Third World War-but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic. There is another part of the world with the same good soil, within the same latitudinal band, which we can use for a quick comparison. Canada lacks Europe's winter warmth and rainfall, because it has no equivalent of the North Atlantic Current to preheat its eastbound weather systems. Canada's agriculture supports about 28 million people. If Europe had weather like Canada's, it could feed only one out of twenty-three present-day Europeans. Any abrupt switch in climate would also disrupt foodsupply routes. The only reason that two percent of our population can feed the other 98 percent is that we have a well-developed system of transportation and middlemenbut it is not very robust. The system allows for large urban populations in the best of times, but not in the case of widespread disruptions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 16Scholars Warming
1AC Disease ADV
Warming will strain the health care industry while increasing infectious disease spread.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases. {WGI 7.4, Box 7.4; WGII 8.ES, 8.2, 8.4, SPM} Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries. {WGII 8.4, 8.7, 8ES, SPM}
Global disease spread culminates in human extinction.Dutta-Roy 07 (Debajyoti, software technician and general badass, “The Coming Pandemic and the Threat of Human Extinction”, 5/31, http://globalstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/coming-pandemic-threat-of-human.html)
As we are relying more and more on antibiotics, modern medical marvels, IMHO…we humans, the hairless apes who are now dominating this Blue Planet….are living on an “artificial life support system”. This might sound shocking to you, but many experts agree this is the TRUTH. Look around us……observe closely those “inferior” creatures who are around us – starting from the domesticated animals to the creatures of the wild. Let’s say, bird flu or a dangerous strain of the ebola virus hits us. WHO DO YOU THINK HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVING? The so-called “inferior” animals, through millions of years, developed a robust immune system…..they have been through hundreds of such bacterial & viral outbreaks…..the weakest have died in the beginning….much the stronger ones have survived. Now, they are much equipped to fight off a pandemic like the Bird Flu. Sure, millions would die. But the majority will survive. But, I don’t think humans have much chance. Man of today, though much advanced in his “cranial capacity” is, from a biological point of view, a much poorer specimen than the Man of, say, 10,000 years back.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 17Scholars Warming
1AC Water ADV
Warming causes huge water shortages.Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 5-6, http://www.ipcc.ch/)Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources. On a regional scale,
mountain snowpack, glaciers, and small ice caps play a crucial role in fresh water availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change. In Africa by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
Water scarcity will cause World War 3.Stonehill 6/19 (Alex, co-founder of Common Language Project for humane international journalism, Z Magazine, “World Water Crisis”, 08, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ezAcQF4xJZMJ:www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/water/2008/0619ethiopconflict.htm+water+scarcity+world+war+3&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us)
Water is the new oil. While western politicians and consumers fret over the declining economy and increasing oil prices, the news from East Africa is that with a growing majority of the world living on less than a dollar a day, the liquid that fuels bodies is becoming even more contentious than the liquid that fuels cars. I've spent the last four months reporting stories about water from Ethiopia and Kenya, two countries at the forefront of the world's coming water crisis. The director of a local water NGO told me a few days after I arrived in Ethiopia in January 2008, "As you may know, Alex, the coming World War III will be fought over water, not oil." Variations on that refrain were echoed by aid workers and researchers across the region over the next several months. Women walk for miles each day to collect drinking water; farmers are pushed into deadly conflict by dwindling river flows, and city water supplies are drained by overzealous irrigation. The bigger picture that the smaller stories hint at is one of ecological disaster and conflict over resources that will affect millions and have repercussions around the world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 18Scholars Warming
1AC Refugees ADV
Warming creates “climate refugees” in areas that produce few GHGs; allowing this injustice is the moral equivalent of genocide.Global warming is causing a rise in sea levels, and according to the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), sea levels rose between 9 and 20 cm over the last century. As reported by BBC News, scientists predict further increases of 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100. For some of us, this may seem like a minimal height change over a hundred year period, but for coastal regions, this rise could mean the difference between having a home and watching your home flooded with water and washed out to sea. Take for example, the South Asian country of Bangladesh, which is situated in the low-lying Ganges River delta. It happens to be one of the most densely populated countries on Earth and is also one of the most flood-prone. The country’s landscape is already known to come and go with the coastal tides and change in seasons, and the flat landscape of the country contributes to its flooding from rivers. The BBC predicts that the rise in sea levels will leave “a fifth of Bangladesh under water”, and that salt absorbed in the ground water could render fields up to 40km from the coastline useless for growing crops. With the destruction of coastal homes countrywide and lack of usable land inland, these residents will be forced to migrate. And in a country that is already so densely populated, one can imagine that a move on this scale will not be welcomed. What’s sucks for Bangladesh is the fact that they’re a country that makes little contribution to the pollution responsible for global warming. Most of the coastal villages still have no electricity and no vehicles. Dr. Atik Rahman of the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies stated the Bagladesh crisis best. “No contribution, highest impact - that makes a huge case of moral inequality against which the global citizenry, the global nation states, must take action, If not we’ll be calling it climatic genocide. That’s where we’re heading.” If efforts are not made now, countries like Bangladesh will find coastal regions destroyed and their people homeless. Bangladesh is only one of the many places that will be affected. On a larger scale, millions of people worldwide will be forced to migrate. With populations at an all time high globally, one can not help but wonder where these “climate refugees” will go and how this influx of people will affect neighboring nations and international relations.
We have a moral obligation to stop this atrocity.The Hill 6/17 (“Our Moral Obligation to Adress the Refugees’ Plight”, 08, http://thehill.com/op-eds/our-moral-obligation-to-address-refugees-plight-2008-06-17.html)
World Refugee Day, when we turn our attention to the men, women and children who have fled from their homes because of war, persecution and oppression. Roughly 35 million people worldwide have been displaced from their homes, including 14 million who are living as refugees outside their country. The size of this humanitarian crisis is difficult to grasp as a bare statistic. A little more than a month ago I had the honor of hosting a photography exhibit on Capitol Hill by a photographer who had captured the images and stories of Iraqi refugees during her time spent in Syria and Jordan. Standing in front of one of her photographs — this one of a young Iraqi refugee child who had been severely burned during an attack on her home — the photographer stated “a million refugees is a statistic … but a single refugee is a tragedy.” The point that the photographer was making, and the point of bringing the exhibit to Capitol Hill, was that we cannot forget that refugees are real people: mothers, fathers, children, brothers and sisters — millions of real people living as refugees across the globe. The worst humanitarian crisis in the world currently is taking place in Sudan. Genocide is being committed right now in the Darfur region of Sudan. More than 400,000 Sudanese have been murdered or starved by Sudanese government forces and their allies since 2003. An estimated 2.5 million people have been displaced to camps inside the country, and another 240,000 have fled into neighboring Chad as refugees. As the conflict has spilled over the border into Chad and the Central African Republic, yet another 200,000 people have been displaced. I believe that we — Americans and indeed the people of all nations — have a moral obligation to prevent such suffering and assist those in desperate circumstances. If we are truly serious about opposing genocide in Darfur, then we must take decisive action to stop it. We must stop supporting the genocidal government of Sudan, and we must enact and enforce comprehensive sanctions against them without exceptions. We must demand that China stop bankrolling the genocide, and we must demand that United Nations forces do everything necessary to protect civilians and save the people of Darfur. That’s the only way to begin to solve the problem of refugees and displaced people in this part of the world.
As the Earth’s oceans warm, the masses of tiny plants growing at their surface is declining, say US researchers. Their results show that the productivity of global oceans is tightly linked to climate change and has steadily decreased between 1999 and 2004.The team was led by Michael Behrenfeld, at Oregon State University, US, and used a sensor on NASA’s SeaWiFS satellite to measure different shades of green in the ocean (watch an animation of the satellite at work, mpeg file). This allowed them to watch how chlorophyll in the oceans ebbed and flowed over the past 10 years. They looked at how these changes fitted changes in ocean temperatures and the predictions of computer models.
Their research, published in Nature, revealed two phases. Between 1997 and 1998, the amount of phytoplankton in the seas rose. At this time, the oceans were cooling after the strongest ever El Niño, which had warmed ocean temperatures.From 1999 to 2004, there was a general warming of the oceans and, the images from space revealed, a persistent decrease in phytoplankton. In some regions, the drops in ocean productivity were often over 30%. Globally, the reductions meant that, between 1999 and 2004, about 190 million tonnes of carbon per year were not absorbed by the tiny plants and converted into organic matter. After 2004, there was a small upturn in productivity (see Cooling oceans buck global trend).
Plankton is critical to human survival.Julian Cribb 2006 (September 16, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20398844-5003900,00.html, Accessed 6/29/08)
THEY are the most numerous and least considered beings on the planet, yet humanity cannot survive without them. Invisibly, they form the air we breathe and serve as the fount of life in oceans, rivers and lakes. Plankton have existed for 3.5 billion years, quietly making our planet habitable for people, plants and animals. These minute architects are the true builders and shapers of Earth's beauty and diversity. Yet individuals are palaces as elegant as Versailles itself: filigreed, roseate, fluted, crenellated, striated, stellate, spinose, perforated, multifoliate, ornamented more wildly and beautifully than a human mind could conceive. And like many beautiful things, some are deadly, either as the producers of lethal nerve poisons or as the raw material used in explosives. In Plankton: a Critical Creation, University of Tasmania marine biologist Gustaaf Hallegraeff has brought the microscopic world of these creatures into vivid focus with a breathtaking selection of electron microscope images. These are accompanied by a fascinating, and gently reproachful, essay on the wonders of the planktonic universe. It is the privilege of science to reveal the world we thought we knew in startling and unexpected ways, causing us to view it differently thereafter. Hallegraeff has done just this here, introducing us to creatures as exquisite as any sculpture and as fit for purpose as any instrument. It is a voyage through the Earth's inner space, depicting organisms as small as a few millionths of a millimetre and their elaborate structures. These range from the "familiar" blue-green algae, microscopic filaments often toxic, to the vanished fossils of millions of years ago that built the White Cliffs of Dover and, indeed, much of the world's sedimentary rocks and soils. He explores plankton with skeletons of calcium and silica in wild and alien or eerily familiar forms. Here is one that resembles the leaning Tower of Pisa, down to the very columns. Here, others like a radiant star, a sunburst, a vol-au-vent, a Catherine wheel, a flower, a host of trumpets, a loufa ... It all raises the question: does the shape of man-made devices hark back to some ancestral patterning perfected and implanted a billion years ago? Plankton are certainly providing inspiration for modern architects and, increasingly, the question of how they grow these elaborate and robust structures is being explored by nanotechnologists, eager to unlock their biochemical secrets in order to revolutionise the way we makethings.
Besides their role in producing oxygen, processing CO2, absorbing nutrients and underpinning the global food chain, these microscopic plants serve in other ways: their mildly abrasive skeletons are used in toothpaste, to make concrete and filter swimming pools. Perhaps most importantly, they help to regulate the Earth's climate, producing the chemicals that allow clouds to form. Of great concern, says Hallegraeff, is the thought that if the gradual acidification of the oceans by human production of CO2 destroys these creatures, the results could be catastrophic both for the climate and the global food web. At present, it is thought plankton absorb half the world's CO2 from theatmosphere. Hallegraeff traces his own journey of fascination with this microscopic world from his childhood in The Netherlands, growing up a few kilometres from where Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in 1673 and revealed the invisible world that engulfs us. Gazing at the whirling green creatures in a drop of pond water, the young Hallegraeff was hooked for life, pursuing his studies into the largely unexplored biological realm of Australia and the southern seas. Here most people's awareness was restricted to periodic panics about algal blooms in drinking water, toxic red tides and the risks of paralytic shellfish poisoning or ciguatera. He decided to redress the balance, revealing planktonic life in all its diversity, wonder and beneficial -- as well as risky -- aspects.
"In the past 30 years," he writes, "scientific appreciation of the global importance of single-celled microscopic plants and animals has escalated. It is now obvious that most of the action on our planet is in the plankton. "Life originated in the primeval fluid of the plankton world. The microbial engine of the plankton plays a key role in our planet's ability to adapt to climate change. It is perilous to our own survival to ignore this critical creation."
Warming devastates coral reefs by increasing sea temperatures and hurricane activity.
The Guardian 1/24 (“Hurricanes and global warming devastate Caribbean coral reefs”, 08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/24/climatechange)
Warmer seas and a record hurricane season in 2005 have devastated more than half of the coral reefs in the Caribbean, according to scientists. In a report published yesterday, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) warned that this severe damage to reefs would probably become a regular event given current predictions of rising global temperatures due to climate change. According to the report, 2005 was the hottest year on average since records began and had the most hurricanes ever recorded in a season. Large hotspots in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico powered strong tropical hurricanes such as Katrina, which developed into the most devastating storm ever to hit the US. In addition to the well-documented human cost, the storms damaged coral by increasing the physical strength of waves and covering the coast in muddy run-off water from the land. The higher sea temperature also caused bleaching, in which the coral lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. The reefs then lose their colour and become more susceptible to death from starvation or disease.
Coral reefs are critical to human survival.
McMichael 03 (Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director, Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses, p. 254, http://books.google.com/books?id=tQFYJjDEwhIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=coral+reefs+critical+human+survival&source=web&ots=PpvyXNZ_Ve&sig=HuTi0RaOUUfhEhs1_zYoDQhJFz0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1)
Coral reefs are one of the most threatened global ecosystems and also one of the most vital. They offer critical support to human survival, especially in developing countries, serving as barriers for coastal protection; major tourist attractions; and especially as a productive source of food for a large portion of the population (39, 40). Coral reefs supply a wide variety of valuable fisheries, including both fish and invertebrate species (41). Some fisheries are harvested for food, others are collected for the curio and aquarium trades.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 21Scholars Warming
***Warming Bad Science***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 22Scholars Warming
Warming Real Frontline – (1/2)
( ) There is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring
Naomi Oreskes 12/3/4 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature ( 3 ). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].Others agree. The American Meteorological Society ( 6 ), the American Geophysical Union ( 7 ), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
( ) New satellite technology has led to undeniable evidence of warming
Menglin Jin1 and Robert E. Dickinson 5/23/2 “New observational evidence for global warming from satellite” http://climate.eas.gatech.edu/dickinson/publications/jin-grl2002-warming.pdf
We have developed procedures for removing the effects of changing satellite orbits and cloud contamination from skin temperatures estimated from AVHRR channels 4 and 5, and so provide a first estimate of the trends of land surface skin temperature over the last two decades. The estimated land temperature increase is not only much greater than that for the atmosphere but also apparently somewhat larger than the estimates of surface air temperature increase from in situ measurement. Data from the AVHRR satellite indicate that the temperature of land surface has warmed substantially in most regions over the last two decades and globally at a rate of about 0.43 ± 0.2_C per decade, consistent with the increase of global land air temperature but apparently somewhat larger. The data set providing the diurnal cycle of land temperature also gives a decrease in the diurnal range of 0.16 ± 0.05_C per decade. The skin temperature climatology estimated from the data show considerable spatial and temporal structures. Some of these structures are known to be real as established by correlation with the SAT change [Jin et al., 1997], and some either result from changes in the land temperature difference or artifacts in the temperature estimates caused by volcanic aerosol, unknown physics, or retrieval uncertainties.
29,000 sets of data from over the past five years all conclude that warming is becoming a threat: that’s too many to ignore
MSNBC ‘7 (MSNBC News, April 6 2007, “Experts Issue New Climate Warning”,http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6342&method=full)
An international global warming conference approved a report Friday warning of dire threats to the Earth and to mankind from increased hunger in Africa and Asia to the extinction of species unless the world adapts to climate change and halts its progress. Africa will be hardest hit, the
report concluded. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said. Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings. It has been a complex exercise, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again. The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements. There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models, Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.
Satellite data prove the Earth is rapidly warming
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov1* and Norman C. Grody2 9/11/3“Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites” Science Express http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/269
We have analyzed the global tropospheric temperature for 1978 to 2002 with the use of passive microwave sounding data from the NOAA series of polar orbiters and the Earth Observing System Aqua satellite. To accurately retrieve the climatic trend, we combined the satellite data with an analytic model of temperature that contains three different time scales: a linear trend and functions that define the seasonal and diurnal cycles. Our analysis shows a trend of +0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years, consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface meteorological stations.
Scientific evidence unequivocally points to global warming in the squo.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 8)
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM} The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Land
regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM} Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the
longerterm trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table SPM.1} Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%. Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,n 4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM} At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm changes in other aspects of climate have also been
observed. Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation amount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM} nSome extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/ or intensity over the last 50 years: _ It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM} _ It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent overmost land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM} _ It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (orproportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}_ It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3
hasincreased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI5.5, SPM}There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropicalcyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestionsof increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variabilityand the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routinesatellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longtermtrends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the secondhalf of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at leastthe past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 25Scholars Warming
Warming Real Ext. (2/2)
89% of recently observed changes in the environment are consistent with global warming.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 11)
Changes in the ocean and on land, including observed decreases in snow cover and Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, thinner sea ice, shorter freezing seasons of lake and river ice, glacier melt, decreases in permafrost extent, increases in soil temperatures and borehole temperature profiles, and sea level rise, provide additional evidence that the world is warming. {WGI 3.9} Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming (Figure 1.2). {WGII 1.4, SPM}
Warming trends are real and human caused.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 49-50)
Since 1970, the earth’s average temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius, or 1 degree Fahrenheit. Meteorologists note that the 23 warmest years on record have come since 1980. And the seven warmest years since recordkeeping began in 1880 have come in the last nine years. Four of these—2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006—were years in which major food-producing regions saw their crops wither in the face of record temperatures.7 The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has risen substantially since the start of the Industrial Revolution, growing from 277 parts per million (ppm) to 384 ppm in 2007. The annual rise in the atmospheric CO2 level, one of the world’s most predictable environmental trends, is the result of the annual discharge into the atmosphere of 7.5 billion tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels and 1.5 billion tons from deforestation. The current annual rise is nearly four times what it was in the 1950s, largely because of increased emissions from burning fossil fuels. As more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, temperatures go up.8
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 26Scholars Warming
Warming is Anthropogenic Frontline – (1/3)
( ) There is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring
Naomi Oreskes 12/3/4 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature ( 3 ). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society ( 6 ), the American Geophysical Union ( 7 ), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality ofanthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
( ) Multiple studies prove- warming can only be contributed to anthropogenic causes
Peter Scott 7/16/3 Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research “Attribution of temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes” http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/stott_regional_attribution_GRL_2003.pdf
An increasing body of evidence indicates that global warming that has been observed over the course of the last century cannot be explained by natural externally forced or internal variability [Mitchell et al., 2001]. A number of recent studies [eg., Stott et al., 2001; Tett et al., 2002] have used optimal detection [Hasselmann, 1997], a form of linear regression [Allen and Tett, 1999], to estimate the contributions, with their uncertainties, of anthropogenic and natural forcings to recent temperature changes. Optimal detection studies consistently show that anthropogenic forcings were the dominant factor controlling global warming in the latter half of the 20th century, leading the IPCC to conclude in the Third Assessment Report that ‘‘most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities’’. [3] Most detection studies investigating atmospheric temperature changes have considered global scale patterns of change. [Zwiers and Zhang, 2003] showed that the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols may be detected on sub-global scales, and showed a detectable anthropogenic influence on warming in Eurasia and North America.
( ) Ice depletion cannot be due to natural causes- its happening too rapidly
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov 12/3/99 “Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent”http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5446/1934
Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978-98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953-98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 28Scholars Warming
Warming is Anthropogenic Frontline – (3/3)
( ) Ice caps prove anthropogenic causes are leading to global warming: satellite data analyzed by arctic specialists proves
David Adam 9-5-7 “Ice-Free Arctic Could be Here in 30 Years” The Guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/05/climatechange.sciencenews
The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer and levels of sea ice in the region now stand at a record low, scientists said last night. Experts said they were "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as Britain disappearing in the last week alone. So much ice has melted this summer that the north-west passage across the top of Canada is fully navigable, and observers say the north-east passage along Russia's Arctic coast could open later this month. If the increased rate of melting continues, the summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030. Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver which released the figures, said: "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we're still losing ice." The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002. Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes." The new figures show that sea ice extent is currently down to 4.4m square kilometres (1.7m square miles) and still falling. The previous record low was 5.3m square kilometres in September 2005. From 1979 to 2000 the average sea ice extent was 7.7m square kilometres. The minimum extent of sea ice usually occurs late in September each year, as the freezing Arctic winter begins to bite.The sea ice usually then begins to freeze again over the winter. But Dr Serreze said that would be difficult this year. "This summer we've got all this open water and added heat going into the ocean. That is going to make it much harder for the ice to grow back. What we've seen this year
sets us up for an even worse year next year." The winter ice has already failed to make up for increased losses in the summer in each of the last two years. Changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming. "The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases. This year puts the exclamation mark on a series of record lows that tell us something is happening."
( ) Their “natural cycle” arguments are wrong- current warming trends are unlike anything ever seen- there is a scientific consensus that the cause is anthropogenic
Janine Bloomfield 1 (Scientist at Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University) “Hot Prospects” http://www.environmentaldefense.com/documents/494_HotProspects.pdf
Over the last hundred years, global climate has warmed by about 1°F. The decade of the 1990’s was the warmest in recorded history, and 1998 was the warmest year in both the instrumental record (since 1861) and, in all likelihood, in the Northern Hemisphere over the last thousand years. The effects of this seemingly small change are evident in all corners of the globe. Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying. There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last fifty years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, billions of animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than three hundred years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon.Today, billions of tons of carbon—in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases— are trapped in our atmosphere. They form a blanket around the Earth trapping heat, raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate. Thatmay be the reason we are already witnessing worldwide shrinkage of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Depending on how much greenhouse gas pollution occurs and using a range of climate models, global temperatures are expected to rise from 2.5° to 10.4°F by the year 2100. Scientists believe that warming of this magnitude and speed has not occurred in the last ten thousand years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 29Scholars Warming
Warming is Anthropogenic Ext – (1/2)
Warming is human-caused – greenhouse theory, correlation of key gases with warming prove.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 15)
Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect the absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphere and at the Earth’s surface. The resulting positive or negative changes in energy balance due to these factors are expressed as radiative forcing4, which is used to compare warming or cooling influences on global climate. {WGI TS.2} Human activities result in emissions of four long-lived GHGs: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs increase when emissions are larger than removal processes. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, SPM} The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The annual CO2 concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995-2005 average: 1.9ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960-2005 average: 1.4ppm per year), although there is year-toyear variability in growth rates. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, SPM; WGIII 1.3} The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715ppb to 1732ppb in the early 1990s, and was 1774ppb in 2005. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. {WGI 2.3, 7.4, SPM} The global atmospheric N2O concentration increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270ppb to 319ppb in 2005. {WGI 2.3, 7.4, SPM} Many halocarbons (including hydrofluorocarbons) have increased from a near-zero pre-industrial background concentration, primarily due to human activities. {WGI 2.3, SPM; SROC SPM} There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2 (Figure 2.4). {WGI 2.3, 6.5, 2.9, SPM} The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {WGI 2.3, 6.4, SPM} Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce acooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W/m2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W/m2. Aerosols also influence precipitation. {WGI 2.4, 2.9, 7.5, SPM} In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/m2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {WGI 2.7, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 30Scholars Warming
Warming is Anthropogenic Ext – (2/2)
Warming is human-caused – natural causes alone can’t explain the evidence.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 18-19)
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8 This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM} The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. {WGI 2.9, 3.2, 3.4, 4.8, 5.2, 7.5, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, TS.4.1, SPM} It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM} The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. {WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM} Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings, such as those due to aerosols and land-use change, and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of GHG increases to observed small-scale temperature changes. {WGI 8.3, 9.4, SPM} Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspectsof climate, including temperature extremes and wind patterns. {WGI 9.4, 9.5, SPM} Temperatures of the most extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing. It is more likely than not that anthropogenic forcing has increased the risk of heat waves. Anthropogenic forcing is likely to have contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres. However, the observed changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation are larger than simulated by models in response to 20th century forcing change. {WGI 3.5, 3.6, 9.4, 9.5, 10.3, SPM} It is very likely that the response to anthropogenic forcing contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. There is some evidence of the impact of human climatic influence on the hydrological cycle, including the observed large-scale patterns of changes in land precipitation over the 20th century. It is more likely than not that human influence has contributed to a global trend towards increases in area affected by drought since the 1970s and the frequency of heavy precipitation events. {WGI 3.3, 5.5, 9.5, TS.4.1, TS.4.3}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 31Scholars Warming
Emissions Increasing
CO2 emission growth is accelerating.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 11)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate of growth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than during the previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII1.3, TS.1, SPM} The largest growth in GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from energy supply, transport and industry, while residential and commercial buildings, forestry (including deforestation) and agriculture sectors have been growing at a lower rate. The sectoral sources of GHGs in 2004 are considered in Figure 2.1c. {WGIII 1.3, SPM} The effect on global emissions of the decrease in global energy intensity (-33%) during 1970 to 2004 has been smaller than the combined effect of global income growth (77%) and global population growth (69%); both drivers of increasing energy-related CO2 emissions. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {WGIII 1.3, Figure SPM.2, SPM}
Emissions are set to increase for decades.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 22)
There is high agreement and much evidence9 that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. Baseline emissions scenarios published since the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) are comparable in range to those presented in SRES (see Box on SRES scenarios and Figure 3.1).10 {WGIII 1.3, 3.2, SPM} The SRES scenarios project an increase of baseline global GHG emissions by a range of 9.7 to 36.7 GtCO2-eq (25 to 90%) between 2000 and 2030. In these scenarios, fossil fuels are projected to maintain their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond. Hence CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000 and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110% over that period. {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 32Scholars Warming
***A2: No Solve – Alt Caus/Time/US Key***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 33Scholars Warming
A2: Deforestation – Turn: Warming is the Cause
Warming Hurts Rainforest Growth, in turn slowing the rate of absorption of carbon dioxide and making warming inevitable
Genesis Online 08“Fuels of Paradise” January 19, 2008 http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/co2/gwfor.htm
Researchers working in Costa Rica have discovered disturbing evidence that increasing temperatures have markedly slowed the growth of tropical trees over the past decade. The slowdown may explain calculations suggesting that tropical forests, which are usually considered to take up carbon dioxide, have actually added millions of tons of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere each year during the 1990s, making them a huge net source, comparable in size to the combustion of fossil fuels. The trend could exacerbate global warming: as the mercury rises, tropical forests may dump yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing still more warming. In 1984 researchers Deborah A. Clark and David B. Clark of the University of Missouri, collaborating with Charles D. Keeling and Stephen C. Piper of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La jolla, Calif., began measuring the growth rates of scores of adult tropical rain-forest trees at La Selva Biological Station in central Costa Rica. The sample includes six different tree species, with both fast and slow-growing types represented. Using special measuring collars, the scientists obtain reliable data on aboveground growth each year. Deborah Clark presented the team's findings in August at a meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Baltimore. The group found that growth of all the trees fluctuated considerably from year to year. Moreover, the year-to-year changes correspond strikingly with the results of separate calculations of the size each year of a colossal unexplained tropical terrestrial source of carbon dioxide. In years when this theoretical source was large, the trees had grown slowly; in years when it was small or negative, the trees had grown faster. The apparent lesson is that the varying annual growth rate of trees in tropical forests could account, in large part, for a calculated increase in carbon dioxide released from land in the tropical zone in the 1980s and 1990s (although other sources, such as soil microbes, probably also contribute). Although trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen during photosynthesis, they also release some carbon dioxide as a by-product of respiration, as most organisms do. When growing vigorously, plants take up more than they produce. But if growth slows, the balance shifts. The annual excess of carbon coming from tropical forests, according to a preliminary calculation by Keel ing and his associates, has been more than four billion tons in some recent years. many researchers regard such estimates as provocative but not ironclad.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 34Scholars Warming
A2: Deforestation (1/4)
A carbon market can reduce deforestation
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
In establishing the U.S. cap-and-trade market, Congress can create incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions broadly, rather than engaging them only on scattershot projects. A good place to start would be with tropical forest nations. Tropical forest destruction emits as much CO2 as the whole United States(see Fig. 7). Tropical forest nations are among the world's top emitters. According to WRI/CAIT, the third and fourth largest emitters in the world are Indonesia (#3) and Brazil (#4), and more than 70% of their GHG emissions come from deforestation (see Fig. 8). In some countries, forest protection initiatives are underway but need help. Well-designed carbon markets should offer incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Kyoto offers none. With
Brazilian NGO partners, Environmental Defense has pioneered a proposal called Compensated Reduction, in which any tropical forest nation that reduces its national deforestation emissions below a historical baseline would be eligible for compensation via carbon markets (see Fig. 13). Were Congress to open the U.S. carbon market to credits earned by developing countries that reduce deforestation nation-wide, Congress could strengthen those nations’ climate and biodiversity protection efforts and create a model for engaging developing countries broadly.
Replacing Energy, not stopping deforestation, is key to combat warming
Reuters, July 9 2001, “Carbon Sinks Won’t Solve Global Warming—Only Solution Is To Cut CO2 Emissions”, (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cc070901a.htm)
Forests and farmlands cannot be relied on to soak up environmentally damaging greenhouse gases, and cuts in emissions are the only long-term way to reduce global warming, scientists said on today. A new report by Britain's Royal Society said too little is known about how much farmlands and forests, so-called carbon sinks, can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. Carbon sinks will be a major issue in Bonn next week when environmentalists and policy-makers resume international climate talks, which have been jeopardised by the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto agreement on global warming. In its report, the independent body of top scientists said better methods are needed to verify the impact of carbon sinks on global warming. Reducing the amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuels should be the main way to reduce global warming. "These carbon sinks are of rather limited size and also will only work for a relatively short duration, a few decades. That means they can't make a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions and solving the global warming problem," said Professor John Shepherd, an author of the report. Carbon sinks and emissions trading, essentially a market for buying and selling the right to pollute, were the main stumbling blocks at the failed United Nations conference on climate change in The Hague last year. The United States, Japan, Canada and Australia wanted more emphasis on carbon sinks in achieving the CO2 emission cuts set in the 1997 Kyoto protocol on global warming. The pact commits developed nations to cutting emissions of CO2 by an average of just over five percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Officials gathering in Bonn on July 16 for two weeks will try to get the talks back on track, despite the withdrawal of the United States earlier this year. Shepherd, the director of Britain's Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, said carbon sinks were diverting the talks from the main issue which is cutting emissions. According to the report, carbon sinks
and soil absorb about 40 percent of CO2 emissions and could soak up as much as 45 percent. But it added that the maximum that could be absorbed would only be equivalent to a quarter of that needed by 2050 to prevent major rises in global temperature. "Our view is that the argument is being diverted into what is really a rather unproductive area and people should get back to talking about carbon emission reductions at source by use of renewable (fuels) and whatever else they think is necessary," said Shepherd. The scientists also warned that in the future carbon sinks could become a source of CO2. They could release greenhouse gases, such as methane. "The primary benefit of land carbon sinks is that they can be effective immediately and provide a financial incentive for the preservation and sustainable use of forests and agriculture land," the report said. But the long-term solution must be cuts in CO2 emissions through energy saving and replacing fossil fuels with renewable and nuclear energy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 35Scholars Warming
A2: Deforestation (2/4)
Deforestation is being solved now
Julie McCarthy, July 9 2007, “Unlikely Allies Battle Deforestation in the Amazon”, Foreign Correspondent South America, Peabody recipient for coverage of Gulf War, was the foreign editor for Europe as well as Africa. She served as the Senior Washington Editor during the Persian Gulf War, (http://www.npr.org/templatesstory/story php?storyId=11375220)
Guerrero, The Nature Conservancy's man in the field, says Cargill is persuading farmers that they have a choice: get legal or go broke. He says the Amazon is increasingly being pulled into a global market that demands environmentally friendly products, which is, he says, the argument that Cargill is using.” If the market decides not to buy anymore soy from the Amazon," Guerrero says, "[the farmers] will be affected by this reaction of the market. You know, if you lose the market, you lose everything," he says. As one of the biggest soy traders in Brazil, Cargill took an unprecedented step. At the urging of Greenpeace, which has tracked deforestation around Santarem, Cargill agreed to join a two-year moratorium on the purchase of any soy grown on newly deforested areas. The action effectively removes the incentive for soy farmers to cut down trees. Cargill’s Lori Johnson says the company pushed to make the moratorium industry-wide "so that everyone who buys soy is taking the same stance.” And that's ultimately what happened," says Johnson. "And one of the interesting things that came out of those discussions is that it has brought together this kind of multi-stakeholder group.” But Not Without a Fight Before Greenpeace and Cargill started cooperating with each other, they fought bitterly over the company's giant port terminal in Santarem. From there the company ships hundreds of thousands of tons of soy down the Amazon to markets overseas. Greenpeace accused Cargill, one of the world's largest privately held companies, of being indirectly complicit in deforestation of the area. But the company argues that only a fraction of the soy it transports comes from Santarem, and that
most of the land around the region was already cleared before Cargill arrived on the scene in 2003. Small farmers are now caught between the law and making their farms profitable. Many face the prospect of selling their land and leaving. Farmer Viteu Holzbach plants soy on 130 of his 260 hectres, cultivating about half the land. But under the long-standing 80:20 rule, he is only entitled to grow on a fifth of the property, or about 50 hectres. He must either return a big chunk of his farm to its natural state, or pay a large chunk to the government which would then set aside a legal reserve elsewhere. “We feel oppressed. The NGO's call us criminals. But we don't want to work outside of the law. We worked our whole lives honestly," Holzbach says. "And we came here after the forest had been cut down, and just took advantage of what we found.” In the last two years Brazil's government says that the rate at which trees are being destroyed has slowed in the Amazon. Analysts credit declining soy prices which have led to a disincentive to plant. The Nature Conservancy's Guerrero credits groups like Greenpeace and other conservationists who are on the frontlines in the struggle to save the rainforest. “Because we are doing some work here to put some limits: addressing the problem, confronting the problem, and doing something."Guerrero expects to see more partnerships like the one between the Nature Conservancy and Cargill multiply as the battle continues over how to balance conservation in the Amazon with economic growth.
Deforestation is declining
National Geographic News, November 13 2006, “World’s Forests Rebounding , Study Suggests”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061113-forests.html)
Forests are branching out across the planet anew, raising hopes that an end to deforestation may be in sight, a new study claims. The study suggests that deforestation is not as drastic as it once was and that forests are recovering in many countries. The researchers say that over the past 15 years the amount of woodland has increased in 22 of the world's 50 most forested nations. China and the U.S. have achieved the greatest overall forest expansion, the team says, while tree cover has spread fastest in China, Vietnam, and Spain. Asia as a whole is shown to have gained 2.5 million acres (1 million hectares) of forest between 2000 and 2005. "Earth has suffered an epidemic of deforestation," said co-researcher Jesse Ausubel, from Rockefeller University in New York City. "Now humans may help spread an epidemic of forest restoration." Ausubel said the trend identified in the study could "stop the styling of a skinhead Earth" and lead to a 10 percent increase in global forest cover—an area the size of India—by 2050.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 36Scholars Warming
A2: Deforestation (3/4)
Developing nations are expanding their forests
National Geographic News, November 13 2006, “World’s Forests Rebounding , Study Suggests”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061113-forests.html)
This encouraging picture of global forest growth comes from an international research team that studied data from a 2005 forest-resources assessment by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The team advocates "a more sophisticated approach" to measuring forest cover. This approach takes into account tree density as well as overall tree cover to reveal a country's total forest resources, the team says. In Japan, for instance, tree cover is shown to be virtually unchanged since World War II, but tree density has risen, producing an average annual 1.6 percent increase in forest biomass. Lead author Pekka Kauppi of the University of Helsinki, Finland, admits that the study does not distinguish between planted, homogenous tree stands and biologically richer old-growth forests. However, he says, much of the recorded increase involves both natural regeneration and the effects of reforestation programs, particularly in developing nations. The study notes, for example, that tropical forest in El Salvador expanded more than 20 percent between 1992 and 2001. Reforestation efforts in China have contributed to a 116-million-acre (47-million-hectare) increase in forest area since the 1970s, the study adds. Increased human migration from rural to urban areas and higher agricultural yields may also have aided regeneration, the authors say. Similar factors may have helped in India, where forest cover was found to have increased since 1990. The team says forest trends in these and other developing countries may be mirroring those seen in the past in industrialized Western nations. In the U.S., for instance, forests in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois have expanded by half since the 19th century. The authors say factors behind reforestation in North America and Europe range from increased conservation and farming productivity to a decline in newsprint demand following the rise of electronic media. Whether the transition from deforestation to forest expansion becomes a truly global phenomenon will depend largely on Brazil and Indonesia, where huge areas of tropical forest are still being cleared, Kauppi says. Indonesia has recorded a 6 percent annual loss in forest biomass between 1990 and 2005. "But if China and India can do it, why not Brazil and Indonesia?" Kauppi said.
Indigenous people are preventing deforestation
National Geographic News, February 28 2006, “Indigenous Lands Help Protect Amazon Forests, Study Finds” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0228_060228_amazon.html)
Reserve areas established for Indian peoples in Brazil (map) are as effective as uninhabited nature parks in preventing burning and clear-cutting, the study finds. An international team of researchers tested a longstanding assumption: that land in uninhabited parks is better protected than that in reserves with human populations. The scientists used satellite data taken from 1997 to 2000 to compare rates of fire and deforestation inside and outside the boundaries of different reserve types. Only protected areas larger than 25,000 acres (10,100 hectares) were included in the analysis. In the February issue of the journal Conservation Biology, the researchers report that reserves of all types are providing significant Amazon forest protection, but tribal lands may be especially important to preventing region-wide deforestation. "Many indigenous groups are very well organized, and they are also willing to use force to defend their lands," said Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts, who led the study.
Indigenous lands are preventing deforestation in the Amazon
National Geographic News, February 28 2006, “Indigenous Lands Help Protect Amazon Forests, Study Finds” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0228_060228_amazon.html)
The study confirms new thinking about conservation priorities in the Amazon. In the past, efforts have focused largely on protecting isolated areas with little human presence. Nepstad and others argue that while establishing parks in inaccessible regions is important, that alone doesn't slow deforestation where it most commonly occurs: along the forest's retreating edge. In fact, it is the proximity of many indigenous lands to Brazil's advancing agricultural frontier that makes them so important, conservationists say. The front line of deforestation in the Amazon has been moving into the forest from the south and east, leaving soybean fields and pastureland in its wake. But in the states of Pará and Mato Grosso, that march of destruction has been halted by a vast complex of indigenous lands occupied by the Kayapo and Xingu peoples. The protective barrier created by these tribal lands is enormous—two and half times larger than the country of Costa Rica. Here, study findings confirm what is visible to the naked eye from satellite maps. "Where indigenous land in the Amazon starts is where the frontier stops," said Stephan Schwartzman, an anthropologist with New York-based nonprofit Environmental Defense and a co-author of the study. The study did not examine how protected areas with human populations—including indigenous lands and national forests—maintain aspects of environmental health other than standing forest. In some parts of the Amazon, gold mining, selective logging, and illegal hunting have caused extensive damage. But these threats are less severe in many indigenous territories, where tribal groups guard against outside intrusions. "Logging and hunting aren't trivial, but I'd far rather have these kinds of impacts than have lands with little or no forest at all," said William Laurance, a staff scientist with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Manaus, Brazil. "Despite often being under staggering pressures, the indigenous lands are doing a pretty good job of protecting the Amazon," Laurance said.
Deforestation is declining in the AmazonNational Geographic News, February 28 2006, “Indigenous Lands Help Protect Amazon Forests, Study Finds” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0228_060228_amazon.html)
By demonstrating such protection, the new study underscores the value of strategic alliances among conservationists, indigenous tribes, and other rural land users. Such alliances have helped tribes like the Kayapo gain official recognition of reserve areas and aided them in enforcing bans on forest clearing and other illegal activities. Study co-author Paul Lefebvre, a research associate at the Woods Hole Research Center, says a number of groups share a common interest in maintaining the forest. "There are some who still argue that you need to put up fences and keep people out to protect the forest," Lefebvre said. "What we're seeing now is that by keeping the people there, you can actually enhance protection." After proceeding at a record rate from 2002 to 2004, Amazon deforestation slowed a bit in 2005. While falling prices of commodities found in the region are thought to be partly responsible, new reserves and improved enforcement also played a role. Last year the Brazilian government created nearly 20,000 square miles (51,800 square kilometers) of new sustainable-use reserves north of Kayapo lands. These reserves create a formidable new barrier to frontier expansion, and alongside other reserves they form a nearly continuous protected zone over 90,000 square miles (233,000 square kilometers). "The alliance between conservation and indigenous groups has now extended to 'smallholder' organizations," Nepstad said, referring to groups of small-scale farmers and forest users whose advocacy helped lead to the new protected areas. "They are, in one respect, the Amazon's new conservationists," Nepstad said. With additional new reserves planned over the coming years, more than 40 percent of the Brazilian Amazon forest will have some protected status.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 38Scholars Warming
A2: Contrails
No evidence to support contrails contribute to warming
National Geographic News, June 14 2006, “Airplane Contrails Boost Global Warming, Study Suggests”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html)
Scientists disagree about the extent of contrails' climate impact. "The jury is out on the impact of contrails," said Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Langley, Virginia. David Travis, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, notes that some recent studies suggest that contrails have little impact on global climate change but have a greater regional warming impact. "I prefer to think of contrails as a regional-scale climate problem, as they are most common in certain regions of the world, such as western Europe, eastern and central U.S., and parts of eastern Asia," he said. "This is due to a combination of dense air traffic in these areas and favorable atmospheric conditions to support contrail persistence once they form." Because of their locations and short life spans, contrails are a difficult study subject. "The greatest impediment to understanding the contrail impacts on weather and climate is the poor state of knowledge of humidity in the upper troposphere [3.8 to 9.3 miles/6 to 15 kilometers in altitude]," NASA's Minnis said. "Until we can measure it properly and extensively, and model it and its interaction with cirrus clouds and contrails, we will continue to have large uncertainties about the effect of contrails."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 39Scholars Warming
A2: Cows
Cow emissions being solved now
David Adam, July 10 2007, “Move to Cut Methane Emissions by Changing Cows Diet”, environmental correspondent The Guardian, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/10/ruralaffairs.climatechange)
Burping cows and sheep are being targeted by UK scientists to help bring down Britain's soaring levels of greenhouse gas pollution. Experts at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in Aberystwyth say the diet of farmed animals can be changed to make them produce less methane, a more potent global warming gas than carbon dioxide. Farmed ruminant animals are thought to be responsible for up to a quarter of "man-made" methane emissions worldwide though, contrary to common belief, most gas emerges from their front, not rear, ends. Mike Abberton, a scientist at the institute, said farmers could help tackle climate change by growing grass varieties bred to have high sugar levels, white clover and birdsfoot trefoil, a leafy legume, for their animals to eat. The altered diet changes the way that bacteria in the stomachs of the animals break down plant material into waste gas, he said. The institute has started a new government research programme, with the universities of Wales and Reading, to investigate how this process could be improved. A similar project in New Zealand suggested that dietary changes could reduce methane emissions from sheep by up to 50%. Dr Abberton said: "It's very unlikely that we'll get that sort of reduction in the UK but it could still make a significant difference. Making the animals' diet more digestible can lower their methane emissions." A single cow can produce between 100 and 200 litres of methane every day. Farmers regularly re-sow their fields so Dr Abberton said the switch in diet could be relatively straightforward. Birdsfoot trefoil can be difficult to grow, he said, but part of the new project is to develop more suitable varieties. As well as helping to reduce methane production, growing legumes such as clover could help replenish soil nitrogen levels because they naturally attract bacteria and fungi that fix it from the air. In a separate project, Giles Oldroyd, a plant scientist at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, is working on ways to genetically modify other plants such as wheat so they can mimic this nitrogen-fixing ability, an advance he called the holy grail of crop research because it would dramatically cut the use of synthetic fertilisers. Scientists at the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany, announced this year that they had developed a pill to reduce methane emissions from cattle. The plant-based pill, combined with a special diet and strict feeding times, is meant to reduce the methane produced by cows by converting it to glucose.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 40Scholars Warming
A2: Sun (1/2)
Mars warming is not caused by the sun
National Geographic News, February 28 2007, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause For Warming, Scientist Says”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
The sun does not cause global warming
National Geographic News, September 13 2006, “Don’t Blame Sun For Global Warming, Study Says”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html)
Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change, a new study suggests. The sun's role in global warming has long been a matter of debate and is likely to remain a contentious topic. Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., in Nahant, Massachusetts, points out that scientists have pondered the link between the sun and Earth's climate since the time of Galileo, the famous 17th-century astronomer. "There has been an intuitive perception that the sun's variable degree of brightness—the coming and going of sunspots for instance—might have an impact on climate," Foukal said. Foukal is lead author of a review paper on sunspot intensity appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature. He says that most climate models—including ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—already incorporate the effects of the sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather (related images: our stormy star). But, Foukal said, "this paper says that that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact." Sunspot Impact Simply Too Small Sunspots are magnetic disturbances that appear as cooler, dark patches on the sun's surface. The number of spots cycles over time, reaching a peak every 11 years. The spots' impact on the sun's total energy output is easy to see. "As it turns out, most of the sun's power output is in the visible range—what we see as brightness," said Henk Spruit, study co-author from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany. "The sun's brightness varies only because of the blemishes that are also visible directly on pictures: the dark patches called sunspots and the
minute bright points called faculae. In terms of brightness changes, in large part, what you see is what you get." The sun's energy output varies slightly as sunspots wax and wane on the star's surface. But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests. The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output. "If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.
Human influence far outweighs the suns impact on climate
Tampa Tribune, June 29 2008, “Global Warming Denialists Misrepresenting Science”, (http://www2.hernandotoda y.com/content/2008/jun/29/ha-global-warming-denialists-misrepresenting-scien/)
CO2 levels have fluctuated over the millennia, true. But ice samples dating back 600,000 years show a variation of 175-280 ppm of CO2. The current level is 385 ppm. That is far higher than the variation over several ice age cycles. The ice age cycles themselves appear to be related to wobbles in Earth's orbit which vary its distance from the sun. These Milankovich cycles create alternating freezing and warming of the planet. The planet was never caught in a Little Ice Age, as DeWitt claims. The Little Ice Age is the name given to a period of unusually cold weather in the North Atlantic region. Usually it is dated from 1400 to about 1800 AD; although some say it started in 1300. Nobody knows whether the cold weather was continuous or whether a few extra cold winters got all the "press." There was a 50 year period of observed low sunspot activity from about 1645-1715. This is called the Maunder Minimum and is often associated with the Little Ice Age. As astronomy was primitive in those days, there are serious questions as to whether the Maunder Minimum existed, how long it lasted and whether it had anything to do with the Little Ice Age. At any rate, a 2006 study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research established that the difference in solar luminosity between peak sunspot years (maxima) and years of low sunspot activity (minima) is only 0.07 percent. (That's seven one hundredths of 1 percent), leading the chief researcher on the project to note: "Our results indicate that, over the past century, climate change due to human influence must far outweigh changes in the sun's brightness." As to DeWitt's comment that we've been getting more sunlight since the 1980s. True, but it is well established that the "global dimming" prior to the mid 1980s was due to particulate pollution (aka sulfate aerosols) which blocked sunlight but have been steadily reduced by environmental regulations in the developed world. DeWitt's allegation that the sun is "10 percent hotter" has no basis in fact and borders on the ridiculous. His comment about global warming on Mars was apparently inspired by widespread media misreporting of a 2005 study of retreating glaciers in the South Polar region of the planet. The study itself made clear that the shrinking ice cap was due to the fact that it was summer. Only the southern hemisphere of Mars was affected.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 42Scholars Warming
A2: Plants
Plants do not emit noticeable amounts of methane
New Scientist, May 2 2007, “Plants not to blame for Potent Greenhouse Gasses”, (http://environment.newscientist. com/channel/earth/mg19426023.700-plants-not-to-blame-for-potent-greenhouse-gases.html)
They are off the hook after all. Last year a paper appeared that suggested, to widespread amazement, that plants are major emitters of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (New Scientist, 14 January 2006, p 13). Now a trial in a gas-tight greenhouse has negated this. Plants do not, it turns out, contribute to climate change by emitting methane. Tom Dueck at Plant Research International in Wageningen, the Netherlands, and colleagues grew six species of plants - maize, tomato, wheat, sage, evening primrose and basil - in air in which the carbon in the CO2 was the heavy isotope carbon-13. The only gases in the greenhouse were pumped in from cylinders, ensuring that if the plants produced any methane it would contain carbon-13. Despite using a sensitive laser measuring technique called photo-acoustic spectroscopy, Dueck's team failed to detect methane containing the heavy isotope (New Phytologist, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02103.x).
Plants do not contribute to global warming
New Scientist, December 2 2007, “Plants Do Emit Methane After All”, (http://environment.newscientist.com /channel/earth/mg19626322.900-plants-do-emit-methane-after-all.html)
It seems some plants do produce methane - but only particular species, and not much of it. Zhi-Ping Wang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and colleagues took samples of 44 different species of plants growing around a research station in Inner Mongolia, sealed them in chambers and measured the gases they released. A woody shrub, Achillea frigida, released small amounts of methane (Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es071224l). "This is the most robust proof of the process that Keppler discovered," says Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia, a co-author of the report. Woody shrubs are encroaching into some ecosystems as a result of global warming, but Gulledge isn't worried, and says plant methane emission need not be included in climate models. "Regardless of how much methane the plants emit through this process, it is nonsense to suggest that they are contributing to global warming," he says. Now the search is on for a mechanism to explain how the plants produce methane, something it was thought only bacteria could do.
Science News, April 28 1990, “Termites Not To Blame For Methane”, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_m1200/is_n17_v137/ai_8988319)
As concern builds over the threat of global warming, scientists are trying to understand why atmospheric levels of methane, a greenhouse gas, have more than doubled in the last two centuries. Researchers in the early 1980s suggested termites may deserve partial blame for the increase, but a comprehensive study downplays their role. “Although the uncertainties are still very large, the weight of the scientific evidence is shifting toward the conclusion that termites are not an important global sources of methane," report M. Aslam K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen at the Oregon Graduate Center in Beaverton along with Australian colleagues. They describe their work in the March 20 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. The researchers measured gases emitted by six termite species in Australia and reviewed the published data concerning how much food termites consume. They estimate termites worldwide emit about 12 X [10.sup.12] grams per year of methane, which amounts to about 2 percent of the methane released by all global sources each year. This number agrees with results from lab measurements and a field study in Africa. In 1982, researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., sparked the debate over termites when they reported estimates based on laboratory work that termites emit 150 X [10.sup.12] grams each year, which would constitute about 30 percent of the world's annual methane emissions. They also suggested that human activities such as deforestation have boosted
termite populations, which could explain part of the rise in methane concentrations. Khalil says the earlier study overestimated the amount of food consumed by termites each year and did not take into account methane absorption by the ground near their mounds, a fact discovered only during field experiments. According to Khalil, the methane buildup in the atmosphere stems not from a population explosion in termites but from increasing numbers of rice fields, cattle and sheep.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 44Scholars Warming
A2: “Solar Variations”
( ) Their “sunspots” arguments are wrong- solar variation can’t be the cause for warming- only greenhouse gases could cause the uniform temperature changes
U. Cubasch 11/24/97 “Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model” http://www.springerlink.com/content/ujxgvmuknjbej5w9/
Two simulations with a global coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation model have been carried out to study the potential impact of solar variability on climate. The Hoyt and Schatten estimate of solar variability from 1700 to 1992 has been used to force the model. Results indicate that the near-surface temperature simulated by the model is dominated by the long periodic solar fluctuations (Gleissberg cycle), with global mean temperatures varying by about 0.5 K. Further results indicate that solar variability and an increase in greenhouse gases both induce to a first approximation a comparable pattern of surface temperature change, i.e., an increase of the land-sea contrast. However, the solar-induced warming pattern in annual means and summer is more centered over the subtropics, compared to a more uniform warming associated with the increase in greenhouse gases. The observed temperature rise over the most recent 30 and 100 years is larger than the trend in the solar forcing simulation during the same period, indicating a strong likelihood that, if the model forcing and response is realistic, other factors have contributed to the observed warming. Since twhich onehe pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar variability response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 45Scholars Warming
A2: China
China will model the U.S. on global warming
Timothy Gardner, October 2 2007, “Experts Say China Would Follow U.S. Lead On Climate”, Correspondent Energy and Environment, (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/895/144)
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 build low-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 will lead to drastic cuts in water for agriculture.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 46Scholars Warming
A2: Other Countries Key (1/6)
Other nations adopt U.S. environmental policies
Brookings Institute, June 2006, “Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming Is Over”, (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf)
True, previous air pollution problems have been national or regional in character; greenhouse gases are a global issue whose resolution must involve all nations. But this does not mean greenhouse gases cannot be overcome using the same tools that have worked against other air pollution problems. In the last 30 years, the United States has substantially reduced air pollution—during the same period the United States population and economy have both boomed. If air pollution can be reduced even as a national economy grows, there is good reason to hope that greenhouse gases can be reduced even as the global economy grows. Nor do developing nations need an "era of pollution" in order to industrialize. In the 19th century, it was true that air pollution and industrialization were inexorably linked: then, the unregulated smokestack was essential to manufacturing advancement. Today power plants and factories are being built that emit only a fraction of the air pollution of their predecessors—and efficient, low-polluting facilities tend to have the highest rates of return. Already China to a great extent and India to a lesser extent are switching to low-pollution approaches to power production and manufacturing, observing that low-polluting industry not only is good for the environment but for the bottom line. Fifteen years ago, smog was rising at dangerous rates in Mexico City. Mexico adopted anti-pollution technology and now Mexico City smog is in decline, even as the city booms economically and its population grows. Such examples suggest that the air pollution controls that have worked so well in the United States can be expanded to the world. And if the whole world can act against air pollution, maybe the whole world can act against greenhouse gas.
Other nations model U.S. environmental policies
Brookings Institute, June 2006, “Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming Is Over”, (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf)
The Kyoto Protocol might not have been right for the United States, but a mandatory program of greenhouse gas reduction is. For decades, the United States has led the world in technology development, economic vision and pollution control. Right now the catalytic converter and "reformulated" gasoline, anti-smog technology invented here, are beginning to spread broadly throughout developing nations. If America were to impose greenhouse gas reductions on a solely domestic basis—keep the United Nations out of this—it is likely that the United States would soon develop the technology that would light the way for the rest of the world on reducing global warming. The United States was the first country to overcome smog (ahead of the European Union by years), the first to overcome acid rain, and we should be first to overcome global warming. Once we have shown the world that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without economic harm, other nations will follow our lead voluntarily. The United States needs to start now with mandatory greenhouse gas reductions not out of guilt or shame, but because it is a fight we can win.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 47
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Other Countries Key (2/6)
The United States has a moral responsibility to act against global warming
Eileen Claussen, October 5 2006, “Climate Change: The State of The Question and The Search For The Answer”, President of the PEW center for climate change, (http://www.pewclimate.org/press_ room/speech_transcripts/stjohns2of2.cfm)
But Africa produces just 2 to 3 percent of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States, by contrast, with just 5 percent of the global population, is responsible for more than 20 percent of worldwide emissions. And there is also the issue of cumulative emissions. The fact is that climate change is a problem that has been decades in the making as carbon dioxide and other gases have accumulated in the atmosphere over time. These gases have a long life and can remain in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries. And, in the span of the last century or so, it was the United States and other already developed countries that were producing the lion’s share of these emissions. Looking only at carbon dioxide, the United States was responsible for more than 30 percent of global emissions between 1850 and 2000. The comparable figure for China: just 7 or 8 percent. Even considering the high rates of projected growth in China’s and India’s emissions, the cumulative contributions of developed and developing countries to climate change will not reach parity until sometime between 2030 and 2065. Clearly all of the major emitting countries need to be a part of the solution to climate change. But saying that all of today’s big emitters should be equally responsible for reducing their emissions is like going to a restaurant and having a nice dinner and then running into a friend who joins you for coffee. And, when the check comes, you make your friend who only had the coffee split the cost of the entire dinner. Yes, developing countries need to do their part, but there is no denying that the developed world, including the United States, has a moral and ethical responsibility to act first. We also have a responsibility to help developing nations adapt to a warming world. No matter what we do, some amount of global warming already is built into the climate system. There will be impacts; there already are impacts. And it is people living in poverty in the developing world who will face the most serious consequences. So it really comes down, again, to a question of responsibility. What is our responsibility? And it is not just our responsibility to our fellow man (or woman). There is also our responsibility to the natural world, to the earth. Beyond human societies, the natural world also will suffer from the effects of climate change. In fact, we are already seeing changes in the natural world due to climate change. Coral reefs are at risk because of warmer and more acidic ocean waters. Polar bears are threatened by declines in sea ice. Species already are disappearing because of new diseases connected to climate change. In short, climate change holds the potential of inflicting severe damage on the ecosystems that support all life on earth. So why, then, have we failed to take responsibility? Why has there been such an absence of political will?
Cutting U.S. emissions key
CTA, September 29 2004, “Gasoline Cost Externalities Associated With Global Climate Change”, International Center for Technology Assessment, (http://www.icta.org/doc/global%20warming%20rpg%20update.pdf)
Estimates of the cost of global warming used for this report are based only on U.S. emissions and the resulting domestic externalities. Obviously this narrow estimate of the costs of climate change ignores the significant impact of U.S. emissions on the rest of the world. The United States produces approximately a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, even though the country’s population is less than 5% of the world total. Automobiles and other gasoline-powered vehicles account for more than 21% of U.S. CO2 emissions5 and more than 17% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.6 If China, forexample, with almost one quarter of the world’s population and already in the grip of a severe environmental pollution crisis, were to match the per capita gasoline usage of the United States, the implications for global warming would be catastrophic. Americans continue to waste energy and emit greenhouse gases as if there were no climatic or environmental costs. U.S. political leaders have failed to recognize the long-termimplications and communicate with industry and the public in order to formulateresponsible energy and transportation policies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 48
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Other Countries Key (3/6)
Developing Countries model U.S. action on climate change
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
A number of large-emitting developing countries have taken, or are considering, steps to slow the increase in their GHG emissions: The world's second-largest emitter, China, has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards for passenger cars than has the United States. China has also adopted a renewable energy goal, committed significant funding for renewable energy. The world's fourth largest emitter, Brazil, has converted most of its passenger car fleet to sugar-cane ethanol. And it has reduced deforestation over 50% in the last two years, in part through conservation measures and environmental law enforcement. That's important: 70% of Brazil's emissions come from deforestation in the Amazon. But most developing countries are reluctant to take further climate protection steps unless and until the United States does. And most are certainly not likely to take more stringent or faster steps than the U.S. does.
Congressional action on climate change is modeled throughout the world
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
When Congress enacts a climate bill, the rest of the world will be watching closely. In effect, when Congress acts, America will lead by example. Such leadership is urgently needed. The international climate treaty talks have stalled because of the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to engage. Time is running out. America's trading partners are recognizing that the only way the United States will act to cut emissions in the narrow time window for averting dangerous climate change, is if the Congress acts. Sensible Congressional action could yield great benefits for America's environment and economy, and provide a template for the world. As Congress moves to cap and cut America's GHG emissions, there are a number of steps Congress can take that can have a significant positive effect on developing countries' consideration of, and implementation of, steps to reduce their own emissions. Taking these in coordination with other developed countries will increase their effectiveness. But Congress should not wait for other nations to act. Instead, by taking the lead, Congress can show all nations how to break the climate logjam and correct the mis-steps that led to the logjam in the first place.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 49
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Other Countries Key (4/6)
The U.S. is the worlds environmental leader: China and India will model the U.S.
John F. Turner, August 2003, “Providing International Leadership: Responsible Environmental Policy”, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs heads U.S. Department of State programs and activities concerning the environment, climate change, oceans affairs, and science and technology,(http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0803/ijpe/pj81turner.htm)
President Bush has committed the United States to innovative new approaches to climate change. The Bush administration is pursuing measures that will reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the size of the economy, by 18 percent over the next decade. This strategy will demonstrate U.S. leadership by slowing emissions growth and, as the science justifies, stopping and then reversing that growth. During the past 14 years, the United States has led the world in climate change research, investing more than $20 billion. To maintain U.S. leadership, the Bush administration is working with partner countries on clean energy technologies, including hydrogen, fuel cells, clean coal technology, and carbon capture and storage. The United States continues to work to advance the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is intended to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. The United States is also a leading supporter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the pre-eminent international body dealing with scientific, technical, and socio-economic information on climate change. Since June 2001, the State Department has spearheaded U.S. partnerships on climate change with key countries, covering issues from climate change science to energy and sequestration technologies to policy approaches. Partners include Australia, Canada, China, seven Central American countries, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the European Union. And on July 31 the State Department hosted an Earth Observation Summit. This ministerial-level meeting initiated new efforts to develop an integrated Earth observation system in order to improve understanding of global environmental and economic challenges. Prosperous societies are able to devote more of their resources to environmental protection, both to protect human health and preserve natural habitats. The United States will continue its efforts to promote a sustainable future for the Earth's people, its wildlife, and the many beautiful and vital ecosystems that are threatened by reckless exploitation. We will not lose sight of environmental goals as we develop the whole range of our policies around the world.
The world models U.S. environmental policies
John F. Turner, August 2003, “Providing International Leadership: Responsible Environmental Policy”, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs heads U.S. Department of State programs and activities concerning the environment, climate change, oceans affairs, and science and technology,(http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0803/ijpe/pj81turner.htm)
The United States plays a leading role in international environmental policy. We are active in efforts to control toxic chemicals around the world. We have led the way in integrating environmental and economic policy, in part by incorporating environmental agreements into free trade agreements. The United States is active in efforts to preserve critical habitats, and in the protection of endangered and threatened species. Around the world, in more ways than can be summarized here, we work to keep development, trade, and environmental protection on track. Our goal is a more prosperous world, one healthy for its people, with room for the sustainable ecosystems that provide habitats for people and wildlife around the globe. The United States is a key player in international initiatives to reduce the use of toxic chemicals and pesticides. It has led efforts to conclude the Stockholm Convention, a treaty to deal with persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are toxic chemicals that persist in the environment for long periods, and are transported globally through the atmosphere and oceans. The United States and many developed countries have phased out the most problematic POPs, but they continue to be used in large quantities elsewhere. The Stockholm Convention calls for a virtual phase-out of the 12 most hazardous POPs, plus others that may be listed in the future. This administration has attached a high priority to ratification of the Stockholm Convention and is working hard to obtain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate and the enactment of its implementing legislation.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 50
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Other Countries Key (5/6)
U.S. is key to CO2 emissions
Eileen Claussen, and Elliot Diringer, Spring 2007, “A New Climate Treaty”, (http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1594/), Eileen Claussen is President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Elliot Diringer is Director of International Strategies of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Any new treaty will be environmentally effective and politically feasible only to the degree that it successfully engages and binds all of the world’s major economies. Coming to terms with cost and equity while also bridging the gap between developed and developing is an extraordinary diplomatic challenge. Meeting it will require fresh thinking and approaches, a genuine readiness to compromise and a collective political will that, while perhaps emerging, is by no means assured. What is needed above all right now is US leadership, for no country bears greater responsibility for climate change, nor has greater capacity to catalyze a global response. Responsibility is measured most directly in terms of emissions, and it should surprise no one that history’s greatest economic power is also the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. By the same token, the tremendous enterprise, prosperity, and technological prowess that have contributed so heavily to the atmospheric burden uniquely qualify the United States to lead a low-carbon transition. Indeed, no nation has done more to advance scientific understanding of the causes and consequences of global warming. But thus far, the US contribution to the global effort largely ends there.
Developing nations will model a U.S. carbon market
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
The most important step for Congress is to cap and cut U.S. total GHG emissions in the range recommended by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP), with broad flexibility for firms to choose how to meet their targets, and vigorous enforcement if they don't. That's the kind of emissions trading market that allows American firms to play to their strengths . their capacity to innovate, to compete on a level playing field, and to profit by finding better, cheaper, faster ways to cut emissions. That’s the kind of program that would give the United States the credibility to demand comparable action by our trading partners. In fact, by enacting this kind of framework in 2007-2008, Congress could leverage it into becoming the new template for the international climate treaty talks in 2009-10.Timing is important. International carbon markets offer great potential for innovative U.S. companies to sell low-emitting technologies and processes. Congress should move swiftly to enact cap-and-trade, in order to open opportunities for U.S. firms in global carbon markets, and to avoid having U.S.firms miss out on carbon market participation. If Congress enacts cap-and-trade legislation in 2007-2008, the federal agencies could finish the implementing regulations in time for our market to link smoothly to the post-2012 international market. Delaying enactment beyond the 110th Congress, however, could delay our market's launch beyond 2013, potentially disrupting the international carbon markets and depriving U.S. firms of important carbon market opportunities. More importantly, if Congress enacts this kind of framework and developing nations do follow suit with similar caps on their total GHG emissions, it should be possible to limit the total amount of warming from pre-industrial levels through to atmospheric stabilization, to roughly 2.0° Centigrade - below what many regard as dangerous warming
James Hansen, June 23 2008, “Global Warming 20 Years Later: Tipping Points Near”, Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf)
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control. Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals. I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
The U.S. must reduce its fossil fuel use- developing nations will follow
James Hansen, June 23 2008, “Global Warming 20 Years Later: Tipping Points Near”, Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf)
The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool. Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 52
Scholars Lab Warming
Energy Key (1/2)
Energy use is responsible for warming
Michael T. Klare, February 15 2007,“Global Warming: Its All About The Energy”,( http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3998),Teacher at Amherst College, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst professor of Peace and World Security Studies author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency
When talk of global warming is introduced into the public discourse, as in Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” it is generally characterized as an environmental problem, akin to water pollution, air pollution, pesticide abuse, and so on. This implies that it can be addressed – like those other problems – through a concerted effort to “clean up” our resource-utilization behavior, by substituting “green” products for ordinary ones, by restricting the release of toxic substances, and so on. But global warming is not an “environmental” problem in the same sense as these others – it is an energy problem, first and foremost. Almost 90% of the world’s energy is supplied through the combustion of fossil fuels, and every time we burn these fuels to make energy we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; carbon dioxide, in turn, is the principal component of the “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) that are responsible for warming the planet. Energy use and climate change are two sides of the same coin.
Only changing our forms of energy can solve for global warming
Michael T. Klare, February 15 2007,“Global Warming: Its All About The Energy”,( http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3998),Teacher at Amherst College, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst professor of Peace and World Security Studies author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency
Consider the situation in the United States. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), carbon dioxide emissions constitute 84% of this nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, most – 98% – are emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, which currently provide approximately 86% of America’s total energy supply. This means that energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are highly correlated: the more energy we consume, the more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, and the more we contribute to the buildup of GHGs. Because Americans show no inclination to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels – but rather are using more and more of them all the time – one can foresee no future reduction in U.S. emissions of GHGs. According to the DoE, the United States is projected to consume 35% more oil, coal, and gas combined in 2030 than in 2004; not surprisingly, the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to rise by approximately the same percentage over this period. If these projections prove accurate, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 will reach a staggering 8.1 billion metric tons, of which 42% will be generated through the consumption of oil (most of it in automobiles, vans, trucks, and buses), 40% by the burning of coal (principally to produce electricity), and
the remainder by the combustion of natural gas (mainly for home heating and electricity generation). No other activity in the United States will come even close in terms of generating GHG emissions. What is true of the United States is also true of other industrialized and industrializing nations, including China and India. Although a few may rely on nuclear power or energy renewables to a greater extent than the United States, all continue to consume fossil fuels and to emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, and so all are contributing to the acceleration of global climate change. According to the DoE, global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to increase by a frightening 75% between 2003 and 2030, from 25.0 to 43.7 billion metric tons. People may talk about slowing the rate of climate change, but if
these figures prove accurate, the climate will be much hotter in coming decades and this will produce the most damaging effects predicted by the IPCC. What this tells us is that the global warming problem cannot be separated from the energy problem. If the human community continues to consume more fossil fuels to generate more energy, it inevitably will increase the emission of carbon dioxide and so hasten the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus causing irreversible climate change. Whatever we do on the margins to ameliorate this process – such as planting trees to absorb some of the carbon emissions or slowing the rate of deforestation – will have only negligible effect so long as the central problem of fossil-fuel consumption is left unchecked.
Alternative Energy key to preventing warmings worst impactsNational Audubon Society, 2008, “Global Warming: Get The Facts”, Audubon's mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, (http://www.audubon.org/globalWarming/GetTheFacts.php)
No matter what we do now, global warming will continue and will cause serious changes in our climate. However, prompt and dramatic action is likely to slow its rate of increase and to avoid some of the worst potential consequences. Experts say the most important action is to move away from burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, and to aggressively pursue nonpolluting energy options. Every time we burn fossil fuels to drive our cars, heat our homes, run our factories, light our cities, and more, we release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Our greenhouse gas emissions have increased in recent decades because of both human population growth and the rising rates of affluence and consumption. Larger houses, bigger and faster cars and SUVs and more airplane travel all mean more energy consumption. In fact, the United States, with only about 5% of the global population, contributes about 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions because our fuel consumption is so high.
Replacing Energy, not stopping deforestation, is key to combat warmingReuters, July 9 2001, “Carbon Sinks Won’t Solve Global Warming—Only Solution Is To Cut CO2 Emissions”, (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cc070901a.htm)
Forests and farmlands cannot be relied on to soak up environmentally damaging greenhouse gases, and cuts in emissions are the only long-term way to reduce global warming, scientists said on today. A new report by Britain's
Royal Society said too little is known about how much farmlands and forests, so-called carbon sinks, can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. Carbon sinks will be a major issue in Bonn next week when environmentalists and policy-makers resume international climate talks, which have been jeopardised by the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto
agreement on global warming. In its report, the independent body of top scientists said better methods are needed to verify the impact of carbon sinks on global warming. Reducing the amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuels should be the main way to reduce global warming. "These carbon sinks are of rather limited size and also will only work for a relatively short duration, a few decades. That means they can't make a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions and solving the global warming problem," said Professor John Shepherd, an author of the report. Carbon sinks and emissions trading, essentially a market for buying and selling the right to pollute, were the main stumbling blocks at the failed United Nations conference on climate change in The Hague last year. The United States, Japan, Canada and Australia wanted more emphasis on carbon sinks in achieving the CO2 emission cuts set in the 1997 Kyoto protocol on global warming. The pact commits developed nations to cutting emissions of CO2 by an average of just over five percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Officials gathering in Bonn on July 16 for two weeks will try to get the talks back on track, despite the withdrawal of the United States earlier this year. Shepherd, the director of Britain's Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, said carbon sinks were diverting the talks from the main issue which is cutting emissions. According to the
report, carbon sinks and soil absorb about 40 percent of CO2 emissions and could soak up as much as 45 percent. But it added that the maximum that could be absorbed would only be equivalent to a quarter of that needed by 2050 to prevent major rises in global temperature. "Our view is that the argument is being diverted
into what is really a rather unproductive area and people should get back to talking about carbon emission reductions at source by use of renewable (fuels) and whatever else they think is necessary," said Shepherd. The scientists also warned that in the future carbon sinks could become a source of CO2. They could release greenhouse gases, such as methane. "The primary benefit of land carbon sinks is that they can be effective immediately and provide a financial incentive for the preservation and
sustainable use of forests and agriculture land," the report said. But the long-term solution must be cuts in CO2 emissions through energy saving and replacing fossil fuels with renewable and nuclear energy.
Transition away from fossil fuels is key to solve warmingJames Hansen, June 23 2008, “Global Warming 20 Years Later: Tipping Points Near”, Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flighenter and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf)
Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming. Oil is used
in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels. Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 54
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Not Inevitable
We’re not out of time to stop warming – we just need to stabilize emissions by 2015.
Pachauri 07 (Rajendra, IPCC chairman, “Presentation by Dr. R.K. Pachauri during the Opening Session of the UN High Level Event on Climate Change – New York”, p. 2, 9/24, http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches.htm)
Projections for this century tell us that at the lower end of feasible trajectories, we have a best estimate of 1.8 degrees centigrade as the increase in temperature by the end of the century and at the upper end of feasible scenarios we get 4 degrees centigrade. The inertia of the system that we have is such that climate change would continue for decades and centuries even if we were to stabilize the concentration of gases that are causing this problem today, which means that adaptation is inevitable. But let me emphasize that adaptation alone will not do. We need to bring about mitigation actions to start in the short term even when benefits may arrive in a few decades. And there are huge co-benefits from mitigation action in terms of energy security, in terms of local environmental benefits. The cost of adaptation and impacts, I might mention, will keep going up as the global temperature goes up. As far as mitigation is concerned the costs are going to be much lower than what was anticipated earlier. If we stabilize the concentration of these gases at 445 to 490 parts per million of CO2 equivalent which will give us an equilibrium increase, limit the equilibrium increase to 2 to 2.4 degrees centigrade, that will cost the world less than 3 per cent of the GDP in the year 2030. This means that the prosperity that we would normally achieve by 2030 may be postponed by a few months at the most. And as the honorable Secretary General has told us, we have up to 2015 if we want to stabilize at that level, after which we will have to ensure that emissions go down substantially.
We have a little time to mitigate warming – any more delay will result in intense impacts.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 44)
Efforts to mitigate GHG emissions to reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change need to account for inertia in the climate and socio-economic systems. {SYR 3.2; WGI 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, SPM; WGIII 2.3.4} After GHG concentrations are stabilised, the rate at which the global average temperature increases is expected to slow within a few decades. Small increases in global average temperature could still be expected for several centuries. Sea level rise from thermal expansion would continue for many centuries at a rate that eventually decreases from that reached before stabilisation, due to ongoing heat uptake by oceans. {SYR 3.2, WGI 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, SPM} Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. Even though benefits of mitigation measures in terms of avoided climate change would take several decades to materialise, mitigation actions begun in the short term would avoid locking in both long-lived carbon intensive infrastructure and development pathways, reduce the rate of climate change and reduce the adaptation needs associated with higher levels of warming. {WGII 18.4, 20.6, 20.7, SPM; WGIII 2.3.4, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 55
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Pipeline (1/3)
It is not too late to act against global warming
Seth Borenstein, February 2 2007, “Global Warming Unstoppable, Report Says”, AP science writer, (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070202_ap_gw_unstoppable.html)
"It's not too late,'' said Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued Friday. The worst can be prevented by acting quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, he said. The worst could mean more than 1 million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs by 2100, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, one of many study co-authors. He said that adapting will mean living with more extreme weather such as severe droughts, more hurricanes and wildfires. "It's later than we think,'' said panel co-chair Susan Solomon, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who helped push through the document's strong language. Solomon, who remains optimistic about the future, said it's close to too late to alter the future for her children -- but maybe it's not too late for her grandchildren. The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found: --Global warming is "very likely'' caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel. --If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Acting against warming now is key
Seth Borenstein, February 2 2007, “Global Warming Unstoppable, Report Says”, AP science writer, (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070202_ap_gw_unstoppable.html)
Sea level rise could get worse after that. By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would be inevitable and the world's seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet, Bindoff said. That amount of sea rise would take centuries, said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada, but "if you're in Florida or Louisiana, or much of western Europe or southeast Asia or Bangladesh ... or Manhattan ... you don't want that,'' he said. The report spurred bleak reactions from world leaders. "We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible,'' warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution'' to save the planet. "While climate changes run like a rabbit, world politics move like a snail: Either we accelerate or we risk a disaster,'' said Italy's environment minister, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio. And South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said failure to act would be "indefensible.'' In Washington, Bush administration officials praised the report but said they still oppose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem can be addressed by better technology that will cut emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. About three-fourths of Americans say they expect global warming will get worse,
according to a recent AP-AOL News poll. However, other recent polls have found they don't consider it a top priority for the U.S. government. But doing nothing about global warming could mean up to a 10-degree Fahrenheit temperature rise by the end of the century in the United States, said report co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 56
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Pipeline (2/3)
We still have time to reduce emissions and stabilize the atmosphere
International Herald Tribune, December 13 2005, “Its Not Too Late”, (http://www.iht.com/articles /2005/12/13/opinion/edhansen.php)
In the long run, satisfying energy needs while decreasing CO²emissions will require developing renewable energies, sequestering CO²produced at power plants and perhaps a new generation of nuclear power. But emissions can already be reduced now with improved energy efficiency. It is important that the United States, as a leader in technology and as the largest producer of CO²in the world, take the lead.In general, industrial emissions of CO²are declining. The problem is emissions from power plants and vehicles. The solution in both cases depends on efficiency. We need to avoid building fossil fuel power plants unless and until sequestration is a reality. For vehicles, efficiency is critical because of the rapidly growing global number of vehicles. In the United States, even though the number of vehicles on the road increases every year, we could stop increasing emissions by accepting even modest improvements in efficiency of about 30 percent by 2030. This could be done with available technology, and there's ample time to phase it in.The accrued benefit in 35 years, even without the introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles, is a savings of oil equal to more than seven times the estimated amount of oilin the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Keeping the rise of global temperature below one degree Celsius is technically within reach. Everything depends on an informed public to bolster the political will of leaders across this warming globe.
Now is the key time to act to avoid warming’s impacts
International Herald Tribune, December 13 2005, “Its Not Too Late”, (http://www.iht.com/articles /2005/12/13/opinion/edhansen.php)
The Earth's temperature, with rapid global warming over the past 30 years, is now passing through the peak level of the Holocene, a period of relatively stable climate that has existed for more than 10,000 years. Further warming of more than one degree Celsius will make the Earth warmer than it has been in a million years. Business-as-usual scenarios, with fossil fuel (CO²) emissions continuing to increase at 2 percent per year as in the past decade, will yield additional warming of two or three degrees this century. That implies practically a different planet. The Earth's climate is nearing, but has not passed, a tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences. These include not only the loss of the Arctic as we know it, with all that implies for wildlife and indigenous peoples, but losses on a much vaster scale due to rising seas. Ocean levels will increase slowly at first, as losses at the fringes of Greenland and Antarctica due to accelerating ice streams are nearly balanced by increased snowfall and ice-sheet thickening in the ice sheet interiors. But as Greenland and West Antarctic ice is softened and lubricated by melt-water, and as buttressing ice shelves disappear because of a warming ocean, the balance will tip toward the rapid disintegration of ice sheets. The Earth's history suggests that with warming of two to three degrees, the new sea level will include not only most of the ice from Greenland and West Antarctica, but a portion of East Antarctica, raising the sea level by 25 meters, or 80 feet. Within a century, coastal dwellers will be faced with irregular flooding associated with storms. They will have to continually rebuild above a transient water level. This grim scenario can be halted if growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slowed in the first quarter of this century. That requires two things: first, flattening out and then decreasing the rate of growth of CO²emissions, primarily through improvement in energy efficiency; second, an absolute decrease in emissions of non-CO²gases that also affect warming, particularly methane and carbon monoxide, and therefore tropospheric ozone and black carbon (soot)
aerosols. The action must be prompt. Otherwise, CO²-producing infrastructures that may be built within a decade will make it impractical to keep further global warming under one degree. Of top concern is the large number of coal-fired power plants that China, the United States and India are planning to build without CO²sequestration (the process whereby CO²is separated and stored in the ground).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 57
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Pipeline (3/3)
Now is the key time for Congress to create the carbon market
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
The atmospheric timetable is clear. The goal is averting dangerous climate change. Every delay increases the risk that U.S. and/or developing country inaction will foreclose opportunities for averting dangerous climate change. The carbon market timetable is also clear. Congress must get the U.S.carbon market up and running fast enough to ensure that there are good opportunities for U.S. firms to compete in the international carbon market. The existing international carbon market runs out in 2012. The rules and the players for the post-2012 international carbon market are under discussion now. Even with its flaws and uncertainties, the international carbon market is driving investment around the world into low-emitting technologies and processes. Any disruption of that market risks adding, needlessly, to the atmospheric burden ofGHG emissions, and depriving American firms of the opportunity to participate in that market.
Acting now is key to American investment worldwide Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
Enactment by the 110th Congress will send the signal to other nations in the international climate treaty talks that they should, by 2009-2010, reach agreement on extending the global carbon market beyond 2012, working from the design template established by the Congress. It will encourage those nations to include in their post-2012 framework a "linking" provision allowing our market to “dock in" to the international market, thereby opening up enormous opportunities to bring American ingenuity, American technology, and American expertise to bear on the GHG emissions challenge world-wide. Enactment by the 110th will also send a powerful signal to high-emitting developing nations that America is going ahead with cap-and-trade, and will look to them to follow suit swiftly, strengthening our leverage in the negotiations that Congress instructs the Executive Branch to undertake.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 58
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: Wavelength Saturation (1/2)
Argument is a lie- CO2 can absorb light on any wavelength
New scientist Magazine “Sweating it Out Together” April 15, 1995 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619730.100-sweating-it-out-together.html
First, some readers ask if there are fundamental flaws in our understanding of the effects of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They accept, of course, that the Earth's surface reflects solar radiation, which is absorbed by gases in the air and re-emitted, warming the atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. They accept, too, that CO2 plays a part in this by absorbing radiation at wavelengths around 15 micrometres. But they point out that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that all the 15m radiation reflected by the Earth is already being absorbed. Adding more CO2 cannot cause any more radiation to be absorbed so worrying about further increases in CO2 in the atmosphere is a waste of time. Would that this were so, for it would spare us all a lot of worry. Sadly, CO2 is a flexible molecule and absorbs energy in other bands as well. These may be wavelengths where it absorbs little, or where there is little radiation to absorb. No matter. There is such a vast amount of carbon dioxide in the air that absorption even at these wavelengths is enough to warm the atmosphere. And these wavelengths, unlike 15m, are not saturated. Researchers know this well and have taken saturation into account in the calculations made for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great many questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically? One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is. Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For full explanation of the science, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)
Jean-marc Jancovici 11/1/3“What is IPCC?” http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/IPCC.html
The official publications of the IPCC have for sole purpose to offer a synthesis of the scientific state of the art, what includes both points that are considered well established and points that are still considered (very) speculative by the authors, without forgetting the limits within which the exposed results are valid. These publications result from a long debate between experts, who are the only ones to know whether a given uncertainty prevents from giving a general conclusion or not. The general assembly, where all the countries that have at least one competent scientist, has always approved unanimously the proposed assessment reports. It is therefore legitimate to consider that all that is consensual in the IPCC reports can be held as an established fact. This particularly includes :The CO2 concentration in the atmosphère is now 30% higher than during any time of the previous 400.000 years , increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmopshere will generate a climate change , that will include an increase of the average near ground air temperature. It's the magnitude of the temperature increase that remains - and will remain for long - an open debate, but not the fact that globally the temperature will rise. Given this, what should we think of the various individuals that periodically throw themselves in front of cameras or get headlines in the papers and contest "the scientific file" ? Here are a couple of reflexions : First of all any assessment process conducted by the IPCC is opened to any scientist that wishes to formulate a remark or submit a work, and this process is preciseley designed so that the debate can happen between people who know what they are talking about, and not brought in front of a general public that is not able to judge.
( ) The IPCC is peer reviewed by experts- they give the facts
Union of Concerned Scientists 5/24/7 (scientific advocacy organization, May 24 2007, “The IPCC: WhoAre They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?”,http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/theipcc.html#The_Peer_Review_Process)
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors. For example, see [2]. To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather than waiting until the document is sent out for review. The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review editors (two per chapter) who have expertise in the specific topic covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are available upon request. If major differences emerge, lead authors are encouraged to organize a meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve the differences. The goal is not to reach a potentially “watered-down” compromise that conceals scientific uncertainties or real differences in expert opinion, but to produce a report of the highest scientific integrity, reflecting the state of our understanding fairly and adequately.
( ) IPCC tends to be conservative due to extensive editing; they are more likely to underestimate
Angus 7 (Ian Angus, professor of humanities and political writer, April 5 2007, “The IPCC andthe Conservatism of Consensus”, http://climateandcapitalism.blogspot.com/2007/04/ipccand-conservatism-of-consensus.html)
They couldn’t be more wrong. The IPCC is a conservative body, and the Summary is a conservative document that doesn’t come close to describing how serious global warming might be. Unlike the National Post’s editors, many writers who actually know something about science believe that the IPCC has understated the problem. New Scientist, Feb. 9, 2007: “the IPCC's review process was so rigorous that research deemed controversial, not fully quantified or not yet incorporated into climate models was excluded. The benefit — that there is now little room left for sceptics — comes at what many see as a dangerous cost: many legitimate findings have been frozen out.” Scientific American, April 2007: “By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peerreviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 63
Scholars Lab Warming
Neg Authors Bad – Laundry List
( ) Neg authors are paid off and have no scientific standing (Idso, Balling, Singer, and Michaels)
Gelbspan, long time science reporter and winner of the Pulitzer Prize, 2004(Ross, Boiling Point, p. 33-6)
ExxonMobil's new public relations charade did little to conceal its real intentions. By 2001, ExxonMobil had re placed the coal industry as the major funder of the most prominent and visible "greenhouse skeptics." By 2003, ExxonMobil was giving more than $1 million a year to an array of ideological, right-wing organizations opposing ac tion on climate change -including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall I Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, and the American Legislative Exchange Council.In its effort to sabotage the unprecedented scientific con sensus of the IPCC, ExxonMobil has basically picked up where the coal industry left off. During the 1990s, that effort had been spearheaded by Fred Palmer, who, around the time of the Bush election, was hired as chief lobbyist for Peabody Energy. Prior to his hiring by Peabody Palmer headed up the Western Fuels Association, a $400-million coal consortium that had funded a tiny hand ful of industry-funded "greenhouse skeptics" who had long been dismissed by the mainstream scientific community. Throughout the 1990s, Palmer directed an extensive and extremely successful public relations offensive funded by the coal industry that used such prominent "greenhouse skeptics" as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Sherwood Idso,and Robert Balling, among others. One campaign, which sent three of these "skeptics" around the country to do media interviews, was crafted, according to its strategy papers, "to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact" and, more specifically, was designed to target "older, less-educated men ... and young low-income women" in districts that get their electricity from coal and preferably have a member on the House Energy Committee, according to the strategy papers for the campaign. Over the last ten years, those skeptics received more than a million dollars, either directly or indirectly, from coal and oil interests. Their strategy was quite simple-continue to raise doubts about the science in order to preempt any public demand for action. Their funding by the fossil fuel lobby was never disclosed publicly until it was published in The Heat Is On in 1997. (The issue of financial disclosure is not a small one. Industry-funded research can be neutral-and it can be good or bad. But disclosure is critical so that the work in question can be reviewed with an eye to commercial bias. If, for instance, a medical researcher's work is funded by a pharmaceutical company, that funding must be declared in the tag line as a condition of publication. Unfortunately, those same guidelines do not apply to climate science. And-most damning-few journalists who have written about
this issue have ever bothered to ask about funding.) What is especially telling about the industry-funded "greenhouse skeptics" is their lack of standing in the scientific community. In a review of Michaels's work, Tom M.L. Wigley, a preeminent climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, concluded it was so flawed that not only would it fail to pass the scrutiny of qualified climate scientists, it would not even be accepted for peer review. As for Singer, he has been unable to publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature in the last twenty years except for one technical comment. Singer's recklessness transcends his deeply flawed scien tific pronouncements. It involves at least one public lie about his own funding. In early 2001, Singer was accused of hav ing his work funded by the oil industry. In response, Singer wrote in a letter to the Washington Post that he had not received any oil industry money for at least twenty years when he had done a consulting job for the industry. In fact, Singer received at least $10,000 and as much as $75,000 from ExxonMobil in 1998 alone, according to in formation on the oil giant's
own Web site. (Shortly after that information was published in the Nation, ExxonMobil withdrew the page from its Web site. Overall, however, the success of the campaign of disinformation by the fossil fuel lobby on the public and on policymakers in the United States is striking. One proof of the success of that campaign is reflected by two polls done by Newsweek magazine. Back in 1991, 35 percent of people surveyed by Newsweek said they thought global warming was a very serious problem. By 1996-even though the science had become far more robust and the IPCC had declared that humans are, indeed, changing the climate-that 35 percent had shrunk to 22 percent, largely as a result of the fossil fuel lobby's deceptive public relations campaign. That record of success was clearly not lost on the Luntz group. One section of the notorious Luntz memo counsels the president: "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. Similarly our confidence in the ability of
science and technology to solve our nation's ills is second to none. Both perceptions will work in your favor if properly cultivated." Sure enough, the most prominent new effort by the skeptics to discredit the findings of mainstream scientists surfaced in the spring of 2003 in the form of a study authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and published in an obscure journal, Climate Research. The paper was coauthored by Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso, whose Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide was long funded by the coal indus try and more recently supported by ExxonMobil.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 64
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Singer”
( ) Singer denies receiving money from energy industries, but the evidence against his is overwhelming
Oriana Zill de Granados 11/23/6 “The doubters of global warming: profiles of the skeptics” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
Dr. Singer has written extensively about his doubts about global warming science and is the author of the Leipzig Declaration signed by many skeptics. He has also published his doubts about the links between second hand smoke and lung cancer and between UV rays and skin cancer. Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Singer publicly denies receiving funding from energy industry sources, but he has acknowledged previously being a paid consultant for several oil companies. In addition, his organization -- the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) -- has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to a review of Exxon's own financial documents and Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org. That site also shows that many of the other organizations with which Singer works -- Frontiers of Freedom , the Cato Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis -- have received large grants from Exxon as well.
( ) Singer was paid off by ExxonMobil to deny the existence of warming
Jim Hoggan 6/28/6 “No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming”http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
For example, on Feb. 21, 2001, Dr. Singer wrote to the Washington Post, saying: “As for full disclosure: My résumé clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” At the time that Dr. Singer wrote this letter, ExxonMobil was listing him on their website as a recipient of US $10,000 in direct funding and as a participant in an event to which ExMo contributed $65,000. Our colleague Ross Gelbspan reported all this in The Nation in an article that can be found here. This is a stark illustration of what we are up against in the climate change "debate." On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly. These people agree, unreservedly, that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. This campaign is largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the Competitive Enterprise Institute or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project. The money is then passed along to "experts" like Dr. Singer, who seems happy enough to be paid for his services, even if he is reticent to admit it after the fact. There should be no doubt in this conversation where the weight of credibility lies.
( ) Balling was being paid by the oil industry: his studies are biased
Oriana Zill de Granados 11/23/6 “The doubters of global warming: profiles of the skeptics” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
Journalist Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Balling had received "more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere." Dr. Balling has also received funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, which paid for a version of Balling's A Heated Debate to be released in the Middle East. According to Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org , Dr. Balling conducted an ExxonMobil-funded study in 2002 entitled "The 2000 United States Historical Climate Network Update: What Changed?"
( ) Seitz is biased: he received money from ExxonMobil for his studies
Oriana Zill de Granados 11/23/6 “The doubters of global warming: profiles of the skeptics” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
In the 1990s, Dr. Seitz began publishing opinion pieces dismissing the dangers of global warming. In 1998, he circulated a petition through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz was also a signatory of the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, which disputed that there was any scientific agreement about climate change. Affiliations & Funding: Among the several skeptical organizations with which Dr. Seitz has been affiliated, he has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute , which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005, according to the Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon's financial documents. Seitz also served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $472,000 from Exxon from 1998 to 2005, according to the same sources.
Oriana Zill de Granados 11/23/6 “The doubters of global warming: profiles of the skeptics” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
Area of Expertise: A meteorologist, Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His published works include papers on monsoons, how heat and water move around the world, the ice ages and the effects of seasonal changes on the atmosphere. Lindzen worked on -- and was vocally critical of -- the Second Assessment of Climate Change by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 1995; that same year he also signed the Leipzig Declaration. He has frequently aired his skepticism in testimony before Congress.
Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement. Ross Gelbspan, who did some of the first reporting on climate skeptics' links to industry, wrote in Harper's Magazine in 1995: "[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute , which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents.
Positive carbon-cycle feedback cycles from ocean and land ecosystems will accelerate warming
Peter M Cox 11-9-00“Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model” Nature International Weekly Journal of Science http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/pdf/408184a0.pdf
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3,4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon±climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a `business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. Our results indicate that it will be essential to accurately represent previously neglected carbon-cycle feedbacks if we are to successfully predict climate change over the next 100 years.
Studies prove: warming causes ecosystems to release more carbon, intensifying the warming effect
Timothy Lenton 11/00 (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology) “Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model” http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2000.01104.x
A simple Earth system model is developed by coupling a box model of the global carbon cycle to an energy‐balance approximation of global temperature. The model includes a range of feedback mechanisms between atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and land and ocean carbon cycling. It is used to assess their effect on the global change being driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and land‐use change. When tuned to reach the 1990 level of atmospheric CO2, the model CO2 predictions for 1832–1990 are reasonably close to ice‐core and instrumental records, observed global warming of 0.6 K from 1860–1990 is accurately predicted and the land and ocean carbon sinks for the 1980s are close to IPCC central estimates. The ocean sink is reduced by 0.3 GtC yr−1 when the ocean surface is assumed to warm at the same rate as global surface temperature. Land and oceanic carbon sinks are predicted to be growing at present and hence buffering the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2. In the basic model, the current land carbon sink is assumed to be due to CO2 fertilisation of photosynthesis. The slight warming that has occurred enhances soil respiration (carbon loss) and net primary productivity (carbon uptake) by similar amounts. When the model is forced with a "business as usual"(IS92a) emissions scenario for 1990–2100 followed by a linear decline in emissions to zero at 2200, CO2 reaches a peak of 985 ppmv in 2170 and temperature peaks at +5.5 K in 2180. Peak CO2 is 135 ppmv higher than suggested by IPCC for the same forcing, principally because global warming first suppresses the land carbon sink then generates a land carbon source. When warming exceeds 4.5 K, soil respiration "overtakes" the CO2 fertilisation of NPP, triggering a release of 70 GtC from terrestrial ecosystems over 100 years. When the effects of temperature on photosynthesis, respiration and soil respiration are removed, peak levels of CO2 are reduced by 100 ppmv and peak temperature by 0.5 K. Distinguishing separate soil carbon pools with different residence times does not significantly alter the timing of the switch to a land carbon source or its effect on peak CO2, but it causes the source to persist for longer. If forest re‐growth or nitrogen deposition are assumed to contribute to the current land carbon sink, this implies a weaker CO2 fertilisation effect on photosynthesis and generates a larger future carbon source. Peak CO2 levels are also sensitive by about ±80 ppmv to upper and lower limits on the temperature responses of photosynthesis, plant respiration and soil respiration. By forcing the model with a range of future emission scenarios it is found that the creation of a significant land carbon source requires rapid warming, exceeding 4.5 K, and its magnitude increases with the rate of forcing. The carbon source is greatest for the most rapid burning of the largest reserve of fossil fuel. It is concluded that carbon loss from terrestrial ecosystems may significantly ( 10%) amplify global warming under "business as usual" or more extreme scenarios.
Simulation studies prove positive feedback, not negative. This feedback will intensify warming.
Haifeng Qian 11/20/04 “How strong is carbon cycle-climate feedback under global warming?” (Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science University of Maryland, College Park)http://www.atmos.umd.edu/theses_archive/2005/haifee/haifee.pdf
The latest scientific data confirm that the earth's climate is rapidly changing. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the course of the last century, and will likely rise even more rapidly in the coming decades. In the 2001 IPCC report, global warming was predicted under different CO2 scenarios. Under such warming conditions, the ecosystem may respond differently in the future. However, it is difficult to predict its changes because it is extremely complicated. Atmospheric CO2 concentration can determine the magnitude of this future climate change; its level depends on the exchanges of the land-atmosphere and ocean-atmosphere carbon fluxes. These exchange situations can be altered by the feedback between ecosystem and climate under future global warming condition. The result is that more or less carbon will be released to the atmosphere. Using a fully coupled carbon-climate models with IPCC-SRES_A1B forcing, we investigate the possible feedbacks of the carbon cycle-climate system. Our results indicate that there is a positive feedback from interactive carbon cycle to the climate system, which means that under the global warming condition, the ecosystem will release more carbon than we expected. As a result, warming will intensify.
Recent studies conclude positive feedbacks: CO2 emissions will alter the global carbon cycle and exacerbate warming
P. Friedlingstein 4/03 “How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle?” http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01461.x
Future climate change induced by atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases is believed to have a large impact on the global carbon cycle. Several offline studies focusing either on the marine or on the terrestrial carbon cycle highlighted such potential effects. Two recent online studies, using ocean–atmosphere general circulation models coupled to land and ocean carbon cycle models, investigated in a consistent way the feedback between the climate change and the carbon cycle. These two studies used observed anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the 1860–1995 period and IPCC scenarios for the 1995–2100 period to force the climate – carbon cycle models. The study from the Hadley Centre group showed a very large positive feedback, atmospheric CO2 reaching 980 ppmv by 2100 if future climate impacts on the carbon cycle.
Positive feedbacks will speed up warming – empirical studies prove
Marten Scheffer 5/26/06 “Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change” http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/pmc205/papers/2006/Scheffer_et_al_06_GRL.pdf
There is good evidence that higher global temperatures will promote a rise of greenhouse gas levels, implying a positive feedback which will increase the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures. Linking this information with the mid-range Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimation of the greenhouse gas effect on temperature we suggest that the feedback of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15–78% on a century-scale. This estimate may be conservative as we did not account for synergistic effects of likely temperature moderated increase in other greenhouse gases. Our semi-empirical approach independently supports process based simulations suggesting that feedback may cause a considerable boost in warming.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 71
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks - Methane
Warming = methane gas released by upset permafrost regions leading to amplified warming
L. Harvey 2/1/95 “Evaluation of the potential impact of methane clathrate destabilization on future global warming” from Toronto Universityhttp://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=57389
Future global warming due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases has the potential to destabilize methane is modeled in a series of one-dimensional, vertical columns on a 1 deg x 1 deg global grid. Terrestrial permafrost is divided into 11 columns based on mean annual surface air temperature. Our base case clathrate distribution results in about 24,000 Gt C as methane clathrate in marine sediments and about 800 Gt C in terrestrial sediments, only a small fraction which could be destabilized by future global warming. Scenarios of anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emission are used to drive a simple model of the carbon cycle, yielding scenarios of CO2 and CH4 concentration increase. These increases drive a one-dimensional coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model. Globally averaged temperature changes as a function of time and ocean depth are used as upper boundary conditions to drive the heat transfer/methane clathrate release models. Three versions of the ocean model are used which result in different temperature perturbations at the sediment-water interface: a purely diffusive ocean model, an upwelling-diffusion ocean model with fixed temperature of bottom water formation, and an upwelling-diffusion ocean model with a feedback between surface temperature and the upwelling velocity. Methane release from clathrate destabilization is added to the anthropogenic CH4 emission, leading to stronger increases in both CH4 and CO2 concentration.
Methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide for climate change.
Ian Sample 8/11/05 “Warming Hits its Tipping Point” Guardian Newspaper http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5644
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures. The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today. Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming".
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 72
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks – Soil Carbon
Warming will lead to soil decomposition that accelerates warming
Jenkinson 5/91 (Dept of soil science, University of Reading) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6324/pdf/351304a0.pdf
Positive carbon-cycle feedbacks will off-set any reduction in emissions and inevitably lead to more rapid warming
Tim Radford Science Editor of The Guardian 9-8-05 “Loss of Soil Carbon Will Speed Global Warming”http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/sciencenews.research1
England's soils have been losing carbon at the rate of four million tonnes a year for the past 25 years - losses which will accelerate global warming and which have already offset all the cuts in Britain's industrial carbon emissions between 1990 and 2002, scientists warn today. The research dashes hopes that more carbon dioxide emissions might mean more vegetation growth and therefore more carbon removed from the atmosphere. The unexpected loss of carbon from the soils - consistently, everywhere in England and Wales and therefore probably everywhere in the temperate world - means more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which means even more global warming, and yet more carbon lost from the soil. "All the consequences of global warming will occur more rapidly. That's the scary thing: the amount of time we have got to do something about it is smaller than we thought," Guy Kirk, of Cranfield University, told the British Association Festival of Science, in Dublin. He and colleagues sampled the top 15cm (6in) of soil at almost 6,000 fixed points in England and Wales between 1978 and 2003, to measure the changes in living and decaying matter locked in pastures, croplands, forests, bogs, scrubland and heaths. Their findings, published in Nature today, show that carbon was being lost from the soil at an average of 0.6% a year: the richer the soils, the higher the rate of loss. When the figures were extrapolated to include all of the UK, the annual loss was 13m tonnes. There was no single factor other than global warming that could explain such changes in non-agricultural soils, they said. "These losses completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, putting the UK's success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a different light," said Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer, of the Max Planck Institute, in Nature.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 73
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks – Soil Carbon
Soil carbon feedbacks will speed up warming
Miko Kirschbaum 11/3/04 “Will soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on global warming?”http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k85r2715400870/
The world''s soils contain about 1500 Gt of organic carbon to a depth of 1m and a further 900 Gt from 1--2m. A change of total soil organic carbon by just 10% would thus be equivalent to all the anthropogenic CO2 emitted over 30 years. Warming is likely to increase both the rate of decomposition and net primary production (NPP), with a fraction of NPP forming new organic carbon. Evidence from various sources can be used to assess whether NPP or the rate of decomposition has the greater temperature sensitivity, and, hence, whether warming is likely to lead to an increase or decrease in soil organic carbon.The review concludes by simulating the likely changes in soil organic carbon with warming. In summary, it appears likely that warming will have the effect of reducing soil organic carbon by stimulating decomposition rates more than NPP. However, increasing CO2 is likely to simultaneously have the effect of increasing soil organic carbon through increases in NPP.
Warming operates in positive feedback through water vapor concentrations and ocean uptake of CO2.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 16)
Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. Spatial patterns of climate response are largely controlled by climate processes and feedbacks. For example, sea-ice albedo feedbacks tend to enhance the high latitude response. {WGI 2.8, 8.6, 9.2, TS.2.1.3, TS.2.5, SPM} Warming reduces terrestrial and ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions remaining in the atmosphere. This positive carbon cycle feedback leads to larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a given emissions scenario, but the strength of this feedback effect varies markedly among models. {WGI 7.3, TS.5.4, SPM; WGII 4.4}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 75
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks – More Likely
Positive feedback occurrences are supported by loads of data and are more likely than negative feedback
Keith Smith 8/97 (Institute of Ecology and Resource Management) “Global Change Biology”http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1997.00100.x
About 65% of all emissions of nitrous oxide, N2O, are from soils, and are caused by aerobic nitrification and anaerobic denitrification. Tropical forest soils are probably the most important single source, followed by cultivated soils. Emission rates in natural systems are related to the rate of N mineralization from organic matter, and N deposition; in agricultural systems they are related to the quantities of N used as fertilizers and, where relevant, to recent land use change. The global budget for N2O is not well balanced, and sources may still be underestimated. Direct evidence of a positive feedback of global warming on N2O emissions comes from studies of air in ice cores. One of the projected effects of future global warming is a lowering of water tables in northern peatlands; experiments suggest that this would lead to increased emissions, but that the effect on total emissions would be small. The results of many experiments with non-peatland soils indicate that the effect of temperature on soil emissions is generally positive, and that the rate of increase may be very steep when denitrification is the principal process involved. Process-level modelling suggests that the reason is increased soil respiration, which causes an increase in anaerobic volume in which denitrification can take place, in addition to the increased denitrification rate per unit anaerobic volume brought about directly by the rise in temperature. These results imply that generally a positive feedback on emissions from soils is likely. However, in some environments, a large proportion of total annual emissions can occur during freeze–thaw cycles; such cycles may become more or less frequent, depending on the climatic zone, and this may result in either a positive or negative feedback effect due to global warming. Models of global and regional trends give very conflicting predictions of the direction and the magnitude of climatic impacts on fluxes, but the prediction of a positive feedback seems to be the more soundly based .
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 76
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks – o/w Negative Feedbacks
While both positive and negative feedback will occur, the positive feedback will be stronger resulting in accelerated warming
Fred Pearce 2/12/05 “Climate Change: Menace or Myth?” New Scientisthttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.400
All experts agree that the planet is likely to respond in a variety of ways, some of which will dampen down the warming (negative feedback) while others will amplify it (positive feedback). Assessing the impacts of these feedbacks has been a central task of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a co-operative agency set up 17 years ago that has harnessed the work of thousands of scientists. Having spent countless hours of supercomputer time creating and refining models to simulate the planet's climate system, the IPCC concludes that the feedbacks will be overwhelmingly positive. The only question, it says, is just how big this positive feedback will be.The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from 1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation.. So what are the positive feedbacks and how much uncertainty surrounds them?Melting of polar ice is almost certainly one. Where the ice melts, the new, darker surface absorbs more heat from the sun, and so warms the planet. This is already happening. The second major source of positive feedback is water vapour. As this is responsible for a bigger slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models. Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming effect. And an end to ice formation in the Arctic could upset ocean currents and even shut down the Gulf Stream - the starting point for the blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow. There are counterbalancing negative feedbacks, some of which are already in the models. These include the ability of the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and of some pollutants - such as the sulphate particles that make acid rain - to shade the planet. But both are double-edged. The models predict that the ocean's ability to absorb heat will decline as the surface warms, as mixing between less dense, warm surface waters and the denser cold depths becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far stronger underlying warming effects than are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures. Sceptics also like to point out that most models do not yet include negative feedback from vegetation, which is already growing faster in a warmer world, and soaking up more CO2. But here they may be onto a loser, as the few climate models so far to include plants show that continued climate change is likely to damage their ability to absorb CO2, potentially turning a negative feedback into a positive one.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 77
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedbacks – Unstoppable Warming
Positive carbon-cycle feedbacks will lead to unstoppable runaway global warming
Ian Sample 8/11/05 “Warming Hits its Tipping Point” Guardian Newspaper http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5644
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures. The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today. Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years. Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards. "When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. "This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing." In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. "These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases. "If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much. "The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 78
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Clouds = negative feedback”
Feedback from clouds are stable – the number that reflect and store heat are equal
Richard Lindzen 92 (Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter, it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide. The situation is complicated by the fact that clouds at high altitudes can also supplement the greenhouse effect. Indeed, the effects of clouds in reflecting light and in enhancing the greenhouse effect are roughly in balance . Their actual effect on climate depends both on the response of clouds to warming and on the possible imbalance of their cooling and heating effects.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 79
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Bad – A2: Adaptation***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 80
Scholars Lab Warming
Adaptation Insufficient
Adaptation can’t solve – multiple barriers and climate variability prevent.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 34)
Recent studies reaffirm the TAR finding that adaptation will be vital and beneficial. However, financial, technological, cognitive, behavioural, political, social, institutional and cultural constraints limit both the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation measures. Even societies with high adaptive capacity remain vulnerable to climate change, variability and extremes. For example, a heat wave in 2003 caused high levels of mortality in European cities (especially among the elderly), and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused large human and financial costs in the United States. {WGII 7.4, 8.2, 17.4}
Societal adaptation alone can’t solve global warming’s impacts – we must reduce emissions.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 34)
Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by other stresses. These arise from, for example, current climate hazards, poverty, unequal access to resources, food insecurity, trends in economic globalisation, conflict and incidence of diseases such as HIV/ AIDS. {WGII 7.2, 7.4, 8.3, 17.3, 20.3, 20.4, 20.7, SPM} Societies across the world have a long record of adapting and reducing their vulnerability to the impacts of weather- and climate related events such as floods, droughts and storms. Nevertheless, additional adaptation measures will be required at regional and local levels to reduce the adverse impacts of projected climate change and variability, regardless of the scale of mitigation undertaken over the next two to three decades. However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, especially not over the long term as most impacts increase in magnitude.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 81
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Bad – Impacts***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 82
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – War (1/3)
Warming leads to widespread warfare that risks a major nuclear exchange.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 4, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Neglect in protecting our heritage of natural resources could prove extremely harmful for the human race and for all species that share common space on planet earth. Indeed, there are many lessons in human history which provide adequate warning about the chaos and destruction that could take place if we remain guilty of myopic indifference to the progressive erosion and decline of nature’s resources. Much has been written, for instance, about the Maya civilization, which flourished during 250–950 AD, but collapsed largely as a result of serious and prolonged drought. Even earlier, some 4000 years ago a number of well-known Bronze Age cultures also crumbled extending from the Mediterranean to the Indus Valley, including the civilizations, which had blossomed in Mesopotamia. More recent examples of societies that collapsed or faced chaos on account of depletion or degradation of natural resources include the Khmer Empire in South East Asia, Eastern Island, and several others. Changes in climate have historically determined periods of peace as well as conflict. The recent work of David Zhang has, in fact, highlighted the link between temperature fluctuations, reduced agricultural production, and the frequency of warfare in Eastern China over the last millennium. Further, in recent years several groups have studied the link between climate and security. These have raised the threat of dramatic population migration, conflict, and war over water and other resources as well as a realignment of power among nations. Some also highlight the possibility of rising tensions between rich and poor nations, health problems caused particularly by water shortages, and crop failures as well as concerns over nuclear proliferation.
Climate change causes war – 5 reasons.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 5, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Peace can be defined as security and the secure access to resources that are essential for living. A disruption in such access could prove disruptive of peace. In this regard, climate change will have several implications, as numerous adverse impacts are expected for some populations in terms of: - access to clean water, - access to sufficient food, - stable health conditions, - ecosystem resources, - security of settlements.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 83
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – War (2/3)
Climate change can trigger conflict. Darfur proves.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Darfur is often used to illustrate how climate change can interact with other factors to trigger violent conflict. When Darfur first made headlines, the most common explanation of the violent conflict emphasised the ethnic differences between Arabs and Africans. More recently, prominent officials such as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon have argued that “the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change (“A Climate Culprit in Darfur,” in The Washington Post, 16.06.2007).” UNEP’s post-conflict environmental assessment (Sudan: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, UNEP, 2007) indicates that there is a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur. The boundary between desert and semi-desert is shifting southwards partly due to declining precipitation. Several authors attribute this to climate change, while others maintain that the semi-arid Sahel with strong climate variability is not a good case for illustrating or proving climate change. The 20-year drought, regardless of cause, played an important role by reducing the land available for farming and herding, but as the UNEP assessment also recognises, climate (and/or environmental) change alone does not offer the full explanation for the outbreak or the extent of the violent conflict. All countries in the Sahel have felt the impact of global warming, but so far only Sudan has experienced such devastating conflict. The ethnic dimension does not offer a full explanation either: Political and military alliances frequently shifted depending on pragmatic rather than ethnic considerations. Furthermore, some tribes practice both herding and crop cultivation so there is not always clear tribal distinctions between farmers and herders.When the north-south civil war broke out again in the mid-1980s, however, the central government used Arab militias as a means of keeping the southern rebels at bay in Darfur. Raising an army is expensive so the Khartoum regime used a strategy often employed in warfare: they armed others to do the work of the army. A balance was upset, and ethnic identity became more politicised. This fed into the escalation of conflicts over land issues. The conflict itself has taken a further toll on already scarce resources. Militias in Darfur intentionally destroyed forests and the natural livelihood base of people, resulting in further displacement. The massive scale of displacement also has serious consequences for the environment. Around the camps for displaced people, the collection of shelter materials and firewood can cause serious deforestation and soil erosion. UNEP’s assessment indicates that some international aid programmes may also cause significant harm to the environment, and there may be vicious circles of (particularly food) aid dependence, agricultural underdevelopment and environmental degradation. This is detrimental to Darfur’s existing problems of drought, desertification and disputes over land-use – factors that contributed to the conflict in the first place.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 84
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – War (3/3)
There are many hotspots for conflict including Africa, India, China, the Caribbean, and Central Asia.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
As already mentioned, impacts of climate change depend not only on exposure to the physical effects of climate change, but also crucially on vulnerability/resilience and adaptive capacity. The location of the hazards/disasters are not predicted to change much in the near future, but the severity and frequency is likely to increase. Vulnerability and resilience is therefore likely to be a determining factor in the geographical location of “hotspots”. The IPCC have “high confidence” that “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability, a situation aggravated by the interaction of ‘multiple stresses’, occurring at various levels, and low adaptive capacity.”45 The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also recognises SIDS and Africa as being particularly vulnerable, and adds to this list the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). From migration and environmental conflict research, one can conclude that states and societies, in which the general factors of forced migration or conflict apply, are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Whenever there is a disaster, it is likely to be largest in terms of the number of persons affected, in countries with high populations such as India and China. The Caribbean, amongst other regions, is also exposed to cyclones and other sudden disasters - though with fewer persons at risk. Apart from Africa, and particularly the Sahel and the Nile area, the Stern report focuses on Central Asia as a potential hotspot for future drought-related conflict. Central Asia is also highlighted by Pearce.
Climate change has the potential to exacerbate conflict in Central America, China and the Indian subcontinent.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), the sudden disaster conflicts are likely to occur more frequently in future: Firstly, regions at risk, particularly Central America, generally have weak economic and political capacities, making adaptation and crisis management very difficult. Secondly, storm and flood disasters along the densely populated coasts of the Indian subcontinent and China can cause major damage and trigger or intensify migration processes which in turn could trigger conflict.40 Parallel with the growing risk of sudden disasters, Bangladesh is furthermore plagued by political violence and a growing trend toward Islamist extremism.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 85
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – War – South Asia (1/4)
Conflict is escalating in South Asia due to increased climate change.
Mark Sappenfield 2007 (December 6, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, “Global warming may heat up conflicts, too”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1206/p13s02-wogi.htm, Accessed 6/28/08)
The reason he gives is one heard throughout this corner of India, where Himalayan peaks give way to fertile flood plains: Immigrants from Bangladesh are taking over. It is a visceral fear in India's Northeast, where people say they feel under siege – their culture, politics, and security threatened by a tide of Bangladeshis who are here illegally. "On the surface there is peace," says Mr. Das, who says he was forced out of his village through intimidation and murders by immigrants. "But this migration is a tragedy for us." For now, there is relative calm. But security analysts worry that unrest could flare up again because of a new threat: global warming. As negotiators gather in Bali, Indonesia, this week to begin work on an agreement to fight climate change worldwide, concern is mounting that altered weather patterns will stoke conflict in various parts of the globe. And this area of South Asia sits atop most experts' watch lists. Bangladesh is not only one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, it is also chronically unstable. It is in the midst of a political crisis and showing signs of nascent Islamist fundamentalism. The effects of global warming could amplify the forces of instability, experts say. That remains an extreme view. The clearest threat, most agree, is a mass migration that sparks renewed conflict in the Indian Northeast – an independent -minded area of mountains and jungles fiercely proud of its distinct heritage and already fretted by a dozen insurgencies. "It is the No. 1 conflict zone for climate change," says Peter Schwartz, chairman of the Monitor Group, a research firm in San Francisco that recently released a study on the security risks presented by climate change. That field of study is relatively new, but analysts are beginning to lay the map of forecasted climate change over the map of political weakness to see where changes in weather could lead to volatility. No one argues that climate change alone will lead to war. But analysts suggest that it could be a pivotal factor that tips vulnerable regions toward conflicts. "Climate change is a threat multiplier," says Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington. "It's not that it creates a whole new set of problems, it's that it will make things that are already a problem worse." For that reason, few expect climate change to throw Europe or North America into chaos. Both have the political stability and economic resources to cope. Areas that lack these advantages – such as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and South Asia – are most at risk, experts say. History suggests that climate can help breed political instability. One recent study charted climate changes, wars, and several other variables back to the 1400s. It found that significantly cooler periods were characterized by large-scale crop loss, starvation, and conflict.
Climate change will especially cause conflict due to unique landscape and increased extremism.
Mark Sappenfield 2007 (December 6, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, “Global warming may heat up conflicts, too”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1206/p13s02-wogi.htm, Accessed 6/28/08)
The scenario for Bangladesh requires little imagination: •It is a frequent target of severe weath er . During the worst floods, one-third of the country can be submerged. Last month's cyclone Sidr was an example of the kind of storms many scientists say will become more frequent in the future. Aid groups say the death toll in Bangladesh from Sidr could reach 10,000. •Most of Bangladesh is flat and coast al, meaning that a sea-level rise of only three feet could consume 10 percent of the country, experts say. •Bangladesh is the delta for several major river systems. They are fed by runoff from the Himalayan Mountains and provide the country with its fresh water. As Himalayan glaciers warm and melt, the rivers are expected to flood more in the short term. Later, as the glaciers disappear, they will become drier, which could lead to fresh water shortages. "This is a very precarious piece of geography," says Adil Najam, one of the lead authors of the last two reports from the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "What we are talking about is an intensification of this to levels taking it even more out of control." Even now, many Bangladeshis cannot cope. Last month, Selim Hossain Howladar's home vanished, swept away by the 150-m.p.h. winds of cyclone Sidr. "I have seen so many cyclones in my lifetime, but I have never seen anything that could flatten entire villages like it has done this time," says Mr. Howladar, a fisherman from the village of coastal village of Sarankhola. Where Howladar's house used to be is now just a clearing. The trawler he bought last year with a loan was torn to pieces by the storm. "I don't even have a fishing net," he says. "What can I do but move to the city?" In the north of the country, the story is the same. Three years ago, 25 Hindu families lived in the border village of Itapota. Now only one remains. Floods have driven off the rest, who are looking for work across the border in India. "When you have nothing left to lose, does it matter where you live?" asks Haripada, patriarch of the last remaining Hindu family in his village. "You live where you think you might find work and earn some money." Evidence suggests that current migration is mostly toward the capital, Dhaka, but people from border districts are increasingly going to India for seasonal employment. "Bangladesh is so densely populated," says Ainun Nishat, head of the World Conservation Union office in Bangladesh, "as climate-change impacts cause food shortages and lack of employment, desperation will drive people far afield to seek out a means of survival." The population shifts could exacerbate security issues beyond Bang ladesh's borders. For now, Bangladesh's Islamists are largely confined to a narrow band of remote hills in the extreme southeast. But if global warming creates more "dead land" – abandoned because it has been made infertile by sea-level rise, it could "create space for [terrorists] to operate," says Peter Ogden of the Center for American Progress, who cowrote a study titled "The Security Implications of Climate Change."
Climate change would be especially unwelcome in Bangladesh due to years of instability.
Mark Sappenfield 2007 (December 6, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, “Global warming may heat up conflicts, too”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1206/p13s02-wogi.htm, Accessed 6/28/08)
That would be an unwelcome development for a country frequently under duress. In its 36 years of independence, Bangladesh has had 14 governments – four of which were replaced by military coups. The current government is again under military stewardship, with civilian leaders being rounded up on corruption charges. "This is an added stress on a country that doesn't necessarily have the capacity" to deal with it, Mr. Ogden says. More certainly any increase in migration will increase competition for land, water, and jobs. In India, the border district of Dhubri is already being pushed to its limits. Many of the environmental trends that stress Bangladesh are present here, too. For instance, Dhubri is losing huge swaths of land each year to the wandering course of the Brahmaputra River. Like many in Bangladesh, Ramzan Ali has lost his livelihood because of it. He squats on an embankment of silt above what used to be his farmland. Today it is under water. Of the four acres he once had, he now has less than one, and that is fallow because of siltation. The family's only income comes from his son, who works in a mill in Dhubri town. Squeezed by erosion and the arrival of Bangladeshi migrants, other families have had to move upriver permanently – where, ironically, they, too, are seen by the people there as Bangladeshis. According to recent voting records, 99 percent of the residents in the area nearest the Bangladeshi border are migrants. "Our land is shrinking," says Abdul Hamid Sheikh, standing in a shallow skiff that ferries locals to the river island of Bhasani Char. "If this migration continues, it will affect us, too." Experts expect the effects to intensify as global warming intensifies, with more Bangladeshis being forced into India. The fear is that this fate awaits every state in the Northeast. In the wake of the turmoil of Bangladeshi independence in 1971, one state, Tripura, saw its indigenous people consigned to a minority by Bangladeshi refugees. In India, virtually every state has its own lineage of kings, literary heritage, and language. Migration threatens to extinguish local cultures. This has made the people of the Northeast fierce guardians of their cultural identity. On one hand, it has given rise to nu merous anti-Indian, pro-independence insurgencies. On the other, it has created a climate of paranoia about Bangladesh, a country of 150 million people packed into an area roughly the size of Iowa. For this reason, the debate about Bangladeshi migration here is often based not on fact or reasoned analysis, but "on conjecture and perception," says R.N. Mathur, director-general of police in Assam, the state at the heart of the Northeast – and the migration debate. "The issue is mainly political."
Climate change is heightening security tensions between India and Bangladesh.
Afsan Chowdury 2007 (December 28, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Climate change brings threats of war and terrorism”, http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2007/december-2007/climate-change-brings-threats-of-war/, Accessed 6/28/08)
Global climate change presents a serious national security threat that could affect Americans at home, impact U.S. military operations, and heighten global tensions, finds a study released recently by a blue-ribbon panel of 11 of the most senior retired U.S. admirals and generals as stated by the panel known as the Military Advisory Board."We will pay for this one way or another," said retired U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.""The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability," the Military Advisory Board recommends. The study, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," says that climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in already fragile regions of the world, creating the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, brought together the 11 retired four-star and three-star admirals and generals as a Military Advisory Board to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change on national security. CNA writers and researchers compiled the report under the board's direction and review.Meanwhile closer at home the threat is taking its early shapes. India is already putting fences on its border with Bangladesh, one of the longest borders between any two countries, to stop Bangladeshis from crossing. It claims millions of Bangladeshis have crossed over to India after 1972. That figure may look small if one-third of Bangladesh drowns and millions try to enter India, seeking safety.Two dangerous components of possible conflicts arouse great fear. One, the spark of communalism-related conflict which both countries are subjected to and two, terrorism-related opportunities inherent in a region where it appears already firmly planted.Should India aggressively stop fleeing refugees from entering, repercussions are obvious. Such measures may lead to communal interpretation of these actions. India may quickly be painted as stopping Muslims from reaching safety. On the other hand, stopping Hindu refugees from Bangladesh will be cause problem within India. So whatever be the scenario, communalism may rise to conflict level in both countries and there are many forces in both countries ready to take advantage.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 89
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Econ/Leadership
Failure to act on global warming strains the economy and US leadership.
Pachauri 1/23 (Rajenda, IPCC Chairman, “Speech of the IPPC Chairman , Mr. Rajenda Pachauri, at the World Economic Forum in Davos – Opening Session”, 08, http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches.htm)
Some of the impacts of climate change are already translating into monetary flows and expenditure as brought out by payments made by the insurance industry. For instance, economic losses attributed to natural disasters have increased from US$75.5 billion in the 1960s to US$659.9 billion in the 1990s. Losses to insurers from natural disasters nearly doubled in 2007 to just below $30 billion globally according to risk records. From 1980 through 2004, the global economic costs of weather-related events totaled $1.4 trillion (inflation- corrected), of which $340 billion was insured. Far more important than the aggregate impacts of climate change on global economic activity are the consequences for some of the most vulnerable communities across the globe. In Africa, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020. In the same year, in some countries yields from rainfed agriculture could be reduced by upto 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries would be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition. Worldwide the health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases; and other impacts. The inertia in the climate system is such that even if we were to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere today, climate change would continue for decades. Hence, measures for adapting to the impacts of climate change are urgent and inevitable. However, it is only through appropriate mitigation measures that many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed. The IPCC has found that the costs of even stringent mitigation measures would be modest. For achieving a scenario of stabilized temperature increase of 2.0 to 2.4 0 C, the cost to the global economy would be around 0.12 % per annum, amounting to a loss of less than 3.0 % of the GDP by 2030 and less than 5.5% by 2050. Comparing the costs of mitigation with avoided damages would require the reconciliation of welfare impacts on people living in different places and at different points of time into a global aggregate measure of well-being. What other forum would be more suitable for exercising its wisdom, knowledge and enlightenment than this one for defining a strategy for global society to act in response to projected climate change? Such a strategy must be based on stringent mitigation of emissions of GHGs, through policy measures that lead to development and dissemination of low carbon technologies across the board, paramount among which would be an appropriate price on carbon. The benefits from this go beyond the field of climate change, with substantial benefits in the form of higher levels of energy security, lower pollution at the local level and attendant health benefits. At the same time, the global community has to provide adequate resources for creating capacity and infrastructure for adapting to the impacts of climate change in some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities. Business and industry will, therefore, need to work with governments, civil society and knowledge organizations at an unprecedented level in creating actions and opportunities for themselves and society as a whole. Economic activities will consequently move rapidly towards a low carbon future. Those companies and entities that establish a lead in this endeavour would meet with success in both a business and a societal context. Those that lag behind would suffer the risk of losses in the marketplace and loss of prestige and reputation. The same observation can be applied to nations and governments. There would be dramatic loss of political power and influence for nations that stand unmoved by the growing global consensus for “deep cuts” in emissions of GHGs with a sense of urgency.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 90
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (1/6)
Warming exacerbates weather extremes like hurricanes, heat waves, and droughts.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 24)
There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice. {WGI 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.4, 9.5, 10.3, 11.1} Projected warming in the 21st century shows scenario-independent geographical patterns similar to those observed over the past several decades. Warming is expected to be greatest over land and at most high northern latitudes, and least over the Southern Ocean (near Antarctica) and northern North Atlantic, continuing recent observed trends (Figure 3.2 right panels). {WGI 10.3, SPM} Snow cover area is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth are projected over most permafrost regions. Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {WGI 10.3, 10.6, SPM; WGII 15.3.4} It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will become more frequent. {SYR Table 3.2; WGI 10.3, SPM} Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea-surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period. {WGI 3.8, 9.5, 10.3, SPM} Extra-tropical storm tracks are projected to move poleward, with consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns, continuing the broad pattern of observed trends over the last halfcentury. {WGI 3.6, 10.3, SPM} Since the TAR there is an improving understanding of projected patterns of precipitation. Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenario in 2100, Figure 3.3), continuing observed patterns in recent trends. {WGI 3.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.3, 11.2-11.9, SPM}
Warming causes extreme weather that increase water stress, devastate food production, hurt health, and strain the economy.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 43)
Risks of extreme weather events. Responses to some recent nextreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability in both developing and developed countries than was assessed in the TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected increases in droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their adverse impacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stress and wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production, adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme high sea level, and damage to infrastructure. {SYR 3.2, 3.3, Table 3.2; WGI 10.3, Table SPM.2; WGII 1.3, 5.4, 7.1, 7.5, 8.2, 12.6, 19.3, Table 19.1, Table SPM.1}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 91
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (2/6)
Global warming increases climate extremes by increasing the water in air.
It seems to make no sense: Record drought, right next to downpours. Just this week, for example, swaths of Arizona have been on fire and there have been flash floods in Texas. But to scientists, it does make sense. The simple reason is that the air is getting warmer, and warmer air holds more moisture -- so when the warmer winds sweep across wet farmlands, they suck up more moisture drying the farms out. And when the winds finally dump that moisture out as rain, the downpours are much heavier. "Suddenly you've got a gully-washer," says Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, part of a research collaboration among universities. "You've got too much water. And then at other times you've got drier conditions, potential for drought -- associated with global warming because of this increase of water vapor in the atmosphere." That can translate into more rain or more snow -- as was the case this winter in the western mountains. Normally, more snow is good news for farms and towns below the mountains, because three-fourths of the West's water comes from snow pack. But a warming trend over the past 30 years means snows often melt out weeks too soon, leaving drier summers, like this year. On a hot day in the mountains with the snow melting fast, someone might be tempted to see the weather as a sign of global warming and climate change. But of course it's not, all by itself. There are natural cycles of earlier and later snow pack melting. Global Changes Plus, as scientists point out, weather is not climate. Weather is local, whereas climate is a long-term pattern over a large region. Extremes in the past -- like the Dust Bowl in the 1930's -- happened in only one region at a time. However, what worries scientists now is that these climate extremes are global. For instance, wildfires over the last five decades are soaring in the United States and the other continents, according to data from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an authoritative report involving consensus from many established scientists. The same goes for floods. And precipitation for the planet as a whole is up 20 percent.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 92
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (3/6)
Statistical analysis shows global warming causes devastating weather.
UN Environment Programme 97 (“Are Recent Extreme Weather Events, Like the Large Number of Atlantic Hurricanes in 1995, Due to Global Warming?”, U.S. Global Change Research Information Center, http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/08.html)
As the world warms, some extreme climate events, like the frequency of heat waves and very heavy precipitation, are expected to increase, but it remains uncertain whether or not to expect changes in the frequency of some other extremes. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not possible to link any particular weather or climate event definitively to global warming. The causal linkage, if any, between the frequency of extreme events and global warming only can be determined through statistical analyses of long- term data, because the natural climate system can produce weather and climate events that often appear to be uncharacteristic of the recent climate. Data on climate extremes in many regions of the world are inadequate to draw definitive conclusions about possible changes that may have occurred on a global scale. However, in some regions where good data are available, there have been some significant increases and decreases in extreme events over time. For example, there has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely separated areas in recent decades (e.g., Australia, the United States, Russia, and China). The impact of such changes can manifest itself in fewer freezing days and late season frosts, such as have been documented in Australia and the United States. Indeed, we expect that the number of days with extremely low temperatures should continue to decrease as global temperatures rise. Widespread, extended periods of extremely high temperatures are also expected to become more frequent with continued global warming, such as the unprecedented high nighttime temperatures during the 1995 heat wave in Chicago, Illinois, and the midwestern United States that caused an estimated 830 deaths. However, the global frequency of such heat waves has not been analyzed at this time. Higher temperatures lead to higher rates of evaporation and precipitation. As the Earth warms, we expect more precipitation and it is likely to fall over shorter intervals of time, thereby increasing the frequency of very heavy and extreme precipitation events. Analyses of observed changes in precipitation intensity have been conducted only for a few countries. Perhaps the best evidence of increases in extreme and very heavy precipitation events comes from data in North America as depicted for the United States in Figure 8.1. In Australia, which is historically prone to heavy precipitation, an increase in rainfall amount from major storms has also been observed. Analyses for South Africa also show increases in extreme precipitation rates. In another area, China, where data have been analyzed for the last several decades, no obvious trends are apparent, but high concentrations of air pollution (such as sulfate particles that can cool the climate) may be counteracting such changes in this region. The area (expressed in percentage) of the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, with an unusually large amount of total annual precipitation coming from extreme precipitation events (those with more than 5.08 cm {2 inches} of rainfall {or equivalent if precipitation is snowfall} in 24 hours) is displayed. The smooth curve shows the same data, but averaged over periods of about 10 years. There is as yet no evidence for a worldwide rise in the frequency of droughts. In the future, however, it is expected that many regions will experience more frequent, prolonged, or more severe droughts, primarily due to the more rapid evaporation of moisture from plants, soils, lakes, and reservoirs. This is expected to occur even as precipitation increases and heavy precipitation events become more common. Blizzards and snow storms may actually increase in intensity and frequency in some colder locations as atmospheric moisture increases. In more temperate latitudes, snowstorms are likely to decrease in frequency, but their intensity may actually increase, as the world warms. Observations show that snowfall has increased in the high latitudes of North America, but snow accumulations have melted faster because of more frequent and earlier thaws. There is evidence of an increase in the frequency of intense extra- tropical storms in the northern North Atlantic and adjacent areas of Europe, such as the British Isles, but there has been a decrease in such events in the southern North Atlantic (south of 30°N) over the past few decades. It remains uncertain as to whether these changes are natural fluctuations or relate to global warming, because there is little consensus about how global warming will affect these non-tropical, yet powerful storms.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 93
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (4/6)
Global Warming increases flooding, ice melting, and extreme heat.
Christian Science Monitor 07 (“Are extreme weather and global warming linked?”, 8/16, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0816/p12s01-wogi.html)
The headlines this summer seem ominous: "Extreme Weather Plagues Globe in 2007".... "Across Globe, Extremes of Heat and Rain".... "Insurers Claim Global Warming Makes Some Regions Too Hot to Handle".... "Floating Arctic ice shrinking at record rate".... "The World Meteorological Organization reports on extreme weather and climate events." But is global warming to blame? Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, reports the World Meteorological Organization, "Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007." "In January and April 2007 it is likely that global land surface temperatures ranked warmest since records began in 1880…. [It is] very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." "The agency found that climate warming was unequivocal and most likely 'due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels'," reports CNN. Among the evidence cited by the UN's meteorological agency, according to CNN: "Four monsoon depressions, double the normal number, caused heavy flooding in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh…. England and Wales have experienced their wettest May-to-July period since record-keeping started in 1766…. Late last month in Sudan, floods and heavy rain caused 23,000 mud brick homes to collapse, killing at least 62 people…." Meanwhile, reports the BBC, "Arctic sea ice is expected to retreat to a record low by the end of this summer." Citing measurements from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the BBC reports that this summer is likely to end with the lowest ice cover on record. "If you look at data for the first week in August, we are way below what we saw in 2005," explained Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC. "So unless something really changes, for example the Arctic suddenly becomes a lot colder, it is going to be hard not to beat the previous record." But as Agence France-Presse reports, one summer of bumptious weather does not confirm global warming. "…establishing a link between climate change and extreme weather is a controversial matter…. scientists caution there is not enough evidence to blame global warming for recent extreme weather, and there are those who say there is no proof that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent." Last week's storm that drenched New Jersey and then pounded New York City, for example, "was strong but not particularly rare for a hot summer day," Pennsylvania State University meteorologist Jeff Warner told the Associated Press. "Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, agreed: 'You cannot blame a single specific event, such as [last] week's storm, on climate change,' he said. 'However,' he added, 'it is fair to ask whether the human changes have altered the likelihood of such events. There the answer seems to be 'yes.' "
Global warming increases the risk of all types of crazy weather.
Environmental Defense Fund 08 (in partnership with Environmental Defense Action Fund, “Global Warming and Extreme Weather”, http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1405)
Studies show that global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of many kinds of extreme weather. While we can't attribute a particular heat wave or hurricane to global warming, the trends are clear: Global warming loads the atmospheric dice to roll "heat wave" or "intense storm" more often. Fiercer Hurricanes More Likely Global warming heats our oceans. Since hurricanes derive their power from warm waters, scientists expect more ferocious hurricanes. Wildfires on the Rise Hot, dry conditions are perfect for sparking wildfires. Scientists are starting to trace the link between our warmer climate and the recent uptick in wildfires. More Droughts Expected Higher temperatures cause water to evaporate faster, leading to dried-out soil that increases water shortages and puts crops and livestock at risk. Higher Risk of Downpours, Flood A warmer world will deliver heavier rainfalls and more flooding. Some of that flooding will likely be as disastrous as what occurred in 2005 in New Orleans. Bigger Odds for Deadly Heat Waves A warmer climate means more hot weather. Scientists expect global warming to increase the chance of "killer" heat waves.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 94
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (5/6)
Warming causes deadly heat waves and massive flooding and cyclones that devastate economies.
The Independent 03 (“Extreme Weather Prompts Unprecedented Global Warming Alert”, 7/3, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0703-05.htm)
In an astonishing announcement on global warming and extreme weather, the World Meteorological Organization signaled last night that the world's weather is going haywire. In a startling report, the WMO, which normally produces detailed scientific reports and staid statistics at the year's end, highlighted record extremes in weather and climate occurring all over the world in recent weeks, from Switzerland's hottest-ever June to a record month for tornadoes in the United States - and linked them to climate change. The unprecedented warning takes its force and significance from the fact that it is not coming from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but from an impeccably respected UN Organization that is not given to hyperbole (though environmentalists will seize on it to claim that the direst warnings of climate change are being borne out). The Geneva-based body, to which the weather services of 185 countries contribute, takes the view that events this year in Europe, America and Asia are so remarkable that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately. The extreme weather it documents, such as record high and low temperatures, record rainfall and record storms in different parts of the world, is consistent with predictions of global warming. Supercomputer models show that, as the atmosphere warms, the climate not only becomes hotter but much more unstable. "Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase," the WMO said, giving a striking series of examples. In southern France, record temperatures were recorded in June, rising above 40C in places - temperatures of 5C to 7C above the average. In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in at least 250 years, environmental historians said. In Geneva, since 29 May, daytime temperatures have not fallen below 25C, making it the hottest June recorded. In the United States, there were 562 May tornadoes, which caused 41 deaths. This set a record for any month. The previous record was 399 in June 1992. In India, this year's pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of 45C - 2C to 5C above the norm. At least 1,400 people died in India due to the hot weather. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated wet conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and killing at least 300 people. The infrastructure and economy of south-west Sri Lanka was heavily damaged. A reduction of 20-30 per cent is expected in the output of low-grown tea in the next three months. Last month was also the hottest in England and Wales since 1976, with average temperatures of 16C. The WMO said: "These record extreme events (high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts) all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages, which, for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years. "New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing. "According to recent climate-change scientific assessment reports of the joint WMO/United Nations Environmental Program Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global average surface temperature has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been around 0.6C. "New analyses of proxy data for the northern hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1,000 years." While the trend towards warmer temperatures has been uneven over the past century, the trend since 1976 is roughly three times that for the whole period. Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880. Considering land temperatures only, last May was the warmest on record. It is possible that 2003 will be the hottest year ever recorded. The 10 hottest years in the 143-year-old global temperature record have now all been since 1990, with the three hottest being 1998, 2002 and 2001.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 95
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (6/6)
Global warming causes lethal heat waves, extreme flooding and storms, and the spread of disease.
Sierra Club 08 (conservationist group, “Global Warming Impacts: Health Effects – Conclusions”, http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/health/conclusions.asp)
The IPCC projects that more frequent and more severe heat waves will be one lethal effect of global warming. Deadly stretches of hot days, where nighttime temperatures remain high, will become more common. One such event killed over Chicago during the summer of 700 people in 1995. Based indicates on past heat wave events, research that by the year 2020, global warming could cause up to a 145% rise in mortality in New York City. Other major cities could suffer similar problems. Regional climate stress on agriculture may mean up to 300 million additional victims of malnutrition world-wide each year. Extreme floods and droughts are projected to become more severe as global warming worsens. These extremes may threaten the availability and supply of safe drinking water. Diseases associated with flooding, such as cryptosporidiosis, could affect millions more people every year. Extreme weather events, like the abnormal storms and flooding that have devastated many communities across America in recent years, may also become more common. As the number and severity of these events increase they will pose not only an immediate threat to human health and well being, but also bring dangerous long-term consequences.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 96
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather – Econ
Global warming increases extreme weather events to collapse the global economy.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 64)
As the climate changes, more extreme weather events are expected. Andrew Dlugolecki, a consultant on climate change and its effects on financial institutions, notes that damage from atmospherically related events has increased by roughly 10 percent a year. “If such an increase were to continue indefinitely,” he notes, “by 2065 storm damage would exceed the gross world product. The world obviously would face bankruptcy long before then.” Few double-digit annual growth trends continue for several decades, but Dlugolecki’s basic point is that climate change can be destructive, disruptive, and very costly.69
A warming-induced New York hurricane could immediately shut down the US economy.
National Geographic News 06 (“Hurricane Could Devastate New York, U.S. Economy, Experts Warn”, 5/19, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060519_hurricanes.html)
Forecasters are warning that a hurricane making landfall at or near New York City could cause catastrophic damage in the U.S.'s largest urban center. While a storm is unlikely to make direct landfall on Manhattan, a nearby storm would cause extensive flooding and heavy storm surges, experts say. Major Hurricane Threat Seen for Northeast U.S., Experts Warn Even a minimal hurricane could put the runways at John F. Kennedy Airport underwater, and the battering action of wind-driven waves could cause significant damage to buildings, says Stephen Baig, a storm surge specialist with the National Hurricane Center in Miami. A minor hurricane could also cause flooding throughout Lower Manhattan, depending on how the storm approached and whether it arrived at high or low tide. Making matters worse, many New York residents may not realize how severely they could be affected by a hurricane. Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in Selden, says Long Island's 4 million residents could be surprised by the aftermath of a storm. "What I think they don't understand is how many days and weeks after a hurricane that their lives will be completely changed," Mandia said. "People who live away from the water think a hurricane will mean one day away from work, then back to normal." "There will be an economic shutdown for a few weeks, if not a month," he said. "The economic standstill will be the biggest surprise for people."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 97
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather – Disease
Hurricanes increase the spread of infectious disease.
American Society for Microbiology 05 (“Hurricane Aftermath: Infectious Disease Threats from Common, Not Exotic Diseases”, 9/13, http://www.asm.org/Media/index.asp?bid=37833)
WASHINGTON, DC--September 13, 2005--In the wake of Katrina, the public health threats from infectious diseases in hurricane-devastated areas are more likely to come from milder, more common infections rather than exotic diseases. These common infections can often be prevented using simple hygiene measures and a little common sense. “Deadly diseases, such as typhoid or cholera, are unlikely to break out after hurricanes and floods in areas where these diseases do not already naturally occur,” says Ruth Berkelman, MD, Chair of the Public and Scientific Affairs Board of the American Society for Microbiology. “The greatest threats to the people in the affected areas are going to be from diseases that were already there. Dr. Berkelman is the Rollins Professor and Director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness and Research at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. She is a former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States and former deputy director of the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID). Common infectious disease problems in New Orleans in the coming weeks are likely to be skin and soft-tissue infections, most likely from cuts, abrasions and wounds. The primary culprits will be Staphylococcus and Streptococcus bacteria, both of which can generally be treated with available antibiotics. Diseases caused by consumption of contaminated food or water as well as diseases caused by mosquitoes or other insect bites are also a threat. Vibrio vunificus can also cause serious infections, either wound infections or blood poisoning (septicemia); V. vulnificus is a bacterium that is normally present in Gulf Coast waters and is usually contracted by eating tainted seafood. It is primarily a threat to people with weakened immune systems or liver dysfunction. The CDC has confirmed 15 infections with V. vulnificus, 3 of which were fatal. These cases have occurred in areas other than New Orleans where the water has greater salinity. Another concern is diarrhea and gastrointestinal illnesses from the flood waters. Short bouts of diarrhea and upset stomachs sometimes occur after natural disasters and can be caused by sewage contamination of the water. Although at high levels in floodwaters, the E. coli found in New Orleans is the type commonly associated with fecal contamination and is not the E. coli H7:O157 strain that can cause serious kidney disease and bloody diarrhea.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 98
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather – Coral Reefs
Warming-induced hurricanes destroy coral reefs, devastating marine biodiversity and local economies.
The Guardian 1/24 (“Hurricanes and global warming devastate Caribbean coral reefs”, 08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/24/climatechange)
Warmer seas and a record hurricane season in 2005 have devastated more than half of the coral reefs in the Caribbean, according to scientists. In a report published yesterday, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) warned that this severe damage to reefs would probably become a regular event given current predictions of rising global temperatures due to climate change. According to the report, 2005 was the hottest year on average since records began and had the most hurricanes ever recorded in a season. Large hotspots in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico powered strong tropical hurricanes such as Katrina, which developed into the most devastating storm ever to hit the US. In addition to the well-documented human cost, the storms damaged coral by increasing the physical strength of waves and covering the coast in muddy run-off water from the land. The higher sea temperature also caused bleaching, in which the coral lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. The reefs then lose their colour and become more susceptible to death from starvation or disease. Impacts Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the IUCN's global marine programme, said: "Sadly for coral reefs, it's highly likely extreme warming will happen again. When it does, the impacts will be even more severe. If we don't do something about climate change, the reefs won't be with us for much longer." Some of the worst-hit regions of the Caribbean, which contains more than 10% of the world's coral reefs, included the area from Florida through to the French West Indies and the Cayman Islands. In August 2005 severe bleaching affected between 50% and 95% of coral colonies and killed more than half, mostly in the Lesser Antilles. The IUCN report highlights pressures on coral reefs in addition to those of overfishing and pollution identified in recent years. A recent study found that reefs near large human populations suffered the most damage. Coral reefs are an important part of the marine ecosystem, supporting an estimated 25% of all marine life including more than 4,000 species of fish. They provide spawning, nursery, refuge and feeding areas for a wide variety of other creatures such as lobsters, crabs, starfish and sea turtles. Reefs also play a crucial role as natural breakwaters, protecting coastlines from storms. "It's quite clear that the structure and their function as they are right now in the Caribbean is quite severely impeded," said Lundin. "Over the next few decades we will see a large reduction in the number of reef areas." Reefs also boost the local economy - in the Caribbean coral reefs provide more than $4bn (£2bn) a year from fisheries, scuba-diving tourism and shoreline protection. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute: Reefs at Risk, coral loss in the region could cost the local economy up to $420m every year.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 99
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Natural Disasters
Warming sets in motion a natural disasters loop
Goodman`7 (Amy, syndicated columnist for Seattle PI.com, Global warming link to natural disasters, October 24, 2007, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/336682_amy25.html)
Fires rage through Southern California. Massive rainstorms drench New Orleans. The Southeast U.S., stretching from Tennessee across the Carolinas and into Georgia, is in the midst of what could be the worst drought on record there. While the media do an admirable job bringing us live images of extreme weather, it doesn't explain why those events are happening. What links these crises? Global warming. Two words that have all too often been vacuumed off government Web sites and erased from government scientific studies. If the press isn't making the connection, Bill McKibben is. In 1989, he wrote the book "The End of Nature," one of the first books to describe global warming as an emerging environmental crisis. Now he is leading a campaign to draft mass grass-roots participation to publicize the potential catastrophe of climate change and to demand federal action to "Step It Up." The first Step It Up day of action, April 14, 2007, organized in local communities (including Seattle) through a central Web site, saw 1,400 coordinated activities pulled together in just three months. The second day of action is planned for Nov. 3, organized through stepitup2007.org. "What's important to remember and the reason that we spend all our time organizing now, trying to change all this, is that so far human beings have raised the temperature of the planet about 1 degree Fahrenheit," says McKibben. "The computer modeling makes it very clear that before the century is out, unless we take very strong action, indeed, we're going to raise the temperature of the planet another 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The cascade effect is what is so important. How could 1 degree Fahrenheit make such a big difference? One immediate, measurable impact, says University of Arizona scientist Tom Swetnam, is the increase in the frequency and duration of large wildfires in the U.S. West. Swetnam and his team have linked a warming, drying trend since the 1980s to the incidence of fires, like the dozen that are raging out of control in California. The predictions are not good. Trees take in carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, releasing oxygen. In his August 2006 Science article, Swetnam reports that Western U.S. forests remove 20 percent to 40 percent of the carbon dioxide in the U.S. As forests burn, McKibben notes, carbon is released into the atmosphere. Fewer trees then remain to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, making warmer conditions, supporting more and longer fires, and so on, creating a positive feedback loop. A central warning of the scientific community is this: At some point, if Earth's temperature rises much more, maybe 3 degrees, maybe 6 degrees, an irreversible feedback loop will overwhelm the planet's climate, with cascading impacts leading to a warmer planet. Corporate America is feeling the heat. Carbon-emitting industries, chastened by the experience of Big Tobacco and asbestos, see that they might be held accountable -- especially since they are funding junk science and "Astroturf" (i.e., fake grass-roots groups) to cast doubt about the effects of global warming. Insurance companies can't afford to ignore the consequences of global warming, as extreme weather events cause billions of dollars in damage.
Warming causes natural disasters-Sea levels
Grist`5 (Grist.com, environmental news & commentary, written by David Roberts, 2005, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/6/162641/5470)
What is the relationship between global warming and the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean (and natural disasters more generally)? Who is and is not drawing such a connection? Who is and is not trying to score political points around it? There's been a flurry of writing on the subject recently. We begin with today's Muckraker ......which follows up on this post. Our own Amanda Griscom Little argues that, contrary to the assertions of some right-wing cranks, no enviro is in fact claiming that global warming caused the tsunami . What some enviros are claiming is that global warming -- along with over-development and other such deleterious human activity -- is raising sea levels and reducing or eliminating the natural barriers (mangroves, coral reefs, etc.) that protect coastlines from the worst of the tsunami damage. As a result, the damage was worse than it needed to be, and will be worse yet in the next catastrophe. On the issue of those natural barriers, Emily Gertz over at WorldChanging has followed her excellent original piece on mangroves with another stellar, link-filled post on the same subject. She promises more to come, so keep an eye out.
An earthquake in Southern California could cripple the economy.USGS 5/22 (US Geological Service, “Disaster Earthquake Scenario Unveiled for Southern California”, 08, http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1947)
Scientists today unveiled a hypothetical Scenario describing how a magnitude 7.8 Southern California earthquake -similar to the recent earthquake in China- would impact the region, causing loss of lives and massive damage to infrastructure, including critical transportation, power, and water systems. In the Scenario, the earthquake would kill 1800 people, injure 50,000, cause $200 billion in damage, and have long-lasting social and economic consequences. This is the most comprehensive analysis ever of what a major Southern California earthquake would mean, and is the scientific framework for what will be the largest earthquake preparedness drill in California history, scheduled for November 13, 2008. The November preparedness exercise, "Golden Guardian '08," will test the ability of emergency responders to deal with the impact of a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California, and is being jointly organized by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and the California Office of Homeland Security. The Golden Guardian exercise will occur during a week-long series of public events planned for the "Great Southern California ShakeOut." A June 4th kick-off event is planned for the "ShakeOut" to help communities plan to respond to the risks highlighted in the Scenario. The scientific report describing the ShakeOut Scenario, jointly published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS), will be released today during a Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. The House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, led by Chairman Jim Costa (D-CA), will hold an oversight hearing on USGS efforts to prepare for future earthquakes, at 10:00 a.m. EDT in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building Although imaginary, the Shakeout Scenario is based on scientists' best predictions of what would actually occur during and after a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The Scenario outlines a hypothetical earthquake in which: * The strongest shaking and greatest damage is near the stretch of the San Andreas Fault that extends through the fastest growing areas of Southern California, including the Coachella Valley, Inland Empire and Antelope Valley. * At least 10 million people will be exposed to heavy shaking. California's efforts at mitigation have concentrated on life safety and have been largely successful. Thus, in spite of the large numbers of people in highly shaken areas, deaths are estimated at only 1,800. * Building types known to be vulnerable to damage and collapse, do indeed sustain major damage. All un-reinforced masonry buildings within 15 miles of the San Andreas Fault are completely destroyed. Those that are not retrofitted kill many occupants. Many other older building types without retrofitting contribute to over $33 billion in damage to buildings. * The fault offsets all lifelines crossing into Southern California at Cajon Pass (Interstate 15), San Gorgonio Pass (Interstate 10) and along Route 14, including pipelines, power lines, roads, railways, telecommunications and aqueducts. * Strong shaking continues in downtown Los Angeles for 55 seconds - nearly 8 times longer than in the Northridge Earthquake * The prolonged, strong shaking heavily damages and sometimes collapses hundreds of old brick buildings, thousands of older commercial and industrial concrete buildings, many wood-frame buildings, and even a few, high-rise steel buildings. Over 600,000 buildings suffer at least some damage that causes tens of thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, and leaves many thousands of people without homes or jobs. * Fire doubles the fatalities and economic losses. Around Southern California, there will be 1,600 fires started large enough to warrant a 911 call, and some fires merge into conflagrations that burn hundreds of city blocks. Assuming no Santa Ana winds, the models still indicate a further $65 billion in direct losses and $22 billion in indirect losses from the fires. * Nearly two thirds of the hospital beds are non-functional in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. At the same time, 50,000 people will seek treatment at emergency rooms. * Thanks to a $6 billion investment in seismic safety, the State highway system fares well. However, although collapse is avoided, some bridges are non-functional so that much of the highway is not passable on the day of the event. The long duration of shaking takes a greater toll on bridges and overpasses under the jurisdiction of cities and counties where the retrofitting processes are not complete or have not begun. * The largest long-term economic disruption comes from damage to the water distribution system. Damage to this system will be so extensive that some areas will have to replace the whole system, and some buildings will be without water for as long as 6 months. The direct and indirect business interruption costs attributed to the lack of water will be $50 billion.
Tsunamis create devastating disease epidemics.MSNBC 05 (“Immediate aid needed to prevent typhoid, hepatitis epidemics”, 1/3, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6755980/)
Typhoid, diarrhea and hepatitis epidemics pose a grave threat to tens of thousands of people who survived a devastating tsunami which tore across the Indian Ocean on Sunday, international relief agencies said. “The biggest threat to survivors is from the spread of infection through contamination of drinking water and putrefying bodies left by the receding waters,” Jamie McGoldrick of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) told reporters Monday. “We’ve had reports already from the south of India of bodies rotting where they have fallen and that will immediately affect the water supply especially for the most impoverished people,” said Christian Aid emergency officer Dominic Nutt. Epidemics feared Aid agencies around the world have rushed staff, equipment and money to southern Asia. In New York, U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland warned there could be epidemics of intestinal and lung infections within days unless health systems in the eight stricken countries were enabled to cope. "The drinking water for millions of people has been polluted," Egeland said at a press conference Monday. U.N. officials said the organization faced an “unprecedented” challenge to get aid to victims from Sri Lanka to Indonesia, even taking lives as far away as Somalia.
Tsunamis increase the spread of infectious disease.Grossman 05 (geology prof. @ U-Wisconsin-Eau Claire, “Tsunami-related diseases”, http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/LESLIEBJ/)
The devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami has claimed up to 300,000 lives. Those lucky enough to have survived the initial impact of the tsunami are still in danger due to disease. Rotting corpses, smashed sewer lines, overcrowded refugee camps and contaminated freshwater supplies in the hardest-hit countries of India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia all contribute to the spread of disease. "The initial terror associated with the tsunamis and the earthquake itself may be dwarfed by the longer term suffering of the affected communities,'' said Dr. David Nabarro, head of crisis operations for the United Nations.
Tsunamis drastically increase the spread of malaria and dengue fever.Grossman 05 (geology prof. @ U-Wisconsin-Eau Claire, “Tsunami-related diseases”, http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/LESLIEBJ/)
The mosquito-borne diseases of malaria and dengue fever may pose the greatest threat to survivors of the tsunami. Both diseases were already an epidemic in many of the affected countries even before the tsunami hit. The combination of the tsunami and the heavy rains that followed has created the largest mosquito breeding grounds the affected nations have ever seen. Stagnant pools of water dominate the coastal landscape and are optimal breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Literally millions upon millions of mosquito hatches will take place in these stagnant pools. Mosquitoes are such a concern that the use of DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) was considered for prevention measures. DDT is the most effective killer of mosquitoes on the planet, but the negative environmental effects of DDT has so far prevented its use. Malaria and dengue fever cause vomiting, diarrhea, muscle aches, fever, and can both be extremely fatal.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 102
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Water Shortages (1/3)
Warming leads to water shortages – they’re already beginningT. Barnett 5 “Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions” Nature http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~dozier/Class/esm236/Reading/Barnett_Nature2005.pdf
In this review, we suggest that the simplest of changes associated with global warming (a modest increase in near-surface air temperature) will be responsible for alterations of the hydrological cycle in snowmelt-dominated regions via seasonal shifts in stream-flow. Without adequate water storage capacity, these changes will lead to regional water shortages. The model-predicted changes are already being seen in the observed data. If maintained at current levels, these changes will lead to a serious reduction in dry-season water availability in many regions of the Earth within the next few decades. The physical principles found to apply in snowmelt-dominated regions (for example, the western USA) are one of the probable causes of the observed early snowmelt and, more importantly, deglaciation that is now occurring in most mountainous regions of the world. The serious situations developing in the HKH region and South America have been briefly presented. It is clear that both regions, as well as others not mentioned, are headed for a watersupply crisis. Better water management techniques can help, but cannot solve the problem without significant changes to agriculture, industry and lifestyle. Detailed studies of the future impact of global warming on water resources in these regions are long overdue. The studies summarized above show that current demands for water in many parts of the world will not be met under plausible future climate conditions, much less the demands of a larger population and a larger economy. The physics behind this statement is temperature-driven, not precipitation-driven, and this makes the conclusions robust because all current models predict a warmer future world. The other key factor affecting water availability is the lack of enough reservoir storage to manage a shift in the seasonal cycle of runoff. Current information about the climate-related water challenges facing much of the world, although by no means perfect, is sufficiently robust that major future problem areas can now be defined. The matter takes on a greater urgency because the model-predicted signals are already being observed.
Warming = shortagesPatrick Love 99“Water Worries” http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LpTQFZ8qrG6vvpYg99ZSGfNG2PL9DPRNg4wtQphFxtyGWk1J4bJM!973115833?docId=98558417
One trend that is highly likely to ag gravate water shortages is global warming , with a 1.5 to 3 degree rise in global temperatures expected over the next century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More water will clearly be consumed for irrigation and drinking, but there may be indirect ef fects too which would be more diffi cult to cope with . There could be in creased evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge; a higher frequency of extreme weather conditions, such as storms (which can cause water treatment systems to overload); and a shift in climate zones and seasons which could have marked effects on water supply Even in regions where the total annual precipitation did not change much, problems could arise if rainfall became concentrated in the winter or if it shifted away from agricultural zones.
Warming = shortages M. Falkenmark 7 (Prof at Stockholm International Water Institute)“Global warming: water the main mediator” http://www.uneca.org/awich/Reports/Global%20warming%20and%20Water%20WF2_07_globalwarming.pdf
In terms of freshwater, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes but decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events are likely to increase in frequency, augmenting flood risks. Figure 1 shows the changes in annual runoff by 2060 under scenario A1B, which assumes very rapid economic growth, continued globalisation, and technological change in energy systems. It shows that large low- and mid-latitude areas will get up to 40% less runoff already some 40 years from now, while other low and high latitude areas will get up to 40% more runoff. In the course of the century, glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline. This will reduce water availability in regions now dependent on meltwater from major mountain ranges, incorporating more than one-sixth of the world populations. As for ecosystems, the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 103
Scholars Lab Warming
resilience of many ecosystems to adjust to change and bounce back from shocks is likely to be exceeded dur - ing this century.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 104
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Water Shortages (2/3)
Global warming causes widespread water scarcity, devastating agriculture, energy production, and health.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 27)
Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives. {WGI 4.1, 4.5; WGII 3.3, 3.4, 3.5} Changes in precipitation (Figure 3.3) and temperature (Figure 3.2) lead to changes in runoff (Figure 3.5) and water availability. Runoff is projected with high confidence to increase by 10 to 40% by mid-century at higher latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, including populous areas in East and South-East Asia, and decrease by 10 to 30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and dry tropics, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change. Drought-affected areas are projected to increase in extent, with the potential for adverse impacts on multiple sectors, e.g. agriculture, water supply, energy production and health. Regionally, large increases in irrigation water demand as a result of climate changes are projected. {WGI 10.3, 11.2-11.9; WGII 3.4, 3.5, Figure 3.5, TS.4.1, Box TS.5, SPM} The negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweigh its benefits (high confidence). Areas in which runoff is projected to decline face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources (very high confidence). The beneficial impacts of increased annual runoff in some areas are likely to be tempered by negative effects of increased precipitation variability and seasonal runoff shifts on water supply, water quality and flood risk. {WGII 3.4, 3.5, TS.4.1}
Warming creates conflict over water in North America.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 28)
North America Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources. {WGII 14.4, SPM}
Warming causes huge water shortages.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 5-6, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources. On a regional scale, mountain snowpack, glaciers, and small ice caps play a crucial role in fresh water availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and the changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world’s population currently lives. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change. In Africa by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 105
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Water Shortages (3/3)
Warming melts glaciers to cause African water wars.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 53-55)
In Africa, Tanzania’s snow-capped Kilimanjaro may soon be snow- and ice-free. Ohio State University glaciologist Lonnie Thompson’s studies of Kilimanjaro show that Africa’s tallest mountain lost 33 percent of its ice field between 1989 and 2000. He projects that its snowcap could disappear entirely by 2015. Nearby Mount Kenya has lost 7 of its 18 glaciers. Local rivers fed by these glaciers are becoming seasonal rivers, generating conflict among the 2 million people who depend on them for water supplies during the dry season.26
Warming melts glaciers that 1.3 billion Asians depend on for water.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 53-54)
Snow and ice masses in mountains are nature’s freshwater reservoirs— nature’s way of storing water to feed rivers during the dry season. Now they are being threatened by the rise in temperature. Even a 1-degree rise in temperature in mountainous regions can markedly reduce the share of precipitation falling as snow and boost that coming down as rain. This in turn increases flooding during the rainy season and reduces the snowmelt that flows into rivers. Beyond this, the glaciers that feed rivers during the dry season are melting. Some have disappeared entirely. Nowhere is the melting of glaciers of more concern than in Asia, where 1.3 billion people depend for their water supply on rivers originating in the Himalayan Mountains and the adjacent Tibet-Qinghai Plateau.21 India’s Gangotri Glacier, which supplies 70 percent of the water to the Ganges, is not only melting, it is doing so at an accelerated rate. If this melting continues to accelerate, the Gangotri’s life expectancy will be measured in decades and the Ganges will become a seasonal river, flowing only during the rainy season. For the 407 million Indians and Bangladeshis who live in the Ganges basin, this could be a life-threatening loss of water.22 In China, which is even more dependent than India on river water for irrigation, the situation is particularly challenging. Chinese government data show the glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau that feed both the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers are melting at 7 percent a year. The Yellow River, whose basin is home to 147 million people, could experience a large dry-season flow reduction. The Yangtze River, by far the larger of the two, is threatened by the disappearance of glaciers as well. The basin’s 369 million people rely heavily on rice from fields irrigated with Yangtze River water.23 Yao Tandong, a leading Chinese glaciologist, predicts that two thirds of China’s glaciers could be gone by 2060. “The fullscale glacier shrinkage in the plateau region,” Yao says, “will eventually lead to an ecological catastrophe.”24 Other Asian rivers that originate in this rooftop of the world include the Indus, with 178 million people in its basin in India and Pakistan; the Brahmaputra, which flows through Bangladesh; and the Mekong, which waters Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Viet Nam.25
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 106
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Water Shortages – Prolif
Water shortages caused by warming = prolif and a world warDavid Stipp 4 “The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare” http://www.climate-talks.net/2005-ENVRE130/PDF/20040126-Fortune-Pentagon-and-Climate.pdfc
Warming would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia—it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change. The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"—the natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the crisis—it is too widespread and unfolds too fast. As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life. Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.
Water scarcity has always been a source of tension between neighbors. Despite the lack of water wars, climate change is likely to exacerbate conflicts over water.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Water scarcity may trigger distributional conflicts. Water scarcity by itself does not necessarily lead to conflict and violence, though. There is an interaction with other socio-economic and political factors: The potential for conflict often relates to social discrimination in terms of access to safe and clean water. The risk can therefore be reduced by ensuring just distribution so that people in disadvantaged areas also have access to the safe and clean water. As already pointed out, a main problem today (and probably for the near future) is still the so-called economic water scarcity, and good water management can prevent conflict. Within states, groups have often defended or challenged traditional rights of water use: In semi-arid regions such as the Sahel there have been tensions between farmers and nomadic herders. According to The Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change,41 the droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and 1980s may have been caused partly by climate change and contributed to increased competition for scarce resources between these groups. The Tuareg rebellion in Mali in the beginning of the 1990s, is also mentioned as an example of a climate change-related conflict. Many of the drought-struck nomads sought refuge in the cities or left the country. The lack of social networks for the returnees, the continuing drought, competition for land with the settled farmers and dissatisfaction with the authorities, were factors that fuelled the armed rebellion. In the past there have been few examples of “water wars” between states. In fact there are several cases of cooperation (for example between Palestine and Israel), but these have generally concerned benefit-sharing, not burden-sharing. According to Fred Pearce, the defining crises of the 21st century will involve water.42 He sees the Six Day War in 1967 between Israel and its neighbours as the first modern “water war”, specifically over the River Jordan. Most of the world’s major rivers cross international boundaries, but are not covered by treaties. According to Pearce, this is a recipe for conflict and for upstream users to hold downstream users to ransom. This could be helped by internationally brokered deals for sharing such rivers.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 107
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Water Shortages – Bio-d
Water shortages = bio d lossXinhua 5 “Global warming spells out water shortage” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/11/content_441252.htm
A third of the world's population lives in countries that find it difficult or impossible to meet water needs, a proportion that could double by 2025, said Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Wednesday. In developing countries, about 14,000 to 30,000 people die each day in developing countries from water-related diseases, Pachauri said at a conference of the IPCC Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report held in Beijing, which will end on Thursday. Climate changes, including rising temperatures and sea levels, precipitation change, droughts and floods may wield great power over human and natural systems, he said. Water shortage will be the most serious issue, affecting food production and bio-diversity as well as human water consumption, he said. The world has to rethink socio-economic development, including economic growth technology and population governance, to adapt to these changes, he said.
Loss of a single species risks extinction Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p177 Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes. We’ll win the magnitude debate – bio d loss is entirely irreversible and o/ws nukesChen, 2000 (Jim, Prof. of Law and Vance K. Opperman Research Scholar) 9Minn. J. Global Trade 157 The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is "literally ... incalculable." What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noah's Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. Others regard the entire Judeo-Chhstian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's deplorable environmental record. To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian "myth and legend," we should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural "history." The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity . If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that "our descendants [will1 most regret" the "loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even "energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government." Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth with a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens - in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 108
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Biodiversity (1/3)
Warming leads to environmental collapse through biodiversity loss, natural disasters, and destruction of water and food supplies.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
_ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources). {WGII 4.1-4.6, SPM} _ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even reverse16, thus amplifying climate change. {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence). {WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM} _ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply. {WGII 4.4, Box TS.6, SPM}
Warming would destroy the polar ecosystems, resulting in biodiversity loss.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 30)
Polar Regions The main projected biophysical effects are reductions in thickness and extent of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice, and changes in natural ecosystems with detrimental effects on many organisms including migratory birds, mammals and higher predators. {WGII 15.4, SPM} _ For human communities in the Arctic, impacts, particularly those resulting from changing snow and ice conditions, are projected to be mixed. {WGII 15.4, SPM} _ Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and traditional indigenous ways of life. {WGII 15.4, SPM} _ In both polar regions, specific ecosystems and habitats are projected to be vulnerable, as climatic barriers to species invasions are lowered. {WGII 15.4, SPM}
GLOBAL WARMING HARMS ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMGarber 08, (US News and World Report)
Eventually, the effects of climate change, far from being limited to individual plants, could percolate throughout entire ecosystems. If springs become warmer, as predicted, the crop-growing season will expand. Insects and pests, thriving in warmer winters, will reproduce more frequently and spread more rapidly. Many, in fact, are proliferating already, as reflected in reports of abnormally high rates of disease outbreaks in the western half of the United States. Higher temperatures also are usually accompanied by declining rainfall, threatening to slowly transform once lush areas into arid expanses. At the same time, droughts and heavy isolated rainfalls could become more numerous.For all the criticism that has been piled upon the $300 billion farm bill that Congress recently passed over President Bush's veto, the bill does include many provisions that pertain directly to concerns cited in the new report. Fruit and vegetable growers, for instance, will receive millions of dollars of new funding for research on pest and disease resistance.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 109
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Biodiversity (2/3)
Warming will eliminate 30% of biodiversity.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 43)
Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new and stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change on unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountain communities and ecosystems), with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing risk of species extinction and coral reef damage is projected with higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C over 1980-1999 levels. Confidence has increased that a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperature above 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above pre-industrial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened systems including many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected t result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatization by corals. Increasing vulnerability of Arctic indigenous communities and small island communities to warming is projected. {SYR 3.3, 3.4, Figure 3.6, Table 3.2; WGII 4.ES, 4.4, 6.4, 14.4.6, 15.ES, 15.4, 15.6, 16.ES, 16.2.1, 16.4, Table 19.1, 19.3.7, TS.5.3, Figure TS.12, Figure TS.14}
Warming kills biodiversity in ecologically rich Australia and Oceania.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 28)
_ Climate change is projected to compound the pressures on natural resources and the environment associated with rapid urbanisation, industrialisation and economic development. {WGII 10.4, SPM} _ Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease primarily associated with floods and droughts are expected to rise in East, South and South-East Asia due to projected changes in the hydrological cycle. {WGII 10.4, SPM} Australia and New Zealand _ By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur in some ecologically rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics. {WGII 11.4, SPM}
Warming leads to 60% biodiversity loss in European mountains.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 28)
Climate change is expected to magnify regional differences in Europe’s natural resources and assets. Negative impacts will include increased risk of inland flash floods and more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion (due to storminess and sea level rise). {WGII 12.4, SPM} _ Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas up to 60% under high emissions scenarios by 2080). {WGII 12.4, SPM}
Warming devastates Latin American biodiversity.IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 28)
By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semiarid vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation. {WGII 13.4, SPM} _ There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many areas of tropical Latin America. {WGII 13.4 SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 110
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Biodiversity (3/3)
Warming causes massive biodiversity loss.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 51)
Ecosystems everywhere will be affected by higher temperatures, sometimes in ways we cannot easily predict. The 2007 IPCC report notes that a rise in temperature of 1 degree Celsius will put up to 30 percent of all species at risk of extinction. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change sponsored a meta-study analyzing some 40 scientific reports that link rising temperature with changes in ecosystems. Among the many changes reported are spring arriving nearly two weeks earlier in the United States, tree swallows nesting nine days earlier than they did 40 years ago, and a northward shift of red fox habitat that has it encroaching on the Arctic fox’s range. Inuits have been surprised by the appearance of robins, a bird they have never seen before. Indeed, there is no word in Inuit for “robin.”13 The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) reports that if temperatures continue to rise, by 2040 one out of five of the Pacific Northwest’s rivers will be too hot for salmon, steelhead, and trout to survive. Paula Del Giudice, Director of NWF’s Northwest Natural Resource Center, notes that “global warming will add an enormous amount of pressure onto what’s left of the region’s prime cold-water fish habitat.”14 Douglas Inkley, NWF Senior Science Advisor and senior author of a report to The Wildlife Society, notes, “We face the prospect that the world of wildlife that we now know—and many of the places we have invested decades of work in conserving as refuges and habitats for wildlife—will cease to existas we know them, unless we change this forecast.”15
Warming destroys biodiversity to lead to widespread ecosystem collapse.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 6-7, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts on biodiversity. There is medium confidence that approximately 20%–30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5–2.5 ºC, relative to 1980—99. As global average temperature exceeds about 3.5 ºC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40%– 70% of species assessed) around the globe. These changes, if they were to occur would have serious effects on the sustainability of several ecosystems and the services they provide to human society.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 111
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Plankton – A2: Pollutants Turn
1. Plan does not regulate sulfur emissions; It regulates carbon emissions which have been proven to be bad.
2. Pollution is causing acidification in the ocean and hurting plankton.
Jennifer Provencher 2007 (“Plankton: doing more than just drifting through”, http://oceanlink.island.net/ONews/ONews7/plankton.html, Accessed 6/30/08)
Warming water is not the only threat to plankton. As atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase, the oceans absorb more of this gas. It's been estimated that since the year 1800, the oceans have taken up roughly 120 billion metric tons of human generated CO2 [2]. Currently, the oceans are up-taking roughly 20-25 million tons each day – with no relief in sight [2].As the oceans take in carbon dioxide the gas forms carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the ocean water and turning it dangerously acidic. This acidification is occurring at a rate 100 times faster than ever recorded, with some estimating that by the end of the 21st century, the surface waters in some of the worlds oceans may not be able to support shell-bearing plankton [2]. The IPCC report released in February 2007 stated that even with significant CO2 emission reductions, the oceans would still see a decrease in pH by about 0.14 units. Without a reduction in CO2 emissions, pH is expected to decrease another 0.35 units, which is too low for some organisms to form shells [4].Historical evidence shows that plankton does not recover easily from catastrophes. When a population crash occurred across the oceans 65 million years ago, it took approximately 3 million years for the plankton to recover [2]. How the plankton around the world will be affected in the long-term by abrupt climate change is difficult to predict. We do know that with less plankton, ecosystems from the poles to the tropics, and from freshwater to the salty seas will be negatively impacted.
3. Acidification causes a bad effect on the ocean and hurts plankton.
Scott Doney 2007 (May 10, “Effects of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification on Living Marine Resources”, Senior Scientist on Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry Department at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Written testimony presented to the U.S. Senate Committee on Oceans, Atmospheres, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8915&tid=282&cid=27206, Accessed 6/30/08)
Climate change and ocean acidification will exacerbate other human influences on fisheries and marine ecosystems such as over-fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, excess nutrients, and invasive species. Thermal effects arise both directly, via effects of elevated temperature and lower pH on individual organisms, and indirectly via changes to the ecosystems on which they depend for food and habitat. Acidification harms shell-forming plants and animals including surface and deep-water corals, many plankton, pteropods (marine snails), mollusks (clams, oysters), and lobsters (Orr et al., 2005). Many of these organisms provide critical habitat and/or food sources for other organisms. Emerging evidence suggests that larval and juvenile fish may also be susceptible to pH changes. Marine life has survived large climate and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates of climate change and ocean acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by the planet in the past except for rare, catastrophic events in the geological record.One concern is that climate change will alter the rates and patterns of ocean productivity. Small, photosynthetic phytoplankton grow in the well-illuminated upper ocean, forming the base of the marine food web, supporting the fish stocks we harvest, and underlying the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and many other key elements in the sea. Phytoplankton growth depends upon temperature and the availability of light and nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and iron. Most of the nutrient supply to the surface ocean comes from the mixing and upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water from below. An exception is iron, which has an important additional source from mineral dust swept off the desert regions of the continents and transported off-shore from coastal ocean sediments. The geographic distribution of phytoplankton and biological productivity is determined largely by ocean circulation and upwelling, with the highest levels found along the Equator, in temperate and polar latitudes and along the western boundaries of continents.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 112
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Plankton – A2: Resilience
Surviving past climate changes doesn’t matter. The current period of warming will be more rapid than any past climate change.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the [IPCC]”, http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar4wg1faq-6-2.pdf.)
A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest tem perature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature. Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are re alised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.
Warming does not kill mammals causing an increase in plankton. The reason that mammals die is because they lose their food supply in plankton.
Debbie MacKenzie 2003 (May 8, “Multi-million dollar questions and broad changing patterns in marine life”, http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm, Accessed 6/30/08)
The problem is that not only are populations of larger marine animals that changing today, such as the targets of the commercial fisheries, but that changing trends are also apparent now throughout the entire marine ecosystem. All of the little things are changing too. It is very important to consider the animal fraction of the marine plankton (zooplankton), the portion that provides food directly to small fish, and to realize that production/abundance of these tiny, critical organisms is NOT now being sustained at former levels. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has documented a significant declining trend in the numbers of zooplankton in Atlantic Canadian waters(1, 2), yet the department has failed to identify the reason for this plankton decline as an important research focus. This is a serious omission, since zooplankton production has important implications for fish production as well as for the continued survival of other larger forms of marine life, such as whales, seals, and seabirds. The declining trend in zooplankton suggests that the entire marine ecosystem may be slowing its rate of organic production. And if that is true, then the ramifications of this development extend far beyond the interests of commercial fisheries.
The loss in plankton is causing casualties among its predators.
Masses of plankton, dying as global warming heats up the waters off the Seychelles, are threatening marine life in the Indian Ocean tourist haven, a government official said on Tuesday. The dead plankton, as it decays, depletes the oxygen in sea water and in effect suffocates other forms of marine life.The sludge also dulls the Seychelles' turquoise waters and tends to turn them green as algae feast on the plankton."North Mahe is most affected but (the islands of) Praslin, Ile Cerf and Silhouette have also been hit," said Jude Florentine, the country's director general for pollution control and environment impact monitoring.He blamed the phenomenon on rising sea temperatures caused by global warming, coupled with winds pushing the algae toward the islands.Some fish and sea cucumbers were likely to be among the first casualties of the dying plankton, Florentine said, adding that residents have already reported seeing some dead fish
ABC News (“Emissions cut needed to save reef: researcher”, 10/18, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/18/2062492.htm)
A University of Queensland researcher says the earth's corals could become extinct within decades because of increasing acid levels in the ocean. Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg says carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 90 per cent by 2050 to protect coral reefs. He says acid levels are increasing as the ocean absorbs higher levels of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He says if carbon dioxide levels in the oceans rise to 500 parts per million, it could be devastating.
Warming causes deadly coral calcification through ocean CO2 uptake.
USA Today 07 (“Scientists: Global warming could kill coral reefs by 2050”, 12/13, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-12-13-coral-reefs_n.htm)
Rising carbon emissions might kill off the ocean's coral reefs by 2050, scientists warn in today's edition of the journal Science. The review article, co-authored by 17 marine scientists in seven countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is the most comprehensive review so far of the catastrophic threat global warming poses to coral, and by extension many ocean species. Burning coal, oil and gas adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the same gas used to give soft drinks fizz. Just as carbon dioxide is absorbed into the drink, ocean water absorbs it from the air. When the carbon dioxide enters the ocean, it makes the water more acidic. That interferes with the ability of coral to calcify their skeletons: They can no longer grow and they begin to die. Coral reefs are important because they act as hatcheries and nurseries for open ocean fish. They also protect coasts from storms, and provide fish, recreation and tourism dollars. It is estimated that coral reef fisheries in Asia feed one billion people. The total economic value of coral is estimated to be $30 billion. But global warming is seriously threatening that crucial component of the ocean biodiversity, the marine scientists said.
We must address warming and cut emissions to save reefs.
Environment News Service 04 (“Warming Climate Linked to Reef Destruction”, 12/6, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2004/2004-12-06-01.asp)
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved in sea water make it more acid, which slows the building of coral skeletons, a process called calcification. Coral experts say that calcification is likely to be reduced by up to 40 percent in corals when there is a doubling of CO2 emissions, which is predicted to happen by the middle of this century. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas linked to global warming. Emitted by the burning of coal, oil and gas, it has been building up in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, trapping the Sun's heat close to the planet, warming the land and sea. At the Buenos Aires conference, some 5,000 participants from the Convention’s 189 Parties as well as from nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations will review progress under the Convention, develop a framework for international cooperation on adapting to the negative impacts of climate change, and address how to support developing countries as they adapt to a warming world. The reefs the most at risk of severe future degradation are in East Africa, South, South-East, and East Asia, and throughout the Caribbean, according to "Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004." Coral Bleached brain coral in the Florida Keys (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Coastal Geology) In the Caribbean, yearly economic losses of up to US$870 million will occur by 2015 if nothing is done to halt the current
decline in the region's coral reefs, the report warns. "To save coral reefs, governments must reduce CO2 emissions quickly, but also create marine protected areas to help ensure that corals are protected from all threats," said Dr. Simon Cripps, director of WWF's Global Marine Programme. "Coral reefs are worth more than US$30 billion annually, we can't afford to lose their social and economic value because of climate change or any other threat." WWF is one of the 20 organizations that published the report.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 115
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Coral Reefs – Survival Impact
Reefs are critical to human survival.
IPS 07 (“Environment: Between a Reef and a Hard Place”, 11/12, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40021)
Reefs are not only spectacular-looking habitats, they are the world's largest living organisms easily visible from space. Their economic and biological importance is staggering. While occupying less than one percent of the oceans, they are home to or a vital resource for 25 to 33 percent of the oceans' creatures. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) considers coral reefs one of the life-support systems essential for human survival.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 116
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Coral – A2: Calcification Turn
Increased warming is causing weaker skeletons in the oceans and ruining the diversity of coral reefs.
Australian Institute of Marine Science 2005 (February 24, “Issues: Coral reefs and climate change”, http://www3.aims.gov.au/pages/about/communications/issues/coral-reefs-and-climate-change-2005.html, Accessed 6/29/08)
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas) is changing the chemistry of the oceans. About 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities since the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by the oceans. This changes the chemistry of the oceans, which become more acidic (lower pH) and these change the concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions. Many marine organisms (corals, calcareous algae, shells, benthic and planktonic organisms such as foramanifera and coccolithophores) use calcium and carbonate ions from seawater to secrete calcium carbonate skeletons. Changing the ocean chemistry essentially shifts the geochemical equation by which these organisms "calcify". The implication of continued change in ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 is that these organisms will not calcify as well as they did in pre-industrial times and thus produce weaker skeletons and grow more slowly. For coral reefs weaker structures would reduce their resilience to the natural forces of erosion and slower growth will set back the rate of recovery after bleaching and other disturbances. Also, changing ocean chemistry will alter the deep ocean depths at which dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons of different mineralogies occurs. Modelling and experimental (eg Biosphere 2 mesocosm) studies have demonstrated that increased CO2 reduces coral calcification rates. A recent media report, based on respected coral reef researcher Jonathan Erez’s work in Israel, provides the first observational evidence from the field that lower pH is associated with reduced coral growth. Calcification rate also depends on water temperature and AIMS provided evidence (Lough & Barnes 2000) that several long-lived massive Porites on the GBR had increased their calcification rate towards the end of the 20th century (up to ~1980 when cores were collected) which matched the observed rise in GBR water temperatures (AIMS is currently examining more recent coral growth rates from short coral cores). This finding generated some controversy, as it did not match the model or experimental findings. The conclusion from this work was that, at least initially, some corals might respond more to rising water temperatures than to changes in ocean chemistry. More recently scientists from UNSW, CSIRO and AIMS (McNeil et al., 2004) published model results suggesting that the warming effect on coral calcification (in one coral species) outweighs the change in ocean chemistry and that coral calcification will increase with global warming. These controversial findings are currently being debated in the scientific literature. These studies focused on the most heat resistant type of coral and did not consider the overall effects on reef calcification rates of the widespread death of the majority of corals that are less heat resistant. How much ocean warming reefs can withstand will, however, be limited by when temperature thresholds for coral bleaching are regularly exceeded. The general scientific consensus is that changes in ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 has serious implications for coral reefs and other calcifying marine organisms of the open ocean and could well alter the makeup of marine ecosystems and weaken coral reef structures. There is clearly much more we need to learn about the effects of rising CO2 and marine calcification and the importance of this problem and its impacts on marine ecosystems is recognized by a planned international Workshop on the Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers, 18-20 April 2005, St Petersburg, Florida sponsored by NSF/NOAA/USGS (Lough from AIMS will be attending). Coral reefs of the world are under threat from both local and global-scale stresses. The enhanced Greenhouse effect (through bleaching and ocean chemistry changes) is likely to alter the community structure of reefs, including the world’s best-managed reefs of Australia. There is a clear scientific consensus (eg Wilkinson 2004) that reducing and reversing local human pressures on coral reefs has to be accompanied by reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if coral reefs are to survive
Warming leads to intense flooding in densely populated areas.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
Coasts _ Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise. The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas (very high confidence). {WGII 6.3, 6.4, SPM} _ By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected to experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The numbers affected will be largest in the densely populated and low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable (very high confidence). {WGII 6.4, 6.5, Table 6.11, SPM}
Floods caused by global warming devastate sustainable development, biodiversity, and drinking water supplies.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 27)
Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. It is likely that up to 20% of the world population will live in areas where river flood potential could increase by the 2080s. Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts are projected to adversely affect sustainable development. Increased temperatures will further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater lakes and rivers, with predominantly adverse impacts on many individual freshwater species, community composition and water quality. In coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate water resource constraints due to increased salinisation of groundwater supplies. {WGI 11.2-11.9; WGII 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 118
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Econ
Warming strains the global economy by devastating coastal industry and exacerbates poverty.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
_ The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially where rapid urbanisation is occurring. {WGII 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, SPM} _ Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas. {WGII 7.2, 7.4, 5.4, SPM}
Every delay in mitigation of emissions increases inevitable economic damage and increases the risk of warming-induced economic collapse.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 47)
The macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise with the stringency of the stabilisation target and are relatively higher when derived from baseline scenarios characterized by high emission levels. {WGIII SPM} There is high agreement and medium evidence that in 2050 globaln average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP (Table 5.2). This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points. Estimated GDP losses by 2030 are on average lower and show a smaller spread compared to 2050 (Table 5.2). For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average.33 {WGIII 3.3, 13.3, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 119
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Disease
Warming will strain the health care industry while increasing infectious disease spread.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 26)
The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases. {WGI 7.4, Box 7.4; WGII 8.ES, 8.2, 8.4, SPM} Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries. {WGII 8.4, 8.7, 8ES, SPM}
Warming will increase disease proliferation.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases, and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground- level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 120
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Refugees (1/5)
Warming empirically intensifies tropical storms worldwide to devastate infrastructure and economies while creating mass refugee flows.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 62-63)Rising seas are not the only threat that comes with elevated global temperatures. Higher surface water temperatures in the tropical oceans mean more energy radiating into the atmosphere to drive tropical storm systems, leading to more-destructive storms. The combination of rising seas, more powerful storms, and stronger storm surges can be devastating.56 Just how devastating this combination can be became evident in late August 2005, when Hurricane Katrina came onshore on the U.S. Gulf Coast near New Orleans. In some Gulf Coast towns, Katrina’s powerful 28-foot-high storm surge did not leave a single structure standing. New Orleans survived the initial hit but was flooded when the inland levees were breached and water covered everything in large parts of the city except for the rooftops, where thousands of people were stranded. Even in August 2006, a year after the storm had passed, the most damaged areas of the city remained without water, power, sewage disposal, garbage collection, or telecommunications.57 With advance warning of the storm and official urging to evacuate coastal areas, 1 million or so evacuees fled northward into Louisiana or to neighboring states of Texas and Arkansas. Of this total, some 290,000 have not yet returned home and will likely never do so. These storm evacuees are the world’s first large wave of climate refugees.58 Katrina was the most financially destructive hurricane ever to make landfall anywhere. It was one of eight hurricanes that hit the southeastern United States in 2004 and 2005. As a result of the unprecedented damage, insurance premiums have doubled, tripled, and even in some especially vulnerable situations gone up 10-fold. This enormous jump in insurance costs is lowering coastal real estate values and driving people and businesses out of highly exposed states like Florida.59 The devastation caused by Katrina was not an isolated incident. In the fall of 1998, Hurricane Mitch—one of the most powerful storms ever to come out of the Atlantic, with winds approaching 200 miles per hour—hit the east coast of Central America. As atmospheric conditions stalled the normal northward progression of the storm, some 2 meters of rain were dumped on parts of Honduras and Nicaragua within a few days. The deluge collapsed homes, factories, and schools, leaving them in ruins. It destroyed roads and bridges. Seventy percent of the crops and much of the topsoil in Honduras were washed away—topsoil that had accumulated over long stretches of geological time. Huge mudslides destroyed villages, burying some local populations.60
The storm left 11,000 dead. Thousands more, buried or washed out to sea, were never found. The basic infrastructure— the roads and bridges in Honduras and Nicaragua—was largely destroyed. President Flores of Honduras summed it up this way: “Overall, what was destroyed over several days took us 50 years to build.” The damage from this storm, exceeding the annual gross domestic product of the two countries, set their economic development back by 20 years.61 In 2004, Japan experienced a record 10 typhoons (hurricanes) that collectively caused $10 billion worth of losses. During the same season, Florida was hit by 4 of the 10 most costly hurricanes in U.S. history. These 4 hurricanes together generated insurance claims of $22 billion.62
Disasters caused by climate change lead to mass migration and war.
Pauchari 07 (R.K., IPCC chairman, “Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to the [IPCC]”, 12/10, p. 4-5, http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 121
Scholars Lab Warming
Migration and movement of people is a particularly critical source of potential conflict. Migration, usually temporary and often from rural to urban areas, is a common response to calamities such as floods and famines. But as in the case of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, where multiple stresses could be at work on account of a diversity of causes and conditions, so also in the case of migration, individuals may have multiple motivations and they could be displaced by multiple factors.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 122
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Refugees (2/5)
Rising sea levels create massive refugee flows that devastate shorelines.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 60-61)
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has analyzed the effect of a 10-meter rise in sea level, providing a sense of what the melting of the world’s largest ice sheets could mean. The IIED study begins by pointing out that 634 million people live along coasts at or below 10 meters above sea level, in what they call the Low Elevation Coastal Zone. This massive vulnerable group includes one eighth of the world’s urban population.52 One of the countries most vulnerable is China, with 144 million potential climate refugees. India and Bangladesh are next, with 63 and 62 million respectively. Viet Nam has 43 million vulnerable people, and Indonesia, 42 million. Others in the top 10 include Japan with 30 million, Egypt with 26 million, and the United States with 23 million.53 The world has never seen such a massive potential displacement of people. Some of the refugees could simply retreat to higher ground within their own country. Others—facing extreme crowding in the interior regions of their homeland— would seek refuge elsewhere. Bangladesh, already one of the world’s most densely populated countries, would face a far greater concentration: in effect, 62 million of its people would be forced to move in with the 97 million living on higher ground. Would a more sparsely populated country like the United States be willing to accommodate an influx of rising-sea refugees while it was attempting to relocate 23 million of its own citizens?54 Not only would some of the world’s largest cities, such as Shanghai, Kolkata, London, and New York, be partly or entirely inundated, but vast areas of productive farmland would also be lost. The rice-growing river deltas and floodplains of Asia would be covered with salt water, depriving Asia of part of its food supply. This loss of prime farmland would parallel the loss of river water as Himalayan glaciers disappear.55 In the end, the question is whether governments are strong enough to withstand the political and economic stress of relocating large numbers of people while suffering losses of housing and industrial facilities. The relocation is not only an internal matter, as a large share of the displaced people will want to move to other countries. Can governments withstand these stresses, or will more and more states fail?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 123
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Refugees (3/5)
Global warming is a critical component of the displacement of millions as refugees.
Marlowe Hood 7 (April 1, AFP News, “Global Warming Could Lead to Millions of Climate Refugees”, http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Could_Lead_To_Millions_Of_Climate_Refugees_999.html, Accessed 6/28/08)
A decade or so ago, greens coined the term "climate refugees" to describe the future victims of global warming. Today, experts say such refugees may already number in the millions and could reach 200 million by century's end, stoking tensions and potential for conflict.They point to Inuit communities literally undercut by melting ice in North America and Greenland, to the thirsty peoples around central Africa's fast-shrinking Lake Chad and the tens of thousands displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina.In the future, these ranks could be swollen by refugees fleeing flooded homes, parched farmland or wrecked economies, from small island states in the Pacific to tropical Africa and the Mediterranean rim."The issue of environmental refugees promises to rank as one of the foremost human crises or our time," Norman Myers, an Oxford University professor.What constitutes a refugee can stoke emotive debate.Critics of the term say it is a politically-charged misnomer, liable to hype or inaccuracy.Climate refugees, they argue, should not be confused with people who flee their homes because of ecological stress caused by over-population, pollution, abuse of freshwater or other acts of greed, ill judgement or bad planning.In the case of Katrina, scientists acknowledge a single extreme weather event cannot by itself be pinned to a long-term phenomenon, although they also point out that warmer seas provide raw fuel to make hurricanes more vicious.
But they also say that global warming is already amplifying environmental problems in many countries -- and in the future, it will almost certainly help to push vulnerable communities over the edge."There is going to be a lot of population movement linked to climate," said Thomas Downing, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Oxford."Not all will be permanent refugees, but when you add climate to other forces that push people beyond the capacity to cope, the numbers will increase."A Red Cross and Red Crescent study in 2000 said 25 million people had left their homes because of environmental stress, roughly as many as the refugees from armed conflict.
Myers, one of the leading experts on the link between climate change and forced migration, says the number could double by 2010 and reach as high as 200 million "once global warming kicks in."For fragile island nations such as Tuvalu in the South Pacific and Maldives in the Indian Ocean, global warming poses a triple threat.Warmer seas spell a threat to the coral upon which islanders depend to attract both fish and tourists; decreasing rainfall threatens drinking water supplies; and higher sea levels pose a threat by storm flooding or even inundation.In the densely populated flood-plains of Bangladesh, rising seas will not only ruin fertile flood plains but stoke the storm surges that periodically ravage the low-lying nation. Drought or water stress is another problem. According to one study, the crippling heatwave that struck Western Europe in 2003 and left tens of thousands dead is likely to be commonplace by 2100, a scenario that is especially bleak for people on the Mediterranean coast and its hinterland.But even in cases where global warming is clearly to blame, there exists no clear mechanism to help its victims or provide legal redress against the polluters who caused the problem. "There is no legal recognition of people displaced by environmental causes" and no international treaty protecting them, explained Stephanie Long of Friends of the Earth International.On Friday, the UN's top expert forum on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to issue an update of the scientific knowledge for global warming.A draft IPCC document seen by AFP said Earth's surface temperature could rise by up to 4.5 C (8.1 F) or even higher if carbon dioxide (CO2) levels double over pre-industrial levels.On current trends, this pollution level could be reached early in the next half of this century.Sea levels would rise by between 28 and 43 centimetres (11.2-17.2 inches).Downing says the refugee issue is getting short shrift among both scientists and policymakers. Tens of millions of people without homes or jobs provides fuel for friction."The IPCC should be assessing the big risks -- and refugees should be one of those issues, in so far as it has the capacity to affect world stability."
Climate change is a huge component of the refugee problem.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Climate change will have several impacts on the environment which in turn can impact on forced migration and conflict. Gradual environmental degradation and slow-onset disasters such as drought are likely to increase due to climate change. Most vulnerable are developing countries where large sections of the population live directly from agriculture and many of these from subsistence farming. Importantly, adaptation, involving for example different land-use techniques and livelihood diversification, would lessen the need to migrate. Climate change is also likely to lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of sudden disasters such as floods and storms. Many of the affected are particularly vulnerable (typically poor) people in developing countries. Hence, they have little mobility. Climate change impacts can impoverish them and reduce their mobility even further. As is the case with drought, sudden disaster impact depends on several political and socio-economic factors, including adaptation measures (for example flood defence infrastructure). Forced migration is also likely to result from rising sea levels, and certain low-lying island states may disappear altogether, raising difficult questions of statelessness. Forced migration can be triggered by – and itself also trigger – environmental conflicts. In transit or at the place of destination, migration can (be perceived to and/or) contribute to a competition for already scarce resources such as land and water. Most conflicts with an environmental element have historically occurred within countries. The degradation of freshwater resources can trigger competition and conflict. Sudden disasters such as storms and floods often highlight existing domestic problems, revealing weaknesses of the government in power and may thereby exacerbate conflict. Conflict potential normally depends on a range of socio-economic and political factors often similar to those that can trigger forced migration. Governance and the role of the state are often crucial factors. In fact, cooperation rather than conflict may be the response to some environmental challenges.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 125
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Refugees (5/5)
Addressing climate change is a critical component of addressing the problem of refugees.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
If it is better to prevent than to cure, one should also try to deal with the root causes of forced migration and conflict. Adaptation to climate change in developing countries must be made a top priority along with mitigation. Alongside more typical information and infrastructure measures, addressing general factors of forced migration and conflict can contribute to vulnerability reduction and adaptation. A broad approach to climate change adaptation is needed. Hopefully, climate change will foster a new and stronger sense of solidarity. It provides an opportunity for cooperation in addressing global issues such as conflict and displacement.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 126
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Refugees – War Impact
Refugees are a critical source of conflict.
Crispin Tickell 2001 (March 8, Lecture at Oxford University, “Risks of conflict – resources and population pressures”, http://www.crispintickell.com/page13.html, Accessed 6/28/08)
Another prime threat arises from refugees. They are a consequence as well as a cause of destabilization. Refugees fall into three broad categories: political refugees (those covered by the UN High Commission for Refugees); economic migrants (those who move from poorer to apparently richer parts of the world); and environmental refugees (those driven out of their homes by changing environmental conditions). Of course there is some blurring between the three groups. Yet there has been a reluctance to recognise environmental refugees as such.
All categories have greatly increased in number over the last quarter century. In January 2000 there were over 22 million political refugees. Environmental refugees, as they have no legal status, are more difficult to quantify, but a 1995 estimate put them at 25 million, with particularly large numbers in Africa south of the Sahara. In the circumstances I have described, the total number could greatly increase during this century. It is worth looking in more detail at one of the issues raised by refugees. At present a heavy concentration of people is living in low lying coastal areas along
the world's great river systems. Nearly one third of humanity lives within 60 kilometres of a coastline. A rise in mean sea level of only 25 cm would have substantial effects, and the predictions are for much more in the next 100 years. The industrial countries might be able to construct new sea defences to protect vulnerable areas, but even they would have difficulty with coping with high tides and storm surges of a kind likely to be more common. For most poor countries such defences would be out of the question. Many of those living and working in, for example, the delta areas of the Nile, the Ganges and the Yangtze and the Zambezi would be forced out of their homes and livelihood. Such islands as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, and Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific would soon become uninhabitable. Bangladesh with its population of well over 100 million, and Egypt with its population of almost as much, would be particularly affected. A rise in sea level beyond half a metre would have more drastic results. The world would look a different place.
What then could be the scale of the human problem ten, twenty, or forty years from now? Even allowing for piecemeal, gradual responses year by year to the imperatives of change, it would be very large. Plucking a figure from the air, if only 1% (a very low estimate) of a world population of eight billion in 2040 were affected, that would still mean some 80 million refugees of all kinds; and 5% (again a low estimate) would produce 400 million. Even 80 million represents a problem of an order of magnitude which no one has yet had to face. Nor is it all. Refugees create their own problems. In some cases they can return to their countries of origin. In others they can be resettled. Economic migrants or environmental refugees fall into another category whether they stay in their own country or cross into another. At present they are mostly a phenomenon in poor countries. Shelter, food and medical care are hard to find. There is little prospect of return. They often come from another environment (for example highland Ethiopians are forced down to the plains), and bring with them alien customs, religious practices, eating habits, agricultural methods, and - not least - diseases, with susceptibility to local pathogens. Most have great difficulty in adjusting themselves to new circumstances. Like normal refugees, they mostly depend on charity. Resettlement is never easy,
and full assimilation is rare. In any numbers they tend to spread their poverty around them, and to compound the problem from which they first tried to escape. In a world of rapid change they would constitute only one of myriad animal species trying to cope with disruption of their way of life. Within a country refugees would represent a dangerous element in what would anyway be increasing difficulties of social and economic management. Some governments can cope, some evidently cannot. But few outside the industrial world have the structure or resources to manage a continuing crisis. Such secondary effects as disorder, terrorism, economic breakdown, disease, or bankruptcy, could become endemic. We are all too familiar with them already. Between countries and regions there would be still greater difficulties. To a greater or lesser extent all would be suffering, and undergoing adjustment. Thus willingness to help others
would be limited, the more so if such help threatened to put at risk the adjustment process at home. In times of trouble the pressure of recognizable aliens is liable to ignite popular resentment with the speed of a brush fire. In industrial countries many feel rightly or wrongly that there is an absolute limit to the number of people from other countries and cultures which can be absorbed without damaging social cohesion and national identity. Some of them certainly welcome migrants with particular qualities and skills. Countries with ageing populations could find a well controlled infusion of the young an advantage. But general resistance to refugees has become popular politics. They can even bedevil foreign policy. As we have recently seen, Albanian, Kurdish, Tamil, Ethopian and Eritrean refugees often want to use their safety abroad to play politics at home. This can be profoundly embarrassing to the host country. Any aggravation of the refugee problem would only strengthen such resistance.
Warming causes conditions conducive to forest fires. Fires have increased four times in the last sixteen yearsWest, Larry (Environmental issues critic) “global warming linked to forest fires” May 25, 2007 http://environment.about.com/b/2007/05/25/global-warming-linked-to-rising-number-of-us-forest-fires.htm
Forest fires in the Western United States have occurred more frequently, burned longer, and covered more acres since 1987—and global warming is a big part of the underlying cause—according to a research paper published in July 2006 by the journal Science. Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Arizona found four times as many large wildfires occurred in Western forests between 1987 and 2003 compared to the previous 16 years. The more recent fires burned 6.5 more land, the average duration of the fires increased from 7.8 to 37 days, and the overall fire season during those years grew by an average of 78 days. Those changes corresponded to an average 1.5-degree rise in temperature throughout the American West during the same time period. According to the study, the first to link global warming to wildfires, the warmer temperatures due to climate change have led to longer, drier seasons, creating ideal conditions for forest fires. "The real message of the paper is not as much about forest management," said Steven Running, a University of Montana ecology professor and one of the study's peer reviewers, according to an article in the Sacremento Bee. "It's that this is yet another dimension of global warming's impact. To me, it's the equivalent of the hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. This is our hurricane."
Warming => Fires O’brien, Dennis (Baltimore Sun) “Climate change link seen in surge of Wildfires Study Correlates warming with fires” July 7, 2006 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG7JJR8521.DTL
Rising temperatures and earlier melting of snowpacks have sharply increased the number of Western wildfires -- and scientists say to expect more of the same if the trend persists. Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Arizona examined 34 years of forest fire reports in 11 Western states and found the number of fires increased in size and severity since 1987, the same year that spring and summer temperatures began to rise. "It's a very good snapshot of what's been happening in the Western forests over the past three decades," said lead author Anthony Westerling, a fire climatologist at UC Merced. Westerling conducted the research while at the Scripps Institution. The findings were published today in Science. The researchers examined U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service records of every forest fire that burned at least 1,000 acres from 1970 to 2003. They found that of 1,166 fires in that period, four-fifths of them, or about 900, occurred after 1987. They also found that air temperatures from 1987 to 2003 were 1.6 degrees higher than during the previous 17 years; that 6.5 times more acreage burned during that warmer period; and that the firefighting season increased by 78 days, the study says. The reason is simple: Warmer springs and longer dry seasons are creating more kindling in the Western woods, the researchers say. The biggest increase in forest fires was in the northern Rockies, in the mountains around Yellowstone National Park and the Bitterroot Range, at elevations between 6,000 and 8,000 feet, the study says. It is in those areas that melting snowpacks have the most significant role in determining forest fire risk, Westerling said. The study does not prove that human-induced climate change is causing more forest fires, Westerling said. But it does show that more fires are likely to start if the warming trend continues. Researchers did not address why temperatures have risen. The study says temperatures in the 11 states from 1987 to 2003 were the warmest since 1895, when record keeping began. The study does not examine trends beyond the Western states. Nationwide, wildfires burned an average of 3.6 million acres in the 1990s, but that number shot up to a record 8.4 million acres in 2000. That remained a record until 2005, when 8.6 million acres burned, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Wild fires cause immense CO2 output and environmental destructionEnvironmental Research Web 07http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/31742Christine Wiedinmyer, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, estimates that the southern California fires released 7.9 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide between 19th–26th October. That’s equivalent to about one quarter of the average monthly emissions from fossil fuel burning throughout California. Wiedinmyer and colleague Jason Neff at the University of Colorado use satellite observations of fires and a computer model to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide emitted based on the mass of vegetation burned. They reckon that their calculations have a margin of error of about 50% from difficulties in measuring the extent of the fire precisely and because different types of blaze emit different amounts of carbon dioxide. On a national scale, the pair calculate that fires in the US release about 290 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – about 4–6% of the amount that the country emits by fossil fuel burning. “A striking implication of very large wildfires is that a severe fire season lasting only one or two months can release as much carbon as the annual emissions from the entire transportation or energy sector of an individual state," they write in a paper in Carbon Balance and Management. Of course, forests will re-grow after fires, re-absorbing the carbon dioxide released but that process may take decades. Recent research into boreal forests in Canada found that fires can transform the forest from a weak carbon sink to a weak carbon source by altering the balance of vegetation present. And fires cause other environmental concerns such as the release of large amounts of ash, destruction of topsoil and damage to wildlife and habitat – not to mention loss of human life and damage to people’s homes. Foam released by firefighters may also get into rivers, causing damage to ecosystems at a later date.
Wild fires cause severe environmental damage and economic costFAO Website, Accessed June 30, 2008(Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations)http://www.fao.org/forestry/firemanagement/en/FIRE HAS BEEN A MAJOR INFLUENCE on the development and management of many of the world’s forests. Some forest ecosystems have evolved in response to frequent fires from natural as well as human causes, but most others are negatively affected by wildfire. Every year millions of hectares of the world’s forests are consumed by fire, which results in enormous economic losses because of destroyed timber, burnt housing, high costs of fire suppression, damage to environmental, recreational and amenity values and loss of life and livelihoods.
Warming-intensified wildfires will devastate biodiversity.Mongabay.com 06 (environmental science and conservation newsletter, “Global Warming Threatens U.S.”, 10/6, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1006-nwf.html)
Drier conditions will exacerbate wildfires. The acreage burned by wildfires is expected to double in size across 11 western states between 2070-2100, according to recent studies. Higher temperatures will affect regional biodiversity especially cold-water fisheries (i.e. trout and salmon), wetlands species, and high elevation wildlife populations. "Global warming is projected to reduce boreal habitat in all of the mountain ranges of the Great Basin region, contributing to a 44-percent loss of mammal species, a 23-percent loss of butterfly species, a 30-percent loss of perennial grasses and forbs and a 17-percent loss of shrub species," warns the report.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 129
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Fires – Nuclear Winter
Massive forest fires are like localized nuclear war
NYT 87 (10-20, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DE133EF933A15753C1A961948260)The dark pall of smoke hovering above giant forest fires recently in the West has yielded a scientific bonanza for researchers studying whether nuclear warfare would plunge the earth into a freezing ''nuclear winter.'' ''The conditions that existed in southern Oregon and Northern California were as close as one is likely to see to conditions one might expect after the use of nuclear weapons,'' said Bernard Zak, atmospheric program coordinator at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. The fires yielded ''at least 10 times as much data'' as the controlled brushfire last year in the San Dimas Experimental Forest northeast of Los Angeles, said Mr. Zak, a physicist whose work is financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency. Smoke on Regional Scale ''Fire and smoke began to approach the regional scale we expect to see after a nuclear war, although certainly they didn't come anywhere close to the global scale,'' said Richard Turco, a Marina del Rey atmospheric scientist.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 130
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (1/7)
Glacial earthquakes and ice sheet collapse mean global warming increases sea levels.
In new studies, scientists report that global warming may cause sea levels to rise dramatically in a century—and is now producing a newfound and growing phenomenon, “glacial earthquakes.” Three studies published in the March 24 issue of the research journal Science warn of the events. Two studies found that the Earth may be warm enough by 2100 for widespread melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and partial collapse of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. In one paper, Jonathan Overbeck at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., and colleagues wrote that based on reconstructions of past climates, conditions could be ripe to raise sea level by several meters (yards) by this century’s end. Most scientists believe the melting is due to global warming, a gradual increase in the Earth’s temperature caused by the burning of fossil fuels. In a third study, seismologists reported an unexpected offshoot of global warming: “glacial earthquakes,” in which Manhattan-sized glaciers lurch unexpectedly. Glaciers are normally slow-moving masses of ice. The lurches yield temblors up to magnitude 5.1 on the moment-magnitude scale, which is similar to the Richter scale, the researchers said. Glacial earthquakes in Greenland, they added, are most common in July and August, and have more than doubled in number since 2002. The researchers, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. and Columbia University in New York, first described glacial earthquakes in 2003, but without reporting on their seasonality or changing frequency. “People often think of glaciers as inert and slow-moving, but in fact they can also move rather quickly,” said Harvard’s Göran Ekström, one of the researchers. “Some of Greenland’s glaciers, as large as Manhattan and as tall as the Empire State Building, can move 10 meters (11 yards) in less than a minute, a jolt that is sufficient to generate moderate seismic waves.” As glaciers and the snow on them gradually melt, water seeps downward. When enough water accumulates at a glacier’s base, it can serve as a lubricant, causing giant blocks of ice to lurch down valleys known as “outlet glaciers,” the team explained. These funnel Greenland’s glacial runoff toward the surrounding sea. “Our results suggest that these major outlet glaciers can respond to changes in climate conditions much more quickly than we had thought,” said Meredith Nettles, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia and member of the research team. “Greenland’s glaciers deliver large quantities of fresh water to the oceans, so the implications for climate change are serious.” Greenland is not a hotbed of traditional seismic activity associated with the grinding of the Earth’s tectonic plates, the traditional source of earthquakes, the scientists noted. But seismometers worldwide detected 182 earthquakes there between January 1993 and October 2005, they added. They examined the 136 best-documented of these events, ranging in magnitude from 4.6 to 5.1. All temblors were found to have originated at major valleys draining the Greenland Ice Sheet, they said, implicating glacial activity. While glacial earthquakes appear most common in Greenland, the scientists reported finding evidence of them also in Alaska and at the edges of Antarctica.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 131
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (2/7)
Even conservative models show warming causes substantial sea level rise.
Meehl 05 (Gerald A., research scientist at Climate & Global Dynamics, “How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?”, Science 18, Vol. 307, no. 5716, p. 1769-1722, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5716/1769)
The Parallel Climate Model (PCM) has been used extensively for climate change experiments (10–15). This model has a relatively low climate sensitivity as compared to other models, with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.1°C and a transient climate response (TCR) (the globally averaged surface air temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% CO2 increase experiment) of 1.3°C. The former is indicative of likely atmospheric feedbacks in the model, and the latter includes ocean heat uptake and provides an indication of the transient response of the coupled climate system (6, 12). A second global coupled climate model is the newly developed Community Climate System Model version 3 (CCSM3), with higher horizontal resolution (atmospheric gridpoints roughly every 1.4° as compared to the PCM, with gridpoints about every 2.8°) and improved parameterizations in all components of atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land surface (16). The CCSM3 has somewhat higher sensitivity, with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7°C and TCR of 1.5°C. Both models have about 1° ocean resolution (0.5° in the equatorial tropics), with dynamical sea ice and land surface schemes. These models were run for four- and eight-member ensembles for the PCM and CCSM3, respectively, for each scenario (except for five members for A2 in CCSM3) The 20th-century simulations for both models include time-evolving changes in forcing from solar, volcanoes, GHGs, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols (14, 17). Additionally, the CCSM3 includes black carbon distributions scaled by population over the 20th century, with those values scaled by sulfur dioxide emissions for the rest of the future climate simulations. The CCSM3 also uses a different solar forcing data set for the 20th century (18). These 20th-century forcing differences between CCSM3 and PCM are not thought to cause large differences in response in the climate change simulations beyond the year 2000 The warming in both the PCM and CCSM3 is close to the observed value of about 0.6°C for the 20th century (19), with PCM warming 0.6°C and CCSM3 warming 0.7°
(averaged over the period 1980–1999 in relation to 1890–1919). Sea level rises are 3 to 5 cm, respectively, over the 20th century as compared to the observed estimate of 15 to 20 cm. This lower value from the models is consistent with the part of 20th-century sea level rise thought to be caused by thermal expansion (20, 21), because as the ocean warms, seawater expands and sea level rises. Neither model includes contributions to sea level rise due to ice sheet or glacier melting. Partly because of this, the sea level rise calculations for the 20th century from the models are probably at
least a factor of 3 too small (20, 21). Therefore, the results here should be considered to be the minimum values of sea level rise. Contributions from future ice sheet and glacier melting could perhaps at least double the projected sea level rise produced by thermal expansion (1). Atmospheric CO2 is the dominant anthropogenic GHG (22), and its time evolution can be used to illustrate the various scenarios (Fig. 1A). The three Special Report for Emissions Scenarios (SRES) show low (B1), medium (A1B), and high (A2) increases of CO2 over the course of the 21st
century. Three stabilization experiments were performed: one with concentrations of all constituents held constant at year 2000 values and two (B1 and A1B) with concentrations held constant at year 2100 values. Although these are idealized stabilization experiments, it would take a significant reduction of emissions below 1990 values within a few decades and within about a century to achieve stabilized concentrations in B1 and A1B, respectively (23). Even if we could have stopped any further increases in all atmospheric constituents as of the year
2000, the PCM and CCSM3 indicate that we are already committed to 0.4° and 0.6°C, respectively, more global warming by the year 2100 as compared to the 0.6°C of warming observed at the end of the 20th century (Table 1 and Fig. 1B). (The range of the ensembles for the climate model temperature anomalies here and to follow is about ±0.1°C.) But we are already committed to proportionately much more sea level rise from thermal expansion (Fig. 1C). At the end of the 21st century, as compared to the end of the 20th century (1980–1999 base period), warming in the low-estimate climate change scenario (SRES B1) is 1.1° and
1.5°C in the two models (Table 1 and Fig. 1B), with sea level rising to 13 and 18 cm above year 1999 levels. The spread among the ensembles for sea level in all cases amounts to less than ±0.3 cm. A medium-range scenario (SRES A1B) produces a warming at the end of the 21st century
of 1.9° and 2.6°C, with about 18 and 25 cm of sea level rise in the two models. For the high-estimate scenario (A2), warming at 2100 is about 2.2° and 3.5°C, and sea level rise is 19 and 30 cm. The range of transient temperature response in the two models for the 20th century through the mid-21st century is considerably less than the range in their equilibrium climate sensitivities (Table 1) due in part to less than doubled CO2 forcing as well as ocean heat uptake characteristics (24). Thus, our confidence in model simulations of 20th-century climate change and projections for much of the 21st century (as represented by the range in the transient response of the models) is considerably better than that represented
by the larger uncertainty range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity among the models. If concentrations of all GHGs and other atmospheric constituents in these simulations are held fixed at year 2100 values, we would be committed to an additional warming by the year 2200 for B1 of about 0.1° to 0.3°C for the models (Fig. 1B). This small warming commitment is related to the fact that CO2 concentrations had already started to stabilize at about 2050 in this scenario (Fig. 1A). But even for this small warming commitment in B1, there is almost double the sea level rise seen over the course of the 21st century by 2200, or an additional 12 and 13 cm (Fig. 1C). For A1B, about 0.3°C of additional warming occurs by 2200, but again there is roughly a doubling of 21st-century sea level rise by the year 2200, or an additional 17 and 21 cm. By 2300 (not shown), with concentrations still held at year 2100 values, there would be less than another 0.1°C of warming in either scenario, but yet again about another doubling of the committed sea level rise that occurred during the 22nd century, with additional increases of 10 and 18 cm from thermal expansion for the two models for the stabilized B1 experiment, and 14 and 21 cm for A1B as compared to year 2200 values. Sea level rise would continue for at least two more centuries beyond 2300, even with these stabilized concentrations of GHGs (2).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 132
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (3/7)
Warming is causing unprecedented increases in sea level.
Gornitz 07 (Dr. Vivien, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies scientist, “Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today”, Jan., http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/)
Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level. Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 133
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (4/7)
Moderate warming drastically raises sea levels by disintegrating ice sheets.
Union of Concerned Scientists 6/19 (“EWS: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding”, 08, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/early-warning-signs-of-global-warming-sealevel-rise-and-coastal-flooding.html)
Worldwide measurements from tidal gauges indicate that global mean sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm (18 cm average) during the last 100 years (Warrick et al., 1996). This rate is greater than the average of the last few thousand years estimated from geological and archaeological records; the timing of the onset of this acceleration, however, is uncertain (Gornitz, 1995; Warrick et al., 1996). There is no evidence for an acceleration of sea-level rise during this century, nor would any necessarily be expected from the observed climate change to date (Warrick et al., 1996). The IPCC Second Assessment Report estimated a sea-level rise for the next 100 years of about 49 cm, with a range of uncertainty of 20-86 cm. New emissions scenarios being prepared for an IPCC Special Report have much lower sulfur dioxide levels, which have a cooling effect via the production of sulfate aerosols. Thus, preliminary projections of sea-level rise using the new emissions data are slightly higher (Wigley, 1999). In either scenario, the projected rate of sea-level rise is at least two to four times the rate of the last century. A major source of uncertainty about sea-level rise is the future behavior of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. For example, disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) which lies grounded on land below sea level could eventually raise sea level by 4 to 6 meters (Bindschadler, 1998; Kerr, 1998; Rignot, 1998; Bindschadler et al., 1999). WAIS is presently fringed by floating ice shelves that slow the release of icebergs into the sea. Although increasing temperatures in this region would be insufficient to cause melting, the warmer air would likely bring increased snowfall. The resulting positive mass balance of the ice sheet could lead to a rapid advance, or "surge," accelerating the discharge of ice and raising sea level (Warrick et al., 1996). Most scientists believe that collapse of WAIS within the next century is unlikely, but there is some concern for an irreversible destabilizing of the ice sheet even with relatively modest warming (e.g., Oppenheimer, 1998). A new study suggests that the modern grounding-line retreat is part of an ongoing recession that has been under way for a few thousand years (Conway et al., 1999). The authors conclude that the retreat is independent of anthropogenic warming or sea level rise but nevertheless could lead to complete disintegration of the WAIS within the present interglacial period. In Greenland, the southern regions of the ice sheet are likely to be most susceptible to climate change and could contribute to sea-level rise through melting and runoff at the margins. Observations are insufficient to determine if the ice volume changed significantly during the past century. Recent aircraft surveys using laser-altimetry, however, indicate that between 1993 and 1998 the southeastern part of the ice sheet thinned overall (Krabill et al., 1999).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 134
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (5/7)
Glaciers prove – warming will increase sea level.
Science Daily 2/12 (“Global Warming: Sea Level Rise Could be Twice as High as Current Projections, Greenland Ice Sheet Study Suggests”, 08, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172517.htm)
Traditionally, ice sheet models are very simplified, according to Beata Csatho, Ph.D., assistant professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences and lead author of the paper.* "Ice sheet models usually don't include all the complexity of ice dynamics that can happen in nature," said Csatho. "This research will give ice sheet modelers more precise, more detailed data." The implications of these richer datasets may be dramatic, Csatho said, especially as they impact climate projections and sea-level rise estimates, such as those made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "If current climate models from the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be twice as high as what they are currently projecting," she said. The paper focuses on Jakobshavn Isbrae, Greenland's fastest moving glacier and its largest, measuring four miles wide. During the past decade, Jakobshavn Isbrae has begun to experience rapid thinning and doubling of the amount of ice it discharges into Disko Bay. "Although the thinning started as early as the end of the 18th century, the changes we are seeing now are bigger than can be accounted for by normal, annual perturbations in climate," Csatho said. At the other end of the earth, the 2-kilometer-thick Antarctic ice sheet, which covers a continent about twice the size of Australia and contains 70 percent of the world’s fresh water, is also beginning to melt. Ice shelves that extend from the continent into the surrounding seas are starting to break up at an alarming pace.46 In May 2007, a team of scientists from NASA and the University of Colorado reported satellite data showing widespread snow-melt on the interior of the Antarctic ice sheet over an area the size of California. This melting in 2005 was 900 kilometers inland, only about 500 kilometers from the South Pole. Konrad Steffen, one of the scientists involved, observed, “Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming.”47 The ice shelves surrounding Antarctica are formed by the flow of glaciers off the continent into the surrounding sea. This flow of ice, fed by the continuous formation of new ice on land and culminating in the breakup of the shelves on the outer fringe and the calving of icebergs, is not new. What is new is the pace of this process. When Larsen A, a huge ice shelf on the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, broke up in 1995, it was a signal that all was not well in the region. Then in 2000, a huge iceberg nearly the size of Connecticut—11,000 square kilometers, or 4,250 square miles—broke off the Ross Ice Shelf.48 After Larsen A broke up, it was only a matter of time, given the rise in temperature in the region, before neighboring Larsen B would do the same. So when the northern part of the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed into the sea in March 2002, it was not a total surprise. At about the same time, a huge chunk of ice broke off the Thwaites Glacier. Covering 5,500 square kilometers, this iceberg was the size of Rhode Island.49 Even veteran ice watchers are amazed at how quickly the disintegration is occurring. “The speed of it is staggering,” said Dr. David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, which has been monitoring the Larsen Ice Shelf closely. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, in the vicinity of the Larsen Ice Shelf, the average temperature has risen 2.5 degrees Celsius over the last five decades.50 When ice shelves already largely in the water break off from the continental ice mass, this does not have much direct effect on sea level per se. But without the ice shelves to impede the flow of glacial ice, typically moving 400–900 meters a year, the flow of ice from the continent could accelerate, leading to a thinning of the ice sheet on the edges of the Antarctic continent. If this were to happen, sea level would rise accordingly.51
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 135
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (6/7)
Warming causes glacial and sea ice to melt at accelerating rates and heighten the sea level – we are currently at the tipping point of making a massive increase inevitable.
Brown 08 (Lester R., Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, p. 57-59)
Ice melting in mountainous regions not only affects river flows, it also affects sea level rise. On a larger scale, the melting of the earth’s two massive ice sheets—Antarctica and Greenland— could raise sea level enormously. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, it would raise sea level 7 meters (23 feet). Melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level 5 meters (16 feet). But even just partial melting of these ice sheets will have a dramatic effect on sea level rise. Senior scientists are noting that the IPCC projections of sea level rise during this century of 18 to 59 centimeters are already obsolete and that a rise of 2 meters during this time is within range.35 Assessing the prospects for the Greenland ice sheet begins
with looking at the warming of the Arctic region. A 2005 study, Impacts of a Warming Arctic, concluded that the Arctic is warming almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Conducted by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
team, an international group of 300 scientists, the study found that in the regions surrounding the Arctic, including Alaska,
western Canada, and eastern Russia, winter temperatures have already climbed by 3-4 degrees Celsius (4–7 degrees
Fahrenheit) over the last half-century. Robert Corell, chair of ACIA, says this region “is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth.”36 In testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit speaking on behalf of the 155,000 Inuits who live in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and the Russian Federation, described their struggle to survive in the fast-changing Arctic climate as “a snapshot of what is happening to the planet.” She called the warming of the Arctic “a defining event in the history of this planet.” And she went on to say “the Earth is literally melting.”37 The ACIA report described how the retreat of the sea ice has devastating consequences for polar bears, whose very survival may be at stake. A subsequent report indicated that polar bears, struggling to survive, are turning to cannibalism. Also threatened are ice-dwelling seals, a basic food source for the Inuit.38 Since this 2005 report, there is new evidence that the problem is worse than previously thought. A team of scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which has compiled data on
Arctic Ocean summer ice melting from 1953 to 2006, concluded that the ice is melting much faster than climate models had predicted. They found that from 1979 to 2006 the summer sea ice shrinkage accelerated to 9.1 percent a decade. In 2007, Arctic sea ice shrank some 20 percent below the previous record set in 2005. This suggests that the sea could be ice-free well before 2050, the earliest date projected by the IPCC in its 2007 report. Arctic scientist Julienne Stroeve observed that the shrinking Arctic sea ice may have reached “a tipping point that could trigger a cascade of climate change reaching into Earth’s temperate regions.”39 Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Comiso reported for the first time that even the winter ice cover in the Arctic Ocean shrank by 6 percent in 2005 and againin 2006. This new development, combined with the news that the sea ice cover is thinning, provides
further evidence that the ice is not recovering after its melt season, meaning that summer ice in the Arctic Ocean could disappear much sooner than earlier thought possible.40 Walt Meier, a researcher at the U.S. National
Snow and Ice Data Center who tracks the changes in Arctic sea ice, views the winter shrinkage with alarm. He believes there is “a good chance” that the Arctic tipping point has been reached. “People have tried to think of ways we could get back to where we were. We keep going further and further in the hole, and it’s getting harder and harder to get out of it.” Some scientists now think that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer as early as 2030.41 Scientists are concerned that “positive feedback loops” may be starting to kick in. This term refers to a situation where a trend already under way begins to reinforce itself. Two of these potential feedback mechanisms are of particular concern to scientists. The first, in the Arctic, is the albedo effect. When incoming sunlight strikes the ice in the Arctic Ocean, up to 70 percent of it is reflected back into space. Only 30 percent is absorbed as heat. As the Arctic sea ice melts, however, and the incoming sunlight hits the much darker open water, only 6 percent is reflected back into space and 94 percent is converted into heat. This may account for the accelerating shrinkage of the Arctic sea ice and the rising regional temperature that directly affects the
Greenland ice sheet.42 If all the ice in the Arctic Ocean melts, it will not affect sea level because the ice is already in the water. But it will lead to a much warmer Arctic region as more of the incoming sunlight is absorbed as heat. This is of particular concern because Greenland lies largely within the Arctic Circle. As the Arctic region warms, the island’s ice sheet—up to 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) thick in places—is beginning to melt.43 The second positive feedback mechanism also has to do with ice melting. What scientists once thought was a fairly simple linear process—that is, a certain amount at the surface of an ice sheet melts each year, depending on the
temperature—is now seen to be much more complicated. As the surface ice begins to melt, some of the water filters down through cracks in the glacier, lubricating the surface between the glacier and the rock beneath it. This accelerates the glacial flow and the calving of icebergs into the surrounding ocean. The relatively warm water flowing through the glacier also carries surface heat deep inside the ice sheet far faster than it would otherwise penetrate by simple conduction.44
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 136
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise (7/7)
Warming empirically leads to rising sea levels.
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, Chapter 1, p.1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
Throughout geologic history, sea level has risen and fallen by over three hundred meters (one thousand feet). Although changes in the size and shape of the oceans' basins have played a role over very long periods of time (Hays and Pitman 1973), the most important changes in sea level have been caused by changes in climate. During the last ice age (18,000 years ago), for example, the earth was about five degrees Celsius colder than today, glaciers covered most of the northern hemisphere, and sea level was one hundred meters (three hundred feet) lower than it is today (Donn, Farrand, and Ewing 1962). Although most of the glaciers have melted since the last ice age, polar glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica still contain enough water to raise sea level more than seventy meters (over two hundred feet) (Untersteiner 1975). A complete meeting of these glaciers has not occurred in the last two million years, and would take tens of thousands of years even if the earth warmed substantially. However, unlike the other glaciers, which rest on land, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet rests in the ocean and is thus more vulnerable. Warmer ocean water would be more effective than warmer air at melting glaciers and could melt the ice shelves that prevent the entire glacier from sliding into the oceans. Mercer (1970) suggests that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet completely disappeared during the last interglacial period (which was one or two degrees warmer than today and occurred 100,000 years ago), at which time sea level was five to seven meters (about twenty feet) above its present level. Over periods of decades, climate can influence sea level by heating and thereby expanding (or cooling and contracting) sea water. In the last century, tidal gauges have been available to measure relative sea level in particular locations. Along the Atlantic Coast, sea level has risen about 30 centimeters (one foot) in the last century (Hicks, Debaugh, and Hickman 1983). Studies combining tide gaue measurements around the world have concluded that average global sea level has risen ten to fifteen centimeters (four to six inches) in the last one hundred years (Barnett 1983; Gornitz, Lebedeff, and Hansen 1982). About five centimeters of this rise can be explained by the thermal expansion of the upper layers of the oceans resulting from the observed global warming of 0.4C in the last century (Gornitz, Lebedeff, and Hansen 1982). Meltwater from mountain glaciers has contributed two to seven centimeters since 1900 (Meier 1984). Figure 1-1 shows that global temperature and sea level appear to have risen in the last century. Nevertheless, questions remain over the magnitude and causes of sea level rise in the last century. The Greenhouse Effect and Future Sea Level Rise Concern about a possible acceleration in the rate of sea level rise stems from measurements showing the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other gases released by human activities. Because these gases absorb infrared radiation (heat), scientists generally expect the earth to warm substantially. Although some people have suggested that unknown or unpredictable factors could offset this warming, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has twice reviewed all the evidence and concluded that the warming will take place. In 1979, the Academy concluded: "We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked physical effect that could reduce the currently estimated global warming to negligible proportions" (Charney 1979). In 1982, the NAS reaffirmed its 1979 assessment (Smagorinsky 1982).
Sea level rise increases storms in heavily populated areas, decreases marine biodiversity, and threatens drinking water.
Titus 84 (James G., EPA, Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for This Generation, “An Overview of the Causes and Effects of Sea Level Rise”, p. 1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsRisk_of_rise.html)
A rise in sea level of even one meter during the next century could influence the outcomes of many decisions now being made. In the United States, thousands of square miles of land could be lost, particularly in low-lying areas such as the Mississippi Delta, where the land is also subsiding at approximately one meter per century. Storm damage, already estimated at over three billion dollars per year nationwide, could also increase, particularly along the well-developed and low-lying Atlantic coast. Finally, a rising sea willincrease the salinity of marshes, estuaries, and aquifers, disrupting marine life and possibly threatening some drinking water supplies. Fortunately, the most adverse effects can be avoided if timely actions are taken in anticipation of sea level rise.
Rising sea levels will strain the economy and flood wetlands, devastating biodiversity.
Union of Concerned Scientists 6/19 (“EWS: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding”, 08, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/early-warning-signs-of-global-warming-sealevel-rise-and-coastal-flooding.html)
Sea-level rise in a given location will vary depending on factors such as vertical land movement, wind and pressure patterns, ocean circulation, and rate of warming. Coastal wetlands and lowlands, beaches and barrier islands, and ocean islands and atolls are especially vulnerable to rising seas. Depending on the rate of sea-level rise, the rate of vertical wetland build-up, and the capacity for wetlands to migrate inland, a 50-cm sea-level rise could inundate up to 50% of North American coastal wetlands (Shriner and Street, 1998). These areas are critical habitat for large numbers of coastal bird and fish species, and provide ecosystem services such as pollution filtration, sediment trapping, erosion mitigation, and flood control. Wetlands in most areas have been able to keep pace with historic sea-level rise by accreting sediment and growing vertically and by moving inland with the encroaching sea. But the accelerated rates projected for the next 100 years may be too fast for natural accretion and migration to keep up. Sediment deficits and development barriers are among the most important factors that limit the survival of this important coastal habitat. Sea-level rise leads to increased coastal flooding through direct inundation and an increase in the base for storm surges, allowing flooding of larger areas and higher elevations. One study, for example, estimated that a rise in sea level of 30 to 90 cm would increase the size of the 100-year floodplain in the United States by 10,000 to 20,000 km2 (FEMA, 1991). Put differently, storms of a given magnitude will have a shorter return interval. High tide peaks, for example, that occur once every one hundred years on average may occur every ten years, making now rare events more common. In some areas, flooding could be further exacerbated by an increase in extreme precipitation events resulting from an intensification of the hydrological cycle (see Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding). Heavy precipitation associated with coastal storms causes increased runoff and river surges that intensify the effects of storm surges from the sea. Levees and seawalls currently protect many coastal areas, but these structures have been designed for current sea level and may be overtopped in the future or undermined by increased erosion. The costs of responding to a sea-level rise of 50 cm by 2100 are estimated at between $20 and $200 billion in the United States alone (Shriner and Street, 1998). The wide range in this estimate reflects the different options, extent, and timing of response. Adaptation measures such as the construction of bulkheads, dikes, and pumping systems can protect property, but these measures are likely to result in further loss of wetlands and beaches with detrimental effects on fish and wildlife, recreation, and tourism. Elevation of structures and land surfaces, and land-use policies that allow shorelines to retreat naturally, are less disruptive response strategies but are challenging to implement in areas already highly developed. Maine and Rhode Island, for example, have regulations prohibiting structures that will prevent the inland migration of wetlands (Shriner and Street, 1998). Land elevation and beach nourishment are attractive options in many ways; yet they are not feasible in all locations, and they require extraordinary financial and political commitments into the indefinite future.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 138
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise Impacts – Econ
Sea level rise strains the US economy by costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Titus 91 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: The Cost of Holding Back the Sea”, Summary and Conclusions, Coastal Management, Vol. 19, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCost_of_Holding.html)
We estimate the shoreline retreat from a one meter rise in sea level would cost the United States 270 to 475 billion dollars. Like all cost estimates involving unprecedented activities, our estimates ignore the impacts we could not readily quantify and those we can not foresee. But policymakers are accustomed to "soft" estimates, and we see no reason to believe that our estimates are any worse than the norm. Table 9 summarizes our calculations. Thirty-six thousand square kilometers (fourteen thousand square miles) of land could be lost from a one meter rise, with wet and dry land each accounting for about half the loss. For a few hundred billion dollars, fifteen hundred square kilometers (six to seven hundred square miles) of currently developed land could be protected, but the loss of coastal wetlands would be that much greater. Our estimates are optimistically low because we assume that it will only be necessary to protect areas that are developed today, that is, about 15% of U.S. coastal low lands. If development continues and (1) we protect those areas as well, the economic impact could be far greater because more dikes would be necessary and wetland loss would be greater. If development continues but (2) we eventually abandon those areas, the wetland loss will be the same as assumed in this article, but there could be a tremendous loss of homes, offices, and infrastructures as the abandonment takes place. But (3) prohibiting coastal development would also have costly impacts on the economy, which we would have to add. Thus, this article is a severe underestimate of the nation-wide cost of sea level rise unless we implement a means of abandoning low-lying areas at little or no cost.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 139
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming Impacts – Sea Level Rise Impacts – BioD
Sea level rise kills biodiversity by destroying wetlands, changing water salinity, and increasing hazardous waste leakage.
Titus 84 (James G., EPA, Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for This Generation, “An Overview of the Causes and Effects of Sea Level Rise”, p. 1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsRisk_of_rise.html)
Like the physical effects, the environmental impacts of sea level rise fall into the categories of shoreline retreat, salt intrusion, and increased flooding. Perhaps the most serious environmental consequence would be the inundation and erosion of thousands of square miles of marshes and other wetlands. Wetlands (areas that are flooded by tides at least once every 15 days) are critical to the reproductive cycles of many marine species. Because marsh vegetation can collect sediment and build upon itself, marshes can "grow" with small rises in sea level. But for faster rates of sea level rise, the vegetation will drown. Its resulting deterioration may significantly erode land previously held together only by the marsh vegetation. Relative sea level rise of one meter per century is eroding over one hundred square kilometers (about fifty square miles) per year of marshland in Louisiana. Salt intrusion is a threat to marine animals as well as vegetation. Many species must swim into fresher water during reproduction. In response to sea level rise, fish might swim farther upstream, but water pollution could prevent such an adaptation from succeeding. Some species, on the other hand, require salty water, such as the oyster drill and other predators of oysters. Consequently, salinity increases have been cited for the long-term drop in oyster production in the Delaware Bay (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979; Haskin and Tweed, 1976), as well as recent drops in the Chesapeake Bay. Salt intrusion could also be a serious problem for the Everglades. Flooding could have a particularly important impact on environmental protection activities. As Chapter 9 indicates, regulations for hazardous waste sites promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act currently impose special requirements for sites in 100-year flood zones. Another EPA program, Superfund, has responsibility for abandoned waste sites, some of which are in low-lying areas such as Louisiana and Florida that could be inundated. There are over one thousand active hazardous waste facilities in the United States located in 100-year floodplains (Development Planning and Research Associates, 1982) and perhaps as many inactive sites. Sea level rise could increase the risk of flooding in these hazardous waste sites. For example, if a hazardousSea Level Rise: Overview of Causes and Effects waste facility is subjected to overwash by strong waves or simply to flooding that weakens the facility's cap, the wastes can be spread to nearby areas, thus exposing the population to possibly contaminated surface water. Moreover, by intruding into clay soils (which are often used as liners for hazardous waste disposal) saltwater can increase leaching of wastes.
Sea level rise from global warming destroys wetlands, which are key to biodiversity and clean water.
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, Chapter 1, p.1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
Along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, beyond the reach of the ocean waves, lies a nearly unbroken chain of marshes and swamps. Part land and part water, our coastal "wetlands" support both terrestrial and aquatic animals, and boast biological productivities far greater than found on dry land. Many birds, alligators, and turtles spend their entire lifetimes communing between wetlands and adjacent bodies of water, while land animals that normally occupy dry land visit the wetlands to feed. Herons, eagles, sandpipers, ducks, and geese winter in marshes or rest there while migrating. The larvae of shrimp, crab, and other marine animals find shelter in the marsh from larger animals. Bluefish, flounder, oysters, and clams spend all or part of their lives feeding on other species supported by the marsh. Some species of birds and fish may have evolved with a need to find a coastal marsh or swamp anywhere along the coast (Teal and Teal 1969). Wetlands also act as cleansing mechanisms for ground and surface waters. The importance of coastal wetlands was not always appreciated. For over three centuries, people have drained and filled marshes and swamps to create dry land for agriculture and urban development. Flood control levees and navigation channels have prevented fresh water, nutrients, and sediment from reaching wetlands, resulting in their conversion to open water. Marshes have often been used as disposal sites for channel dredging, city dumps, and hazardous waste sites. In the 1960s, however, the public began to recognize the importance of environmental quality in general and these ecosystems. In 1972, the U.S. Congress added Section 404 to the federal Clean Water Act, which strengthened the requirement that anyone wishing to fill a coastal wetland obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and added the requirement of approval by the Environmental Protection Agency. Several coastal states enacted legislation to sharply curtail destruction of coastal wetlands. These restrictions have substantially reduced conversion of wetlands to dry land in coastal areas. The rate of coastal wetland loss declined from 1000 to 20 acres per year in Maryland (Redelfs 1983), from 3100 to 50 acres per year in New Jersey (Tiner 1984), and from 444 to 20 acres per year in Delaware (Hardisky and Klemas 1983). The rate of conversion to dry land in South Carolina has been reduced to about 15 acres per year (South Carolina Coastal Council 1985).1 Nevertheless, these restrictions have not curtailed the conversion of wetlands to water. The majority of coastal wetland loss in the United States is now taking place in Louisiana, which loses fifty square miles of wetlands per year, mostly to open water. Navigation channels, canals, and flood control levees have impeded the natural mechanisms that once enabled the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta to keep pace with subsidence and rising sea level. The majority of coastal wetland loss in South Carolina results from impoundments that have converted wetlands to open water during part of the year.2 In the next century, moreover, conversion of wetlands to open water may overshadow con- version to dry land throughout the coastal zone of the United States. Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases are expected to warm our planet a few degrees Celsius (C) by a mechanism commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Such a warming could raise sea level one meter or so by expanding ocean water, meeting mountain glaciers, and causing polar ice sheets to melt or slide into the oceans. Because most of America's coastal wetlands are less than one meter above sea level, a large fraction of our coastal wetlands could be threatened by such a rise.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 141
Scholars Lab Warming
Sea Level Rise Impacts – Wetlands (2/2)
Sea level rise destroys wetlands irreparably.
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
To further society's understanding of how to rationally respond to the possibility of a substantial rise in sea level, EPA has undertaken assessments of the impacts of sea level rise on economic development, beach erosion control strategies, salinity of estuaries and aquifers, and coastal drainage and sewage systems. Those studies have generally found that even a one-foot rise in sea level has important implications for the planning and design of coastal facilities. This report examines the potential impacts of sea level rise on coastal wetlands in the United States. Coastal marshes and swamps are generally within a few feet of sea level, and hence could be lost if sea level rises significantly. Although new wetlands could form where new areas are flooded, this cannot happen where the land adjacent to today's wetlands is developed and protected from the rising sea. Once built, neighborhoods can be expected to last a century or longer. Therefore, today's coastal development could limit the ability of coastal wetlands to survive sea level rise in the next century.
Sea level rise destroys wetlands by breaking up barrier islands and changing marsh salinity.
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, p. 18-35, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
In response to sea level rise, barrier islands tend to migrate landward as storms wash sand from the ocean side beach to the bay side marsh (Leatherman 1982). This "overwash" process may enable barrier islands to keep pace with an accelerated rise in sea level. However, it is also possible that accelerated sea level rise could cause these islands, to disintegrate. In coastal Louisiana, where rapid subsidence has resulted in a relative sea level rise of one centimeter per year, barrier islands have broken up. The Ship Island of the early twentieth century is now known as "Ship Shoal" (Pendland, Suter, and Maslow 1986). Marshes often form in the flood (inland) tidal deltas (shoals) that form in the inlets between barrier islands. Because these deltas are in equilibrium with sea level, a rise in sea level would tend to raise them as well, with sediment being supplied primarily from the adjacent islands. Moreover, if sea level rise causes barrier islands to breach, additional tidal deltas will form in the new inlets, creating more marsh, at least temporarily. In the long run, however, the breakup of barrier islands would result in a loss of marsh. Larger waves would strike the wetlands that form in tidal deltas and in estuaries behind barrier islands. Wave erosion of marshes could also be exacerbated if sea level rise deepens the estuaries. This deepening would allow ocean waves to retain more energy and larger waves to form in bays. Major landowners and the government of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, consider this possibility a serious threat and are taking action to prevent the breakup of Isle Demiere and others around Terrebonne Bay (Terrebonne Parish 1984). Sea level rise could also disrupt coastal wetlands by a mechanism known as saltwater intrusion, particularly in Louisiana and Florida. In many areas the zonation of wetlands depends not so much on elevation as on proximity to the sea, which determines salinity. The most seaward wetlands are salt marshes or their tropical equivalent, mangrove swamps. As one moves inland, the fresh water flowing to the sea reduces salinity, and brackish wetlands are found. Still farther inland, the freshwater flow completely repels all salt water, and fresh marshes and cypress swamps are found. Although these marshes may be tens (and in Louisiana, hundreds) of kilometers inland, their elevation is often the same as that of the saline wetlands. A rise in sea level enables salt water to penetrate upstream and inland, particularly during droughts. In many areas, the major impact would be to replace freshwater species with salt-tolerant marsh. However, many of the extensive cypress swamps in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, as well as sow "floating marshes," lack a suitable base for salt marshes to form. These swamps could convert to open water if invaded by salt, which is already occurring in Louisiana (Wicker et al. 1980).
Sea level rise increases toxic waste spills through flooding and erosion.
Flynn 84 (Timothy J., B.A. in poli-sci & econ @ Brown U, “The Risk of Sea Level Rise”, “Implications of Sea Level Rise for Hazardous Waste Sites in Coastal Floodplains”, p. 1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsRisk_of_rise.html)
On the night of July 20, 1977, 30 cm (1 ft) of rain fell on Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in a period of six hours. As a result, the Connmar River, which runs through the heart of the city's industrial district, overflowed its banks. Cylinders containing compressed gases, drums containing toxic chemicals, oil-soaked debris, and other hazardous materials were washed downstream and deposited on recreational and residential properties when the floodwaters receded. Recognizing the potential threat to public health and the environment, the federal and Pennsylvania state governments immediately set up a joint task force to address this threat. At considerable cost, the clean-up team surveyed the area, collected the containers, analyzed their contents, and returned them to their owners or safely disposed of them. Although it would have been infeasible to locate and identify every container that washed away, about 500 cyclinders and 500 drums were collected in this effort. Although there are 1,100 active1 hazardous waste sites within 100-year floodplains in the United States (DPRA, 1982) and possibly as many closed or abandoned sites, flooding disasters such as the Johnstown incident have been infrequent in the past. However, a rise in sea level could significantly increase the probability of flooding for many of these sites and bring more sites into floodplains. Furthermore, erosion and salt intrusion that would result from a rise in sea level could become additional threats, even to those waste sites that are adequately protected against flooding.
Sea level rise increase toxic waste leakage and spills.
Flynn 84 (Timothy J., B.A. in poli-sci & econ @ Brown U, “The Risk of Sea Level Rise”, “Implications of Sea Level Rise for Hazardous Waste Sites in Coastal Floodplains”, p. 1, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsRisk_of_rise.html)
The impacts of sea level rise on hazardous waste sites can be classified into increased storm damage, shoreline retreat, and changes in water tables. Increased risk from storms is likely to be the most important factor. A rise in sea level would bring new sites into floodplains and result in more severe flood levels for those already in floodplains. Furthermore, the risks from damaging storm waves would increase as deeper water allowed these waves to penetrate further inland. Shoreline retreat could also threaten hazardous waste sites. As Chapters 1, 4, and 5 explain, a sea level rise results in both inundation and erosion; a rise of 1ft could result in shoreline retreat from a few feet along rocky coasts to several miles along low-lying marshland. Significant shoreline retreat might leave a waste site under water or in the surf zone subject to constant wave attack. Operators of existing sites,Hazardous Waste Sites in Coastal Floodplains especially factories for which the waste site is a small portion of the entire operation, would generally protect their operation from an encroaching shoreline. Abandoned sites, however, would not be guaranteed the same protection. Finally, changing water tables could threaten wastes stored in surface impoundments and landfills. Higher water tables could threaten containment vessels by exerting additional hydrostatic pressure. Further- more, saltwater can permeate clay liners that are impervious to freshwater. As a result, the risk of wastes leaching through the liners would increase.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 143
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Good Science***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 144
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming not real 1NC (1/3)
( ) The earth has shown no sign of warming from greenhouse gases
SCIENCE DIRECTOR OF THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 1-12-5 (Jay, Yearbook of Experts)Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite and weather balloon readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 25 years ago, when the satellite system was first launched. Only land based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe as satellite readings do, and these are often affected by heat generated by nearby urban development. 2 - All predictions of global warming are based on computer models not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers expectations, modelers make adjustments to unknown variables that are many times greater than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. For example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 Watts per square meter (W/m2) of the earth's surface. the amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also uncertain by as much as 25 W/m2. The role of clouds is uncertain by at least 25 W/m2. The heat added to the atmosphere by a doubling of CO2 is not uncertain. It is easily measured in laboratory experiments and amounts to only 4 Watts per square meter (4 W/m2) of the earth's surface. Obviously the uncertainties are many times larger than the input of energy resulting from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 3 - When scientists analyzed the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures dating back 250,000 years in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, they found that sometimes concentration of CO2 was high when the temperature was low and sometime CO2 was low when temperature was high. 4 - While we hear much about one or another melting glaciers, a recent study of 246 glaciers around the world between 1946 and 1995 indicated a balance between those that are losing ice, gaining ice and remaining in equilibrium. There is no global trend in any direction. 5 - The gases in the atmosphere that absorb outgoing radiation forming the greenhouse effect are water vapor (absorbing 90% of outgoing heat), methane (4%), nitrous oxide (2%), carbon dioxide (4%). Thus a doubling of CO2 would not achieve a significant change in heat retained. 6 - Temperature fluctuations during the current 300 year recovery from the Little Ice Age which ended around 1700AD, following the Medieval Warming Period correlate almost perfectly with fluctuations in solar activity. This correlation long predates human use of significant amounts of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. 7 - In defining the tremendous impact the sun has on climate one must really understands the actual movement of the earth around the sun. There are three variables, orbit shape, tilt and wobble which profoundly affect weather patterns. The earth's orbit does not form a circle as it moves around the sun - it forms an ellipse passing further away from the sun at the one end of the orbit than at the other end. During the 100,000 year cycle the tug of other planets on the earth causes its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short broad ellipse that keeps the earth closer to the sun to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move farther from the sun and back again. 8 - There is no consensus of scientists in favor of human caused global warming. While opinion polls do not determine truth in science, more than 17,000 American scientists signed a
petition drafted by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which stated: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." 9 - A modest amount of global warming, should it occur would be beneficial to the natural world. The warmest period in recorded history was the Medieval Warm Period roughly 800 to 1200AD when temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today allowing great prosperity of mankind. 10 - Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. On the contrary it makes crops and forests grow faster. Mapping by satellite shows that the earth has become about 6% greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions. The Amazon rain forest was the biggest gainer, despite the much advertised deforestation caused by human cutting along their edges. Certainly climate change does not help every region equally, but careful studies predict overall benefit, fewer storms (not more), more rain, better crop yields, longer growing seasons, milder winters and decreasing heating costs in colder climates. The news is certainly not all bad and on balance may be rather good.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 145
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming not real 1NC (2/3)
( ) Earth hasn’t actually warmed: satellite and ice-core data prove
S. Fred Singer 7/18/00 (a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University).: President, The Science & Environmental Policy Projectbefore the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming: a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend. b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1]. c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada. d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend. Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.
For the years 1999-2003, the author estimates "the time-varying perennial ice zone (PIZ) coverage and construct[s] the annual cycles of multiyear (MY, including second year) ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean using QuikSCAT backscatter, MY fractions from RADARSAT, and the record of ice export from satellite passive microwave observations." What was learned Based on the above-described data, Kwok calculates that the coverage of Arctic MY sea ice at the beginning of each year of the study was 3774 x 103 km2 in 2000, 3896 x 103 km2 in 2001, 4475 x 103 km2 in 2002, and 4122 x 103 km2 in 2003. What it means Of "immediate geophysical interest," in the words of the author, "is the analysis of a scatterometer record of sufficient length to observe the long-term variability and trends in the behavior of the MY ice cover in view of the recent reported negative trends in coverage (Johannessen et al., 1999; Comiso, 2002)." Why? Because the reported trend is a decrease of 9% per decade; while the net change observed by Kwok over but a third of a decade is an increase of 9%. Which makes one wonder: are climate alarmists trying to pull a quick one on us with their hype-heavy but data-poor rantings and ravings about Arctic sea ice melting like mad and altogether disappearing if the world does not immediately abandon the use of fossil fuels for the production of heat and energy???
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 146
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming not real 1NC (3/3)
( ) Scientists are influenced by politics and incentives – they alter their data to support warming- IPCC study proves
Dr. David Demeritt (Professor of Geology at Kings College, London) 6/1 “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science” http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0004-5608.00245
In this article, I reconsider the relationships between the science and the politics of climate change. Although commonly thought of as two separate domains, the two are linked in some important ways. Not only has the science of climate change largely driven the national and international politics, the politics in turn have also influenced the practice of that science . It is my contention that the demand for and expectation of policy relevance has subtly shaped the formulation of research questions, choice of methods, standards of proof, and the definition of other aspects of “good” scientific questions. This pattern of reciprocal influence belies the categorical distinction so often made between science, based purely on objective fact, and politics, which involves the value-laden decision making that is separable from the downstream of science. The global scaling aids and is underwritten by a second way in which climate scientists universalize the objects of their knowledge ontologically. Physical sciences represent GHGs in terms of certain objective and immutable physical properties. The specific global scaling of climate change highlights more general concerns about the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the earth’s radiation balance at the expense of other ways of formulating the problem,, such as the structural imperatives of the capitalist economy driving those emissions, and indeed of other problems, such as poverty and disease. Given the immensely contentious politics, it is tempting for politicians to argue that climate policy must be based upon scientific certainty. This science-led politics is attractive to some scientists since it enhances their power and prestige. The claim of the IPCC that GCM “simulation of present climate is generally realistic” reflects the largely tacit and informal judgment of modelers not to take model outputs at face value, but instead to “subjectively correct for known errors in the models”. In the face of growing criticism from those who are concerned about the role of models in the greenhouse policy debate, Mitchell and colleagues used recently published global aerosol data to account more explicitly for aerosols through a physically constrained parameterization. By providing an explanation for the slower than previously predicted onset of global warming, their paper lent scientific weight to the politically symbolical and intergovernmentally negotiated conclusion of the IPCC summary for policy makers that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on the climate”. Climate skeptics now charge that the addition of aerosols to the models, ex post facto, is a desperate and politically motivated attempt to salvage an otherwise empirically falsified hypothesis about global warming.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 147
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming not real ext. (1/2)
( ) Extend Lehr 05 – it isolates 4 reasons their warming claims are wrong:1. Satellite data shows no sign of warming over the past 30 years2. Warming has been empirically disproved: in the past when CO2 levels were high, temps
dropped and when CO2 was lower, temps raised. There’s no pattern of temp change.3. Ice caps naturally melt and reform over the years – it’s a natural process4. There are no bad effects of CO2 being in the atmosphere; there’s no scientific proof that
CO2=warming
( ) Extend Singer 0 and Idso 4 - satellite and ice core data prove temps haven’t risen; data suggesting otherwise was inaccurate and recorded poorly. Ice cover is also increasing; there just isn’t warming.
( ) Claims of warming are flawed: temperatures in Antarctica are actually falling
Gretchen Randall (Director of the Center for Environment and Regulatory Affairs) 1/15/2 “Antarctic cooling despite supposed global warming” http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR11502.html
Nature magazine online reports January 14 that studies show temperatures on the continent of Antarctica have been falling 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the mid-l980s. This disputes earlier claims that temperatures were rising in Antarctica, but earlier readings were taken on the peninsula rather than inland, where the latest reported readings were taken. Again, predictions by scientists supportive of the global warming theory have been shown to be a guess -a guess that quite often has proven to be incorrect. It's time we listen to those scientists who acknowledge that computer models cannot accurately forecast future climate change. This study demonstrates that climate change on this planet is still little understood. Past predictions of drastic changes have not happened and now scientists supportive of the global warming theory admit they are 'confused' by the recent cooling in Antarctica. Yet it is these scientists who adamantly tell us global warming is happening while scientific data refutes their claims. The National Science Foundation's Longterm Ecological Research team has gathered temperature data in the Dry Valleys near McMurdo Sound in Antarctica since 1986. While temperatures have risen in the peninsula that sticks out in the water close to South America, scientists are unable to explain why temperatures have been falling in the interior of the continent. Dr. Peter Doran, of the University of Illinois and chief author of the report, is quoted in the Washington Post (January 14), "We've sort of hit a point where we're a little confused." He is also quoted as saying the research "does not change the fact that the planet has warmed up on the whole. The findings simply point out that Antarctica is not responding as expected." Recent NASA satellite data show no increase in warming in the lower atmosphere over the last 22 years. This is the area that computer models used by scientists supportive of the global warming theory predicted would warm first if carbon dioxide emissions were indeed causing global warming. The only measurements that show warming are surface temperatures.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 148
Scholars Lab Warming
Warming not real ext. (2/2)
( ) Global warming claims are false: temperatures are dropping and CO2 is beneficialRobinson et al. 98 (ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, ANDZACHARY W. ROBINSON; 1998; Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine; part of a petition signedby over 17,000 scientists; Petition Project; “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide”;http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm; GT)
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences.
Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly . To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.
( ) Extend Demeritt 3 – Their “warming exists” evidence is a lie. Political influences have increased and led to unreliable reports from scientists. The evidence indicates that scientists have incentive to provide reports supporting the existence of warming; they get more funding and prestige in the science community for producing data that supports the popular idea of warming.
( ) The idea of global warming is motivated by political attempts to control economic and population growth globally (IPCC indict)Engdahl in 8(F. William; Writer for Centre of Research on Globalization;GlobalWarming gets the Cold Freeze; April 9)
Today there are two major factions within the Western political power establishment internationally. They cooperate and share broad elitist goals, but differ fundamentally on how to reach these goals. Foremost is their goal of sharply controlling global economic growth and population growth. The first faction is best described as the Rockefeller Faction. It has a global power base and is today best represented by the Bush family faction which got their start, as I document in my book, as hired hands for the powerful Rockefeller machine. The Rockefeller faction has for more than a century based its power and influence on control of oil and on use of the military to secure that control. It is personified in the man who is since 2001 de facto President in terms of decision-making—Dick Cheney. Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton Corp., which is both the world's largest oilfield services company (now based in Dubai for tax reasons), and the world's largest military base constructor. The second faction might be called the Soft Power Faction. Their philosophy might be summed up that they think its "possible to kill more flies with honey than with vinegar." Their preferred path to global population control and lowering of the growth rates in China and elsewhere is through promoting the fraud of global warming and imminent climate catastrophe. Al Gore is linked to this faction. So is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. They see globalist institutions, especially the United Nations, as the best vehicle to advance their agenda of global austerity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme. Its reports have been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed in scientific methodology, yet they are aggressively being promoted as revealed truth by the powerful media behind this faction. Others in the circle include billionaire speculator George Soros, parts of the British Royal family and representatives of European "old money."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 149
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Good – Negative Feedbacks***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 150
Scholars Lab Warming
Negative Feedbacks 1NC
Natural responses to increased levels of CO2 will create negative feedback balancing temperatures
Michael Velbel 93 (dept of geological sciences Michigan university) “Temperature dependence on nature” http://cwt33.ecology.uga.edu/publications/344.pdf
Estimation of the temperature dependence of natural feldspar weathering in two catchments at different elevations yields an apparent Arrhenius activation energy of 18.4 kcal/mol (77.0 kj/mol), much higher than most laboratory values. This finding supports recent suggestions that hydrolytic weathering of silicate minerals may consume carbonic acid and thereby remove atmospheric carbon dioxide more rapidly with increasing temperature than previously thought. This result provides a stronger negative feedback on long-term greenhouse warming than has been assumed in most models of global carbon cycling. The present estimate was determined from the ratio of feldspar weathering rates (determined by geochemical mass balance) in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, United States. Temperature (a function of elevation) is the only factor that differs between the two catchments; parent rock type, aspect, hillslope hydrology, and vegetation type and successional stage are the same in both. The less the weathering rate is accelerated by a given temperature increase, the less additional CO2 is consumed by weathering; thus, lower activation energies produce model scenarios in which the CO2 buildup and global mean temperature increase are greater than in scenarios invoking higher activation energies. The resulting weak temperature dependence produces unreasonably wide excursions in model CO2 paleolevels, requiring modification of the temperature- dependence expression in the models (Berner, 1991). Recent studies have introduced an explicit expression for biotic influences on weathering, with a presumed strong temperature dependence, but, with the exception of GEOCARB II (Berner, 1993), the biotic term is introduced with little or no change in the expression for the temperature dependence of weathering itself. Higher activation energies are more appropriate because most carbonic acid absorbed by continental weathering is consumed not by weathering of feldspars but by calcium and magnesium silicates (Berner and Berner, 1987), which are typically less abundant but more readily and quickly weathered than feldspars and which have significantly higher experimentally determined activation energies than do feldspars (Brady, 1991). Activation energies approaching 20 kcal/mol (84 kJ/mol) may significantly reduce model global mean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 (Brady, 1991). The natural activation energy for feldspar weathering determined in this study is higher than most experimentally determined values for the same mineral. If natural activation energies of calcium and magnesium silicate weathering are similarly higher than experimental values, the weathering-mediated negative feedback between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 may be even stronger than previous workers suggest.
Positive feedbacks are overestimated – most will be negative
Richard Lindzen 92 (Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus”http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Internal processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be diminished. It is commonly suggested that society should not depend on negative feedbacks to spare us from a "greenhouse catastrophe.'' What is omitted from such suggestions is that current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming. The effects of clouds have been receiving the closest scrutiny. That is not unreasonable. Cloud cover in models is poorly treated and inaccurately predicted. Yet clouds reflect about seventy-five watts per square meter. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter, it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide.
Negative feedback from agriculture areas will lower temperatures- past predictions of warming don’t take this into consideration
Anne Stark 3/23/06 “Changes in agricultural practices could help slow global warming” https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2006/NR-06-03-10.html
Farmers who plant more crops, increase irrigation coverage and till the land less can have a profound effect on climate.Climate scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that models that included recent changes in agricultural practices, such as more irrigation, higher yielding crops, and less tillage, predicted lower temperatures than models that ignored these factors.“Nearly all models used to predict climate changes either ignore agriculture altogether or assume that farmers behave the same way through time,” said David Lobell, the lead author on a paper appearing in the March 23 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “In reality, farmers are changing rapidly in response to new technologies, growth in demand and other factors. This study suggests that these changes may have important cooling effects, especially at local scales.” Human activities are widely recognized as contributing to climate change through the burning of fossil fuel and land use activities. Previous studies had considered the effects of converting natural ecosystems such as forests into croplands. Croplands generally reflect more sunlight than other land covers, and therefore tend to cool local temperatures. “In our earlier study, we found that historical conversion of forests to croplands had cooled the planet by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and locally by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit,” said Livermore’s Govindasamy Bala, co-author of the study. But past work had neglected changes occurring within existing croplands. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the net increase in global cropland during the last 50 years has been about 10 percent. But in existing cropland, over the same period, farmers have doubled irrigation areas, have more than doubled the crop yields, and have increased the number of crops grown in a field per year. As crops become more productive, more sunlight is reflected. A recent trend toward less frequent plowing of fields also has raised the reflectivity, or albedo, of the surface. Each of these factors can cool local temperatures in the climate model by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Irrigation cools the surface through a different effect – by increasing the amount of energy used to evaporate water rather than heat the land. The study found that extreme scenarios of irrigation change could cool local temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit, and global average temperatures by 2 degrees Fahrenheit.The authors of the study, which included Livermore scientist Philip Duffy, caution that the changes in the model were extreme, and effects in the real world are likely smaller. But they identified two main implications of their work. First, the past effects of global warming in agricultural regions may have been partially masked by changes in farmers’ practices. “In the context of the ongoing climate change debate, this study clearly shows that a complete documentation of localized natural and human induced changes to the environment will be necessary to understand climate change at the local and regional levels,” said Bala. “Agricultural regions are some of the key areas where we would like to understand and predict climate changes in order to aid adaptation to global warming,” added Lobell. Second, the study indicates that climate mitigation policies, which often include incentives to farmers, may be too simplistic. Most proposed climate policies focus only on the ability of farmers to sequester carbon in soils or reduce on-farm energy use. “This study illustrates that carbon is not the only important way that agriculture affects climate, and so focusing only on carbon may lead to an under- or over-evaluation of agriculture’s role,” Lobell said. For example, the study estimated that the increased albedo from reduced tillage had roughly as much of a cooling effect on global climate as the increased soil carbon sequestration.Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 152
Scholars Lab Warming
Negative Feedbacks – Clouds
Negative feedback will always prevent warming; it’s the Earth’s natural balancing systemWilliam H Calvin 02 “A Brain for All Seasons: Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change” University of Chicago Press http://williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/NWT.htm
Whereas positive feedback boosts, negative feedback fights back, serving to minimize change. If the bigger-and-bigger avalanche is the main metaphor for positive feedback, then the prosaic household thermostat is the main metaphor for negative feedback. The classic earth sciences example of a thermostat is the way volcanic CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by weathering rocks. The chemical reaction between the rocks and the CO2 in the falling rain depends on temperature. The volcanic CO2 may make things warmer via the greenhouse but that slowly increases the speed at which weathering removes the CO2, suggesting a balancing act. Let it cool for some reason and the weathering slows; the volcanic CO2 can build up again and so produce a greenhouse warming. However, this effect seems not to be strong enough to prevent CO2 rising during a warm period in the ice ages. There’s an even quicker-acting possibility for negative feedback: More warming might create more clouds over the tropical oceans, their whiteness reflecting more of the sun’s heat back into space and thereby cooling things somewhat. Again, no one is certain about the strength of the effect. Some things may balance out for awhile. Indeed that is what the greenhouse effect is all about, so let me give you the short version of greenhouse physics. The earth is heated by sunlight but the warmed earth surface creates infra-red radiation that escapes back out into space. The earth, however, has an atmosphere which traps some of this heat loss, as when clouds keep it from becoming so cold at night. The atmosphere is not as transparent to infra-red wavelengths as it is to the incoming light (the same is true of glass, and so the same principle operates in a greenhouse or a car parked in the sun). The atmosphere’s insulation blanket comes mostly from water vapor and carbon dioxide (and with minor contributions from methane and nitrous oxide and ozone), the so-called greenhouse gases. The amount of energy coming in has to balance with what escapes (or else the earth’s temperature will keep changing until it does balance). Add more greenhouse gas, and the earth will heat up until it can produce more infra-red, enough so that what gets past the greenhouse gases will balance the accounts. Let the water vapor or some other greenhouse gas be reduced, and the warm earth will be losing more heat than it gains from sunlight. And so it cools. The accounts will eventually balance again at some lower temperature. There is nothing intrinsically slow about these temperature changes. You know how fast a cloudless night can cool the earth, compared to a cloudy night. Were the winds to reduce tropical evaporation by one-third in a year, you’d see an abrupt shift from warm-and-wet to cool-and-dry.
Clouds resulting from negative feedback will check the effects of warming
Peter Surdel 04 “Global Warming: Past and Present Changes”http://www.columbia.edu/~pjs2002/arctic/pages/globalwarming.html
It is highly possible that a form of negative feedback could check the effects of global warming. Higher temperatures cause greater evaporation of ocean water, forming more clouds. Greater cloud cover over an area will increase its albedo, reflecting solar radiation away from the region and therefore resulting in a cooling effect. According to one scientist, “it appears that during the sunlit portion of a year, the decreases in sea ice extent and albedo that result from surface warming modulate the increasing cloud cooling effect, resulting in little or no change in the surface radiation budget”
Negative feedback from the drying troposphere will slow warming
Richard S Lindzen 1990 (Center for meteorology and physical meteorology, MIT, Cambridge) “Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming” http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/71/3/pdf/i1520-0477-71-3-288.pdf
Sulfate aerosols have balanced greenhouse warming and will continue to do so
Peter Scott 7/16/03 Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research “Attribution of temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes” http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/stott_regional_attribution_GRL_2003.pdf
Our results show significant anthropogenic warming trends in all the continental regions analyzed. In all these regions, greenhouse gases are estimated to have caused generally increasing warming as the century progressed, balanced to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the region, by cooling from sulfate aerosols in the middle of the century. The causes of twentieth century temperature change in six separate land areas of the Earth have been determined by carrying out a series of optimal detection analyses. The warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have been detected in all the regions examined, including North America and Europe. In most regions, cooling from sulfate aerosols counteracts some of the greenhouse warming, and there is some evidence for reduced net aerosol cooling in Asia, possibly as a result of warming from black carbon.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 154
Scholars Lab Warming
Positive Feedback ≠ ↑ warming
Positive carbon feedback from the growing amount of CO2 will be small and not significantly affect warming
Miko Kirschbaum 11/3/04 “Will soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on global warming?” Biogeochemistry http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k85r2715400870/]
Evidence is reviewed from laboratory-based incubations, field measurements of organic carbon storage, carbon isotope ratios and soil respiration with either naturally varying temperatures or after experimentally increasing soil temperatures. Estimates of terrestrial carbon stored at the Last Glacial Maximum are also reviewed. The review concludes that the temperature dependence of organic matter decomposition can be best described as: d(T) = exp[3.36 (T – 40)/(T + 31.79)] where d(T) is the normalised decomposition rate at temperature T (in °C). In this equation, decomposition rate is normalised to 1 at 40 °C.The review concludes by simulating the likely changes in soil organic carbon with warming. In summary, it appears likely that warming will have the effect of reducing soil organic carbon by stimulating decomposition rates more than NPP. However, increasing CO2 is likely to simultaneously have the effect of increasing soil organic carbon through increases in NPP. Any changes are also likely to be very slow. The net effect of changes in soil organic carbon on atmospheric CO2 loading over the next decades to centuries is, therefore, likely to be small.
Positive feedback from soil isn’t enough to lead to “unstoppable” global warming
Jenkinson 5/ (Dept of soil science, University of Reading) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6324/pdf/351304a0.pdf
Increasing cloud cover will keep CO2 levels stable
Mark Peplow 5/19/04 “Look Forward to a Darker World” Nature http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Peplow2004.pdf
In fact, Roderick sees global dimming as part of a possible negative feedback loop working against global warming. Burning fossil fuels not only increases carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere; it also pumps tiny particles into the air. Meanwhile higher temperatures increase the amount of cloud cover. The clouds and particles help to block the Sun's rays, and the scattered light they allow through actually boosts plants' absorption of carbon dioxide, the principle greenhouse gas. This would help to keep carbon dioxide levels stable, argues Roderick, protecting the planet from runaway global warming.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 156
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Soil carbon positive feedbacks”
Feedback from soil carbon will be small – it wont lead to unstoppable warming
Miko Kirschbaum 1/00 “Will soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on global warming?” http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k85r2715400870/
Evidence is reviewed from laboratory-based incubations, field measurements of organic carbon storage, carbon isotope ratios and soil respiration with either naturally varying temperatures or after experimentally increasing soil temperatures. Estimates of terrestrial carbon stored at the Last Glacial Maximum are also reviewed. In summary, it appears likely that warming will have the effect of reducing soil organic carbon by stimulating decomposition rates more than NPP. However, increasing CO2 is likely to simultaneously have the effect of increasing soil organic carbon through increases in NPP. Any changes are also likely to be very slow. The net effect of changes in soil organic carbon on atmospheric CO2 loading over the next decades to centuries is, therefore, likely to be small.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 157
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Good – Indict/Prodict***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 158
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Bad – Authors Biased (1/2)
Scientists exaggerate claims of global warming to get media attention and ignore opposing evidence.
According to the group’s website, “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, ‘Triple A-S’ (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.” You would think we could count on AAAS for a fair and balanced science-based viewpoint of today’s most important scientific issues. Not so, as evidenced by the information presented at their June 15 conference—at least when it comes to the issue of global climate change. The AAAS “all-star” panel comprised about a dozen scientists, including two, Daniel Schrag and Michael Oppenheimer, who had appeared less than three weeks earlier on-stage with Al Gore during the ultra-leftist MoveOn.org’s kick-off for the climate fiction movie The Day After Tomorrow. Though Schrag and Oppenheimer didn’t embrace the non-science of the movie, they did embrace its sentimentality and message—a clear indication that they would go to any measure, including gross exaggeration and scientifically impossible scenarios, to bring attention to the issue of global climate change. The other panelists, including, among others, Sherwood Rowland, Richard Alley, Gerald Meehl, Joyce Penner, and Lonnie Thompson, are also characterized by similarly strong views that humans are altering the earth’s climate in a large and negative manner. Indeed, according to Reuters’ health and science correspondent Maggie Fox, the panel expressed frustration that the U.S. government and public are not more concerned over what the panelists see as the risks associated with global warming. It seems probable that the reason lies in the government’s and the public’s ability to see through the mistruths and exaggerations concerning observed and potential climate change as put forth by the panelists and those who share their agenda. A recent poll, conducted by Gallup and published in April 2004, revealed that a plurality of Americans now believe that news reports exaggerate the seriousness of global warming. The poll asked this question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of global warming—generally exaggerated, generally correct or is it generally underestimated?” The result? Gallup learned that 38% of us think it is “generally exaggerated,” and 25% think it is “generally correct” (Figure 1). And the spread is up from the year before, when only four points separated those who thought the threat of global warming is exaggerated from those who think the media get it right. Now the spread is 13 points. Apparently, the more the exaggerations continue, the more adept Americans are at seeing through them. As it turns out, members of the plurality have good reason for their beliefs. Recall that two leading climate scientists, Stanford’s Steve Schneider and NASA’s James Hansen, have both suggested that exaggerations have been used in an attempt to sway the public’s perception of the seriousness of the issue. Schneider told Discover magazine, back in 1989: On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but… which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. Fourteen years later, in summer 2003, Hansen called for this practice to stop, writing in the on-line journal Natural Science: Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as ‘synfuels,’ shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming. Apparently, despite Hansen’s call for the exaggerations to end, the practice is still in full swing. For example, Maggie Fox reported that, “[The AAAS panelists] said even as sea levels rise and crop yields fall, officials argue over whether climate change is real and Americans continue to drive fuel-guzzling SUVs.” Figure 2 (below) is the history of yields from two important U.S. crops, corn and wheat. There has been a dramatic rise in yields since the late 1940s. The year 2003 saw record high yields in both of these food crops.
(Continues…)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 159
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Bad – Authors Biased (2/2)
(Continued…)In fact of the USDA’s 20 principle crops, 14 of them set record high yields within the past 10 years. To state that crop yields are falling is at best misleading, and at worse an outright falsehood. Another example of gross distortion can be found in what Michael Oppenheimer told the audience: “The sea-level rise over the past century appears greater than what the model says it should be. The [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheets may be contributing more than the models predict.” Such a statement shows no regard for the latest scientific evidence. For example, published just days before in the journal Geophysical Research Letters were the results of a sea-level rise study conducted by Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams, along with Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s Walter Munk. These researchers carefully calculated the known contributions to sea-level rise (ocean warming, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and midlatitude glaciers) over the 20th century and concluded, “we do obtain a total rise which is at the lower end of the range estimated by the IPCC.” And furthermore, they found that “One interesting consequence is that the continental run-off which is ‘allowed’ after subtracting the effect of sea ice melt is considerably lower than current estimates of sub-polar glacier retreat, suggesting a negative contribution from polar ice sheets (Antarctica plus Greenland) or from other non-glacial processes.”
Their scientists are pressured and bought off to oppose warming theory.
Hansen 07 (James, head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Newscientist, “Huge sea level rises are coming – unless we act now”, 7/25, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600)
I suspect it is because of what I call the "John Mercer effect". In 1978, when global warming was beginning to get attention from government agencies, Mercer suggested that global warming could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Although it was not obvious who was right on the science, I noticed that researchers who suggested that his paper was alarmist were regarded as more authoritative. It seems to me that scientists downplaying the dangers of climate change fare better when it comes to getting funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for the relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I can vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper in 1981 that described the likely effects of fossil fuel use, the US Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund my group's research, specifically criticising aspects of that paper. I believe there is pressure on scientists to be conservative. Caveats are essential to science. They are born in scepticism, and scepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and discovery. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, excessive caution also holds dangers. "Scientific reticence" can hinder communication with the public about the dangers of global warming. We may rue reticence if it means no action is taken until it is too late to prevent future disasters.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 160
Scholars Lab Warming
IPCC bad frontline (1/3)
( ) The IPCC isn’t actually peer reviewed and it misleads policy makers
Fox 7/16/7 (Michael R. Fox, energy analyst with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and science andenergy reporter for the Hawaii Reporter, July 16 2007, published in the Hawaii Reporter,“Flaws in the Global Warming Debate”,http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8050a1d8-4e1c-457e-85d1-e8b3db316777)
There are many scientific problems involved with global warming issues which areroutinely downplayed. Some are related to numerous uncertainties being airbrushed awayand replaced by statements of unsupportable certitude. These include errors in the earlyCO2 measurements, phenomenally poor and biased temperature readings, poor and nonuniformdata bases, poor temperature data quality, unvalidated temperature data andcomputer programs. Also many are ignoring the roles of aerosols, particulates, and thephysics of cloud formation, and place undue reliance upon Global Climate Models(GCMs), which don't even agree with each other, etc. Downplaying these uncertaintieshas been a major deception activity of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This seems to be an effort to deceive the policy makers. For example, the Summaries forPolicy Makers (SPM) issued by the (IPCC) are flawed. Hundreds of comments from theauthors themselves of the Scientific Assessment Report (SAR) have only recentlysurfaced (http://tinyurl.com/2a27nu) .These authors have expressed serious concerns forthe IPCC claimed certainties in the SPMs. The legitimization of the "Hockeystick" bythe IPCC now shown to be fraudulent is but another example of the scientific corruptionwithin the IPCC, its editors, its reviewers, and it supporters. For example, the computeralgorithm used to reproduce the Hockeystick chart, according to McIntyre and McKitrick(http://tinyurl.com/awwva), could produce such a chart from a table of random numbers.This is appalling, and is deception, not science. Nations of the world were expected tomake energy policy using the IPCC chart. The IPCC quietly dropped the chart from the4th Assessment Report, without apology to the nations of the world. The unscientificweaknesses at the IPCC have been known for years. In the June 12, 1996 Wall StreetJournal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the Americanscientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy ofSciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbingcorruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”. Yet inthe eyes of the media, Hollywood, and the alarmists, the IPCC gets an unexamined freepass.
IPCC reports in the past have been fraudulent: they are politically edited and rewritten
Taylor and Bast 7(James M. Taylor and Joseph L. Bast, Environment Issue Suite, April 16, 2007)
Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement. Media coverage of the topic is heavily slanted toward alarmism because “bad news sells,” making it difficult for climate realists to get a fair hearing. Al Gore’s recent movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has been severely critiqued by many experts, yet it is being shown in high schools across the country as an educational documentary. Climate science reveals that the world has warmed about 1 degree C during the past century, with half of that warming occurring before human emissions could have been responsible. Even if human activity is responsible for 100 percent of the warmingsince 1940, it is only about 0.5 degrees C., an amount so small it is within the error range of the instruments used to measure global temperatures. There is no consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming. Most climate scientists doubt the reliability of computer models and the accuracy of land-based temperature records Reports by the IPCC are unreliable due to political editing and rewriting of the reports’ conclusions. Some of the key evidence cited in past IPCC reports has been shown to be fraudulent.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 161
Scholars Lab Warming
IPCC bad frontline (2/3)
( ) IPCC studies are flawed- aren’t actually peer reviewed and are selective in the data they share
John McLean 9/7 “Fallacies About Global Warming” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis (see item 5). These fallacies alone are major defects of the IPCC reports, but the problems do not end there. Other distortions and fallacies of the IPCC are of its own doing. Governments appoint experts to work with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science groups. The lead authors of the chapters of the IPCC reports can themselves be researchers whose work is cited in those chapters. This was the case with the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. The paper in which the graph first appeared was not subject to proper and independent peer review, despite which the graph was prominently featured in a chapter for which the co-creator ofthe graph was a lead author. The graph was debunked in 20066 and has been omitted without6 "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' The explanation from the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of 2007. The IPCC has often said words to the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans" (or "the climate models will only produce the correct result if we include manmade influences"), but at the same time the IPCC says that scientists have a low level of understanding of many climate factors. It logically follows that if any natural climate factors are poorly understood then they cannot be properly modelled, the output of the models will probably be incorrect and that natural forces cannot easily be dismissed as possible causes. In these circumstances it is simply dishonest to unequivocally blame late 20th century warming on human activity.7 The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word ofthe reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for thereport by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historicalobservations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.) The claim that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible. In actuality, the report represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 162
Scholars Lab Warming
IPCC bad frontline (3/3)
( ) IPCC puts pressure on participants to slant results in favor of warming
Richard S. Lindzen 92 Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Alleged Scientific Consensus” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of scientists posted to it by government agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists contributed to the report, but university representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time needed for participation are not available to most university scientists. Many governments have agreed to use that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The report, as such, has both positive and negative features. Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report models are largely verified by comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that approach does not seem promising. In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. Nonetheless, the body of the report is extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 163
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Scientific Consensus” (1/2)
( ) Their ev refers to the consensus of CO2 output increasing, not warming- there is no scientific consensus on global warming
Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister) “Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
There is indeed a consensus that humankind is putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; that some warming has resulted; and that some further warming can be expected. However, there is less of a consensus about whether most of the past half-century’s warming is anthropogenic, which is why, rightly, Oreskes is cautious enough to circumscribe her definition of the “consensus” about the anthropogenic contribution to warming over the past half-century with the qualifying adjective “likely”. There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all. Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus on all of these things, when in fact there is none. They imply that Oreskes’ essay proves the consensus on all of these things. Al Gore, for instance, devoted a long segment of his film An Inconvenient Truth to predicting the imminent meltdown of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets, with a consequent global increase of 20 feet (6 m) in sea level that would flood Manhattan, Shanghai, Bangladesh, and other coastal settlements. He quoted Oreskes’ essay as proving that all credible climate scientists were agreed on the supposed threat from climate change. He did not point out, however, that Oreskes’ definition of the “consensus” on climate change did not encompass, still less justify, his alarmist notions. Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet luridly illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50. The BBC, of course, has not headlined, or even reported, the UN’s “counterconsensual” findings. Every time the BBC mentions “climate change”, it shows the same tired footage of a glacier calving into the sea – which is what glaciers do every summer.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 164
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Scientific Consensus” (2/2)
( ) False numbers support the “consensus”- More reject it than support it
Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister) “Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928 “abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”. Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition. Dr. Peiser’s research demonstrated that several of the abstracts confounded Oreskes’ assertion of unanimity by explicitly rejecting or casting doubt upon the notion that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years. Thus, in Oreskes’ sample, more than twice as many appeared to have explicitly rejected or doubted the “consensus” as had explicitly endorsed it.
( ) The numbers in the IPCC report were exaggerated- many of the scientists don’t believe warming is anthropogenic
Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister) “Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
First among these is that the UN’s latest report on climate change (IPCC, 2007) waswritten by 2,500 scientists – and “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”. In fact, however,the scientific chapters were contributed by a far smaller number than this. Furthermore,we are now able to offer proof that the UN cannot have obtained the approval of as manyas 2,500 scientists to the text before it was published. A growing number of scientists who had previously subscribed to the alarmist presentation of the “consensus” are no longer sure. They are joining the numerous climatologists – many of them with outstanding credentials – who have never believed in the more extreme versions of the alarmist case. Indeed, many scientists now say that there has been no discernible human effect on temperature at all. For instance, Buentgen et al. (2006) say: “The 20th-century contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosol remains insecure.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 165
Scholars Lab Warming
A2: “Scientific Consensus- Oreskes”
Oreskes is outdated- many scientists now reject the idea of warming
Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister) “Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”. Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found. Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 166
Scholars Lab Warming
Peer Reviewing Bad
( ) Peer-reviewing just leads to more bias- editors have incentive to agree with popular hypotheses
John McLean 9/7 “Fallacies About Global Warming” Science and Public Policy Institute http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have goodknowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoidthe risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed andlose its reputation. In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly theirreputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny. Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association. It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing apaper that suggests otherwise? The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires theuse of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed. In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set ofdata or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 167
Scholars Lab Warming
Singer Good
Singer’s position on warming predates any funding: his writings were not motivated by monetary incentives
Ross Gelbspan 6/97 (Author of The Heat is On) “Sellout Scientists” http://organizenow.net/cco/right/globalwarm.html
Among the skeptics, Professor S. Fred Singer stands out for being consistently forthcoming about his funding by large oil interests and conservative groups. Singer is director of the Science and Energy Policy Project at the University of Virginia. During a 1994 appearance on ABC's "Nightline," Singer did not deny having received funding from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (to whose newspaper, the Washington Times, he is a regular contributor and whose organization has published three of his books). Nor has he apologized for his funding from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil. Singer's defense is that his scientific position on global atmospheric issues predates that funding and has not changed because of it. And it is true that Singer held firm to a similar position on another environmental controversy -- despite overwhelming evidence against his position. Singer once warned the oil companies that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals that was found to be depleting the earth's protective ozone layer. "It took only five years to go from... mandating a simple freeze of production [of CFCs] at 1985 levels, to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out -- all on the basis of quite insubstantial science," Singer wrote.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 168
Scholars Lab Warming
Lindzen Good
Lindzen’s writings aren’t motivated by money- its been years since the oil-industry has given him funds- the ones in the past were just expert witness fees and expenses
Alex Beam 8/30/6 “MIT’s inconvenient scientist” The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know? ``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why." I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since. `We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut up.``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 169
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Good – No Solvency***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 170
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Deforestation (1/3)
No Solvency- Majority of carbon emissions come from deforestation not energy
Daniel Howden, May 14 2007, “Deforestation: The Hidden Cause Of Global Warming”, deputy foreign editor of The Independent, (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html)
Most people think of forests only in terms of the CO2 they absorb. The rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia are thought of as the lungs of the planet. But the destruction of those forests will in the next four years alone, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025. Indonesia became the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world last week. Following close behind is Brazil. Neither nation has heavy industry on a comparable scale with the EU, India or Russia and yet they comfortably outstrip all other countries, except the United States and China. What both countries do have in common is tropical forest that is being cut and burned with staggering swiftness. Smoke stacks visible from space climb into the sky above both countries, while satellite images capture similar destruction from the Congo basin, across the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo. According to the latest audited figures from 2003, two billion tons of CO2 enters the atmosphere every year from deforestation. That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled annually. The remaining standing forest is calculated to contain 1,000 billion tons of carbon, or double what is already in the atmosphere. As the GCP's report concludes: "If we lose forests, we lose the fight against climate change."
No Solvency- You can not solve climate change without solving for deforestation first
Daniel Howden, May 14 2007, “Deforestation: The Hidden Cause Of Global Warming”, deputy foreign editor of The Independent, (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html)
The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories. The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists. Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total. "Tropical forests are the elephant in the living room of climate change," said Andrew Mitchell, the head of the GCP. Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere. No new technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. "The focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse," said Mr Mitchell.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 171
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Deforestation (2/3)
Deforestation causes global warming
Christopher Matthews, September 4 2006, “Deforestation Causes Global Warming”, Information officer with Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news /2006 /10003 85/index.html)
Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. About 200 experts, mostly from developing countries, met in Rome last week to address this issue in a workshop organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and hosted by FAO. “We are working to solve two of the key environmental issues – deforestation and global warming – at the same time,” said FAO Senior Forestry Officer Dieter Schoene. Trees are 50 percent carbon. When they are felled or burned, the C02 they store escapes back into the air. According to FAO figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Delegates of the 46 developing countries present at the Rome workshop signalled their readiness to act on deforestation, 80 percent of which is due to increased farmland to feed growing populations. Part of the solution is to increase agricultural productivity so that there is less demand to convert forests into farmland. But they also stressed that they needed financial help from the developed world to do the job. A major flow of capital from north to south – under new instruments still waiting to be negotiated -- would be required to help the developing nations conserve their forests.
Deforestation is inevitable
Science and Development Network, November 25 2005, “Emission Trading Cannot Solve Amazon Deforestation”, News and Information About Science, Technology, and The Developing World, (http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/ missions-trading-cannot-solve-amazon-deforestatio.html)
Some people say that projects that avoid deforestation should be eligible for CDM credits. They say that preventing deforestation would halt a root cause of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. The conversion of forests to poorly managed agricultural land leads not only to the release of carbon from trees, but also from soils that subsequently erode away. The problem is of particular concern in Brazil, where most of the Amazon rainforest lies. Data from the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia, a research institute in northern
Brazil, suggest that deforestation is responsible for emissions of an estimated 200 million tones of carbon each year. That is equivalent to two-thirds of Brazil’s emissions of greenhouse gases and about 2.5 per cent of global carbon emissions. But including projects that avoid deforestation in the CDM trading is unlikely to work in Brazil. Here are five reasons why. First, the problem of deforestation in Brazil is tightly linked to internal migration. If an area were declared protected by a CDM project, farmers would be likely to continue their unsustainable agricultural practices by simply moving to unprotected areas. Leaving-dioxide emissions unchanged. To avoid this, alternative economic opportunities would have to be offered to the farmers or effective sanctions would need to be applied. Controlling deforestation and the emissions that result from it would mean controlling migration. But this is difficult to do, say the authorities, because local institutions have limited funds and staff. Second, political disagreement on this issue between different groups in the country which has prevented Brazil from taking a united position in international negotiations. The Brazilian government opposes the inclusion within the CDM of projects that avoid deforestation, arguing that farmers would simply migrate to non-protected areas and cut down the trees there. Some non-governmental organizations and government officials do support the inclusion of ‘avoided deforestation’ projects
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 172
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Deforestation (3/3)
Deforestation causes global warming
Paulo Moutinho and Stephan Schwartzman, December 13 2005, “Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change”, Moutinho and Stephan Schwartzman. -- Belém - Pará - Brazil : IPAM - Instituto de Pesquisa Ambientalda Amazônia ; Washington DC - USA : Environmental Defense, (http://www.edf.org/documents/4930_ ropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf)
Deforestation releases carbon, principally as CO2, to the atmosphere as the organic carbon stored in trees and soil is oxidized through burning and decay. Other greenhouse gases, such as CH4 and N2O, are also emitted as a result of the conversion of forests to agricultural lands. Current emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation amount to about 25% of the enhanced greenhouse effect estimated to result from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. If current trends continue, tropical deforestation will release about 50% as much carbon to the atmosphere as has been emitted from worldwide combustion of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. The potential for avoided deforestation to reduce future emissions of greenhouse gases is significant.
Stopping deforestation is key to combat warming
Science Daily, May 11 2007, “Confirmed: Deforestation Plays Critical Climate Change Role”, (http://www.sciencedaily. om/releases/2007/05/070511100918.htm)
Dr Pep Canadell, from the Global Carbon Project and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, says in the journal Science that tropical
deforestation releases 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon each year into the atmosphere.” Deforestation in the tropics accounts for nearly 20 per cent of carbon emissions due to human activities,” Dr Canadell says. “This will release an estimated 87 to 130 billion tonnes of carbon by 2100, which is greater than the amount of carbon that would be released by 13 years of global fossil fuel combustion. So maintaining forests as carbon sinks will make a significant contribution to stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.” The new body of information shows considerable value in preserving tropical forests such as those in the Amazon and Indonesia
as carbon sinks, that they do not release the carbon back into the atmosphere as has been suggested.”Dr.Canadell says.
“However, it also demonstrates the need to avoid higher levels of global warming, which could slow the ability of forests to accumulate carbon.” In the first study of its kind, Dr Canadell joined an international team of experts from the US, UK, Brazil and France to compare data from 11 climate-carbon computer models. The results show that tropical forests continue to accumulate carbon through to the end of the century, although they may become less efficient at higher temperatures. “The new body of information shows considerable value in preserving tropical forests such as those in the Amazon and Indonesia as carbon sinks, that they do not release the carbon back into the atmosphere as has been suggested,” Dr Canadell says. “However, it also demonstrates the need to avoid higher levels of global warming, which could slow the ability of forests to accumulate carbon .” He says that while tropical deforestation will continue, slowing the amount of clearing will make significant impacts. “If by 2050 we slow deforestation by 50 per cent from current levels, with the aim of stopping deforestation when we have 50 per cent of the world’s tropical forests remaining, this would save the emission of 50 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. This 50/50/50 option would avoid the release of the equivalent of six years of global fossil fuel
emissions.” Reducing deforestation is just one of a portfolio of mitigation options needed to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Globally, we need a range of actions to reduce the build up of carbon in the atmosphere,” Dr
Canadell says. “This study ensures we have a sound scientific basis behind the consideration of deforestation reduction.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 173
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Contrails (1/2)
Airplane Contrails contribute to global warming
National Geographic News, June 14 2006, “Airplane Contrails Boost Global Warming, Study Suggests”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html)
Nicola Stuber, first author of the study, to be published in tomorrow's edition of the journal Nature, suggests that contrails' overall impact on climate change is similar in scope to that of aircrafts' carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over a hundred-year period. Aircraft are believed to be responsible for 2 to 3 percent of human CO2 emissions. Like other high, thin clouds, contrails reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. However, they also trap energy in Earth's atmosphere and boost the warming effect, the study says Stuber and other scientists believe that the effect of the contrails is significant. "On average the greenhouse warming effect dominates [the effects of contrails]," said Stuber, a meteorologist at England's University of Reading. This warming effect is far greater for contrails left by night flights, Stuber added. "The solar cooling effect [wherein contrails reflect the sun's rays back into space] only happens during the day, when the sun is up," she explained.
Contrails warming impact will grow significantly in coming years
National Geographic News, June 14 2006, “Airplane Contrails Boost Global Warming, Study Suggests”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html)
At the high altitudes favored by commercial airlines, the air is much more humid in winter, so contrails are twice as likely in that season, study co-author Stuber said. "We also found that flights between December and February contribute half of the annual mean climate warming, even though they account for less than a quarter of annual air traffic," she said of her U.K.-based research. Study leader Piers Forster, of England's University of Leeds, suggests that contrails' current impact on the atmosphere is likely to increase as air traffic grows. "Aircraft currently only have a small effect on climate," he said. "However, the fact that the volume of air traffic is set to rapidly grow in coming years makes it important to investigate the effects of contrails on our climate." Shifting airline schedules will surely prove far easier in theory than in reality. "The problem is that this is not something that can be done easily," said the University of Wisconsin's Travis. "With fuel prices on the rise and airlines going bankrupt, it is a difficult time to try and convince airlines to consider issues such as this one."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 174
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Contrails (2/2)
Contrails are proven to cause climate change
Science Daily, April 28 2004, “Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate”, Your source for the latest research news, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040428061056.htm)
NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994. "This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming
occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added. "This study demonstrates that human activity has a visible and significant impact on cloud cover and, therefore, on climate. It indicates that contrails should be included in climate change scenarios," Minnis said. Minnis determined the observed one percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the United States is likely due to air traffic-induced contrails. Using published results from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (New York) general circulation model,
Minnis and his colleagues estimated contrails and their resulting cirrus clouds would increase surface and lower atmospheric temperatures by 0.36 to 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. Weather service data reveal surface and lower atmospheric temperatures across North America rose by almost 0.5 degree Fahrenheit per decade between 1975 and 1994. Minnis worked with colleagues Kirk Ayers, Rabi Palinkonda, and Dung Phan from Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., of Hampton, Va. They used 25 years of global surface observations of cirrus clouds, temperature and humidity records from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis dataset. They confirmed the cirrus trends with 13 years of satellite data from NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. Both air traffic and cirrus coverage increased during the period of warming despite no changes in the NCEP humidity at jet cruise altitudes over the United States. By contrast, humidity at flight altitudes decreased over other land areas, such as Asia, and was accompanied by less cirrus
coverage, except over Western Europe, where air traffic is very heavy. Cirrus coverage also rose in the North Pacific and North Atlantic flight corridors. The trends in cirrus cover and warming over the United States were greatest during winter and spring, the same seasons when contrails are most frequent. These results, along with findings from earlier studies, led to the conclusion that contrails caused the increase in cirrus clouds. "This study indicates that contrails already have substantial regional effects where air traffic is heavy, such as over the United States. As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant," Minnis said. Humidity is the amount of water vapor in the air and determines how long contrails remain in the atmosphere. Contrails that persist for an extended period of time are most likely to impact the climate. Contrails form high in the atmosphere when the mixture of water vapor in the aircraft exhaust and the air condenses and freezes. Persisting contrails can spread into extensive cirrus clouds that tend to warm the Earth, because they reflect less sunlight than the amount of heat they trap. The balance between Earth's incoming sunlight and outgoing heat drives climate change.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 175
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Several Gasses
Several greenhouse gasses contribute significantly to global warming
EcoBridge, February 3 2008, “Causes of Global Warming”, (http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm)
While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important. According to the IPCC, Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years . [18] Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Most of the world’s rice, and all of the rice in the United States, is grown on flooded fields. When fields are flooded, anaerobic conditions develop and the organic matter in the soil decomposes, releasing CH4 to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice plants. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Water vapor is the most prevalent and most poweful greenhouse gas on the planet, but its increasing presence is the result of warming caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. (See NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) FAQ page) Water vapor holds onto two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases.[129] As the Earth heats up relative humidity is able to increase, allowing the planet's atmosphere to hold more water vapor, causing even more warming, thus a positive feedback scenario. Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, says the NCDC. There is much scientific uncertainty as to the degree this feedback loop causes increased warming,
inasmuch as the water vapor also causes increased cloud formation, which in turn reflects heat back out into space. Another greenhouse gas is Nitrous oxide (N2O), a colourless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odour, commonly known as "laughing gas", and sometimes used as an anaesthetic. Nitrous oxide is naturally produced by oceans and rainforests. Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is broken down in the atmosphere by chemical reactions that involve sunlight
Livestock cause climate change and destroy the environment
Geoffrey Lean, December 10 2006, “Cow ‘Emissions’ More Damaging To Planet than CO2 Emissions”, environmental editor of the independent, (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html)
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow. A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide. Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain. Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert. Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk. Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed over nourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health. The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi. The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.
Cows are the main cause of global warming
Reuters, December 1 2006, “Cattle Cause Most Global Warming”, (http://www.financialexpress. com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147739)
Who is contributing most to global warming? Dumb cattle and not emissions from factories and power plants, says the United Nations. The increasing world population, a new UN report warns, would lead to further increase in the number of livestock as demand for meat and milk increases and that would mean emission of more greenhouse gases. Not only that. Cattle are also a major contributor to land degradation and pollution of water, the report says. The livestock business, the report says, is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Stressing that cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, the UN has called for improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 177
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Sun (1/2)
The sun causes global warming- Mars proves
National Geographic News, February 28 2007, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause For Warming, Scientist Says”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
The sun causes global warming- we have plenty of time to act
Harvard Gazette, November 6 1997, “Brightening Sun Is Warming Earth, May Account For Major Part Of Global Warming”, (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html)
There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance. "Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary." If that conclusion proves true, it promises a huge economic and political impact on the "third rock from the Sun." The Clinton Administration is trying to negotiate an international treaty to gradually reduce greenhouse pollutants without bringing economic havoc to industries that satisfy our enormous
appetite for the energy that comes from burning oil, coal, and gas. Other world leaders and environmentalists are pushing for immediate action, but Baliunas thinks there is time to carefully consider what action to take. "The best models of global warming call for a very slow temperature rise of less than two degrees in the next 100 years," she has told various congressional committees and briefings. "There is time for more research and a measured response because the penalty you pay in increased temperatures from greenhouse warming is small."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 178
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Sun (2/2)
The sun is responsible for majority of climate change
Noah Shachtman, June 4 2008, “Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change”, columnist for Wired news, won the 2007 Online Journalism Award for best beat reporting, (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content /view/1293/218/)
The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles." In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are
indicating." In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted. It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. West acknowledges that the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
New Scientist, January 14 2006, “Editorial: Methane Emissions Cause Red Faces All Around”, (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925342.600-editorial-methane-emissions-cause-red-faces-all-around.html)
Vegetation, it seems, releases methane - not just when it rots, but under normal conditions. And it's no small amount either - between 10 and 30 per cent of all the methane pumped into the atmosphere. One reason why we may have missed this "minor detail" is that we know of no physiological reason why plants should make methane (see "The lungs of the planet are belching methane"). The finding clears up a number of observations that previously defied explanation, such as why methane emissions from rice plants increase with the area of foliage, and why rainforests give off large methane plumes. It also creates problems. Growing trees soak up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, so under the Kyoto protocol countries can plant forests as an alternative to reducing CO2 emissions. Now we find that trees emit methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Time to rethink the Kyoto rules, then.
Plants heavily contribute to global warming through methane production
New Scientist, January 12 2006, “The Lungs of The Planet Are Belching Methane”, (http://www.newscientist.com/ channel/life/mg18925343.900-the-lungs-of-the-planet-are-belching-methane.html)
IT'S not just farting cows and belching sheep that spew out methane. Living plants have been disgorging millions of tonnes of the potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year - without anybody noticing. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled since pre-industrial times. Environmental scientists thought they had identified all natural sources where bacteria convert organic plant matter to methane, such as swamps, wetlands and rice paddies. These bacteria only thrive in wet, oxygen-poor environments; they cannot survive in air. So Frank Keppler, an environmental engineer at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, was surprised when he saw signs of methane being emitted by plants he was examining in normal air. "If we were following the textbook, we would have ignored it as a mistake," he says. But Keppler and his colleagues decided to investigate further. They measured the amount of methane given off by plant debris - bits of grass and leaves from local and tropical plants - in methane-free chambers. To rule out the possibility that bacteria were at work, they bombarded the plants with gamma radiation to sterilise them. The team saw similar levels of methane produced by both sterilised and un-sterilised leaves. "We realised that we were looking at a previously unrecognised process," Keppler says. They still don't know exactly what is happening, but believe that pectin, a substance contained in plant cell walls, plays a part in the methane-making mechanism (Nature, vol 439, p 187). When the group repeated the tests with living plants they were stunned by the amount of methane created. They estimate that, globally, living plants produce between 63 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year, with plant debris adding another 1 to 7 million tonnes. This would make plants responsible for roughly 10 to 30 per cent of global methane production. "This effect is completely missing from climate change and biogeochemical models," says Peter Cox of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Winfrith in Dorset, UK. He suggests that a new source of methane could help solve some climate mysteries. One such puzzle was posed last year when satellite observations revealed that tropical rainforests are emitting more methane than expected (New Scientist, 26 March 2005, p 20). Thomas Wagner from the University of Heidelberg in Germany, who led last year's study, thinks Keppler may have found the culprit. "This new source is in good agreement with our results," he says. The finding should also encourage new strategies for cutting man-made methane emissions, says Chris Jardine of the University of Oxford's UK methane project.
Plants are Responsible For 30% of the Earth’s Methane Budget
Clementine Wallace, July 27 2007, “Plants: An OZONE Culprit”, freelance writer and part-time adjunct, NYU Journalism Undergraduate alumni, (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_10.html)
New findings suggest that plants might produce methane in situ by a hitherto unknown process, and emit quantities representing 10-30% of the earth's atmospheric methane levels. If confirmed, the results -- published in this week's issue of Nature -- will require a re-evaluation of the planet's global methane budget, and have a significant impact on many fields, from the study of past climate changes to greenhouse gas accounting. "At first, most people we showed our results to said -it can't be, something must be wrong," co-author Thomas Röckmann, from the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research in Utrecht, The Netherlands, told The Scientist. "It's more than not knowing it exists, people think it can't happen." But when it comes to greenhouse gases,
knowledge is power, he added. "If you want to do something about the emissions and control them, you have to understand where they come from and where they go," said Röckmann. Ultimately, the findings may lead to potential changes in the way governments manage greenhouse gases, consisting mostly of methane and carbon dioxide. For instance, some countries are trying to reduce their emissions by planting forests to absorb CO2 - but if that solution also results in more methane emissions, it will pose additional problems, according to David Lowe from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand, who was not a co-author. Most of the methane emitted from natural sources is currently thought to originate from microbial activity in anaerobic environments, mainly in the earth's wetlands. This bacterial process is also involved in anthropogenic sources of methane, such as the soil of rice paddies and ruminants. Even though scientists did not expect plants to produce methane,
Röckmann's team found that plants contain different methyl halides such as methanol or methyl chloride. They set out to examine whether plants do, in fact, emit the greenhouse gas. When the researchers incubated detached leaf tissue or intact plants in methane-free chambers, they detected emissions. Using isotopic measurements, the researchers confirmed the releases originated from the plants, not the soil. If other types of living plants produce comparable amounts of methane globally, the researchers estimate plants could produce between 62 and 236 Teragrams (1 Tg=1012 grams) of methane every year, or 10-30% of the global methane budget. "These are the findings of just one group. Now others around the world will have to make efforts to confirm these observations and to figure out the process that might be involved," said Lowe. Röckmann's group did not investigate further how vegetation might produce methane, but hypothesized the mechanism may involve pectin, a cell-bonding agent in plants. "I personally would have liked to see more experiments to define the chemical process, but research is limited by time," Carl Brenninkmeijer, a researcher from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, who did not participate in the study, told The Scientist. "It's difficult to understand how vegetal organic matter, even apple pectin, would produce methane in the presence of oxygen." Experts agree that, if additional experiments confirm that plants contribute a significant amount of methane to the environment, researchers would have to re-examine global methane budget calculations. For instance, they would have to re-evaluate the estimated contributions of wetlands, rice fields, ruminants and other
sources to the budget's global value, which remains stable at about 600 million tons per year. These new findings may also provide insights into ongoing mysteries involving methane. For instance, between the ice ages and the warm ages, the only acknowledged source of methane was wetlands, but they don't explain the era's puzzling variations in the methane budget.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 181
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Arthropods (1/2)
Arthropods contribute significantly to climate change
Johannes H. P. Hackstein and Claudius K. Stumm, June 7 1994, “Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 91, No. 12, Department of Microbiology and Evolutionary Biology, ()http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424(19940607)91%3A12%3C5441%3AMPITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&cookieSet=1
Arthropods cause global methane fluxuations
Johannes H. P. Hackstein and Claudius K. Stumm, June 7 1994, “Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 91, No. 12, Department of Microbiology and Evolutionary Biology, ()http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424(19940607)91%3A12%3C5441%3AMPITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&cookieSet=1
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 182
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Alt Cause – Arthropods (2/2)
Arthropods contribute significantly to climate changeJohannes H. P. Hackstein and Claudius K. Stumm, June 7 1994, “Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 91, No. 12, Department of Microbiology and Evolutionary Biology, ()http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424(19940607)91%3A12%3C5441%3AMPITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&cookieSet=1
Arthropods cause global methane fluxuationsJohannes H. P. Hackstein and Claudius K. Stumm, June 7 1994, “Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 91, No. 12, Department of Microbiology and Evolutionary Biology, ()http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424(19940607)91%3A12%3C5441%3AMPITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&cookieSet=1
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 183
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – China (1/2)
No Solvency- China’s CO2 emissions will overshadow emission cuts
National Geographic, March 18 2008, “China CO2 Emissions Growing Faster Than Anticipated”, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html)
China's greenhouse gas emissions are rising much faster than expected and will overshadow the cuts in global emissions expected due to the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new study. Forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had predicted that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would rise by about 2.5 to 5 percent each year between 2004 and 2010. But the estimates are two to four times too low, according to new research led by Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley. The study calculated that for the period from 2004 to 2010, China 's CO2 emissions will have grown by at least 11 percent a year. "The emissions growth rate is surpassing our worst expectations, and that means the goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 is going to be much, much harder to achieve," Auffhammer said. The new findings threaten to throw a damper on the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Most countries—including all major industrialized countries except the U.S.—have signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. (Related: "Australia Signs Kyoto Protocol; U.S. Now Only Holdout" [December 3, 2007].) But a major sticking point for the U.S. is that the agreement only mandates reductions for developed countries, mostly in North America and Europe. These areas are currently responsible for most of the CO2 that's causing global warming. Developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil are exempt from any reduction targets. But China, the world's most populous country, has been developing at lightning speed—perhaps faster than any country in history. Since most of its electricity comes from coal, for instance, China has been building coal-fired power plants at a rate of roughly two a week for the past few years. The country recently surpassed the U.S. to become the world's single leading emitter of CO2, according to another recent study. (China has more than four times the population of the U.S., however, so China's emissions per person are much lower.) China's greater-than-anticipated emissions may completely nullify the Kyoto reductions, raising the pressure to find ways for the country to grow cleanly, according to experts. "Making China and other developing countries an integral part of any future climate agreement is now even more important," Auffhammer said. To create the updated forecast, the new study took the novel approach of looking at each of China's provinces individually. "Everybody had been treating China as single country," said study co-author Richard Carson of the University of California, San Diego. But each of its more than 20 provinces is large, with populations bigger than many European countries, Carson pointed out. The areas have different standards of living and different rates of development and population growth—all of which the new study factors in. Also, many of the new coal-fired power plants that have been built in the past few years are low-cost designs, which are less efficient and therefore emit more CO2. "The problem is that power plants, once built, are meant to last for 40 to 75 years," Carson said. "Our forecast incorporates the fact that much of China is now stuck with power plants that are dirty and inefficient."
No Solvency- China’s CO2 emissions means stabilizing atmospheric CO2 is impossible
GCC, March 11 2008, “New Analysis Concludes China CO2 Emissions Growing More Rapidly Than Expected”,Green Car Congress’ mission is to provide timely, high-quality editorial about the full spectrum of energy options, technologies, products, issues and policies related to sustainable mobility, (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/new-analysis-co.html)
The growth in China’s carbon dioxide emissions is far outpacing previous estimates, making the goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases much more difficult, according to a new analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and UC San Diego. The authors of the study, Maximillian Auffhammer, UC Berkeley assistant professor of agricultural and resource economics, and Richard Carson, UC San Diego professor of economics, based their findings upon pollution data from China’s 30 provincial entities. Previous estimates, including those used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5% annual increase in CO2 emissions, the largest contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases, between 2004 and 2010. The new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11% for the same time period. The study is scheduled for print
publication in the May issue of the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, but is now online. The researchers’ most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country’s levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol. (The protocol was never ratified in the United States, which was the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide until 2006, when China took over that distinction, according to numerous reports.) Put another way, the projected annual increase in China alone over the next several years is greater than the current emissions produced by either Great Britain or Germany. Based upon these findings, the authors say current global warming forecasts are “overly optimistic,” and that action is urgently needed to curb greenhouse gas production in China and other rapidly industrializing countries. Auffhammer said this paper should serve as an alarm challenging the widely held belief that actions taken by the wealthy, industrialized nations alone represent a viable strategy towards the goal of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Making China and other developing countries an integral part of any future climate agreement is now even more important. It had been expected that the efficiency of China’s power generation would continue to improve as per capita income increased, slowing down the rate of CO2 emissions growth. What we’re finding instead is that the emissions growth rate is surpassing our worst expectations, and that means the goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 is going to be much, much harder to achieve.
News Post India, June 5 2008, “India Wont Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions Against Development”, (http://www.newspostindia.com/report-59039)
India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Namo Narain Meena said Thursday. India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,' Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day. hough India has no commitment to reduce the global warming gases under the Kyoto Protocol, in recent climate change conferences many developed countries have said India needs to reduce the greenhouse burden.
India will not cut emissions which will hurt its development
Transnational Institute, June 7 2007, “G8: India Stonewalls Demand for Emission Cuts”, A worldwide fellowship of committed scholar-activists, (http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=16949)
India is likely to cut a sorry figure on climate change issues during and after the G8 summit at Heiligendamm in Germany. s the world's fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of its fastest growing economies, India will come under intense pressure both from the European Union and the United States to cut its emissions. But India will doggedly refuse to make any time-bound commitment to reducing them, and strongly resist legally binding caps. t press briefings on the eve of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Germany --ironically, on World Environment Day -- senior officials made it clear that New Delhi sticks to its stand that it is the developed world which caused climate change through its industrial activities; the onus to reverse the damage lies on the developed countries. Singhsaid: "Due care must be taken not to allow growth and development prospects in the developing world to be undermined or constrained." Singh emphasized the "principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities between the developed and developing world". his is shorthand for demanding that the industrialized countries cough up the bulk of the costs for reversing climate change. Singhadded: "...more and not less development is the best way for developing countries to address themselves to the issue of preserving the environment and protecting the climate." his means India will demand special concessions for the developing countries like patent-free technology transfer in respect of "clean energy", and financial assistance, including venture capital funding, to make a transition towards reduced greenhouse gas emissions."With such a stonewalling and negative approach, India won't emerge from the G-8 meeting smelling of roses," says Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia coordinator of Dams, Rivers and People, which looks closely at climate change issues and which recently highlighted the contribution of India's large dams to releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 186
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Developing Nations
U.S. can not solve global warming alone
Brookings Institute, June 2006, “Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming Is Over”, (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf)
At current rates only Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom are close to complying with the Kyoto mandates, and most of the compliance by Russia and Germany is the result of backdated credits for the closing of Warsaw Pact-era power plants and factories that had already been shuttered before the Kyoto agreement was initialed in 1997. Meanwhile, developing nations especially India and China are increasing their greenhouse gas emissions at prodigious rates—so much so that in the short term developing nations will swamp any reductions achieved by the West. Since 1990, India has increased its emissions of greenhouse gases by 70 percent and China by 49 percent, versus an 18 percent increase by the United States. China is on track to pass the United States as the leading emitter of artificial greenhouse gases. If current trends continue, the developing world will emit more greenhouse gases than the West by around 2025. And here’s the real kicker: even if all the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol were enforced to perfection, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the year 2050 would be only about 1 percent less than without the treaty.
Developing nations will not model the U.S. on climate change
Rep. Joe Barton, April 23 2007, “What To Do About Global Warming (Hint It Isn’t Cap And Trade Policy)”, Barton is ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, (http://thehill.com /leading-the-news/what-to-do-about-global-warming-hint--it-isnt-cap-and-trade-policy-2007-04-23.html)
The irony is that when U.S. environmental policies chase companies out of America, the global environment doesn’t prosper. Developing countries always swap clean air for economic growth. China’s coal production, for example, is as explosive as its economic growth, and the Chinese add a 500-megawatt coal-fired powerplant every week. We also heard that decisions in China about where and what kind of power plants to build are decentralized, effectively uncontrolled, and we learned that less than 5 percent of China’s coal-fired electricity plants are even fitted with ordinary sulfur dioxide control equipment. Even for the ones with SO2 scrubbers, it’s an open question whether those with the equipment actually use it. Some say if America just sets the example, everybody else will follow. But a real pollutant, sulfur dioxide, is a fine indicator of how good-example strategy doesn’t work at all. America has been scrubbing sulfur dioxide out of smokestacks for more than 20 years because it’s a real pollutant, but China still refuses.
.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 187
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solvency – Larger CO2 Decrease Needed
Global Emissions must be cut by 90% to solve warmingGeorge Monbiot, September 21 2006, “An 87% Cut By 2030”, held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Essex, United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement, author of several best selling books on global warming, (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/06/09/about-george-monbiot/)
Two degrees is the point at which some of the most dangerous processes catalysed by climate change could become irreversible. This includes the melting of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which between them could raise global sea levels by seven metres(1). It includes the drying out of many parts of Africa, and the inundation by salt water of the aquifers used by cities such as Shanghai, Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Kolkata, Mumbai, Karachi, Lagos, Buenos Aires and Lima(2). It also means runaway positive feedback, as the Arctic tundras begin to release the methane they contain(3), and the Amazon rainforest dies off, turning trees back into carbon dioxide(4,5). In other words, if the
planet warms by 2 degrees, 3 or 4 degrees becomes almost inevitable. So by how much do we need to cut carbon emissions if we are to stop this from happening? The most persuasive analysis I have seen was compiled by a man called Colin Forrest(6). He is not a professional climate scientist, but the figures he uses have been published in peer-
reviewed journals. He argues his case as follows: Researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact in Germany have estimated that holding global temperatures to below 2 degrees means stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at or below the equivalent of 440 parts of carbon dioxide per million(7). While the carbon dioxide
concentration currently stands at 380 parts, the other greenhouse gases raise this to an equivalent of 440 or 450. In other words, if everything else were equal, greenhouse gas concentrations in 2030 would need to be roughly the same as they are today. Unfortunately, everything else is not equal. By 2030, according to a paper published by scientists at the Met Office,
the total capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon will have reduced from the current 4 billion tonnes a year to 2.7 billion(8). To maintain equilibrium at that point, in other words, the world’s population can emit no more than 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon a year in 2030. As we currently produce around 7 billion, this implies a global reduction of 60%. In 2030, the world’s people are likely to number around 8.2 billion. By dividing the total carbon sink (2.7 billion tonnes) by the number of people, we find that to achieve stabilisation the weight of carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 0.33 tonnes. If this problem is to be handled fairly, everyone should have the same entitlement to release carbon, at a rate no
greater than 0.33 tonnes per year. In the rich countries, this means an average cut by 2030 of around 90%. The United Kingdom, for example, currently releases 2.6 tonnes of carbon (9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide) per capita(9), so would need to reduce its emissions by 87%. Germany requires a cut of 88%, France of 83%, the United States, Canada and Australia, 94%. By contrast, the Kyoto Protocol - the only international
agreement that has been struck so far - commits its signatories to cut their carbon emissions by a total of 5.2% by 2012. These could be underestimates. The Potsdam Institute calculates that with the equivalent of 440 parts of carbon dioxide per million of air in the atmosphere, there
is a 67% chance of holding the temperature rise to below 2 degrees(10). Another study suggests that to obtain a 90% chance of stabilisation below 2 degrees, you would need to keep the concentration below 400 parts per million - 40 or 50 parts below the current level(11). Because the carbon released now stays in the atmosphere for some 200 years and causes climate change many years into the future, there is perhaps a 30% chance that we have already blown it. We might already be committed to 2 degrees.
1990 levels are insufficient and solving warming requires global actionJAXA, April 12 2007, “Watching How The Earth Breathes- To Prevent Global Warming”, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, (http://www.jaxa.jp/article/interview/vol28/p3_e.html)
However I still don't think the Kyoto Protocol is sufficient. Its requirement of greenhouse-gas reductions by 6 to 8 percent from 1990 levels is not enough. It has been reported that we must reduce emissions by two thirds or three quarters in order to keep the average temperature from increasing by 2?degreeC. If the global temperature increases by just a few degrees, the climate will become unstable, and we'll experience conditions such as large scale typhoons, or unusually hot or cold weather. It is also believed that the consequences of a global
temperature increase of more than 2 degreeC are not only climate change, but also further acceleration of global warming due to the melting of polar ice, and the spread of infectious diseases through the increased proliferation of mosquitoes. I think that the Kyoto Protocol is an insufficient solution to global warming prevention because, aside from the insufficiency of its reduction targets, the United States and China are outside the framework, despite
being, respectively, the top two producers of greenhouse-gas emissions, followed by Russia and Japan. I think that the U.S. and China, and all the other nations, must take collaborative actions on global warming, or our Earth will face catastrophic consequences.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 188
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – 1990 Levels Fail
1990 CO2 levels cannot stop global warming
Norm Dixon, November 3 2004, “Has a ‘Runaway’ Greenhouse Effect Begun?”, Norm Dixon writes for The NewStandard. He is also a former editor of Green Left Weekly,(http://www.greenleft.org. au/2004/605/31416)
Rajendra Pachauri, chairperson of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which pools the expertise of more than 2000 of the world’s climate scientists, warned on October 25 that the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established in the 1997 Kyoto agreement do not go far enough and far more radical solutions must be found. Pachauri welcomed the Russian parliament’s October 22 ratification of the Kyoto agreement, which will allow the treaty to come into legal force despite the refusal by the world’s major polluter, the United States, to sign. However, “this mustn’t lull us into thinking that the problem is solved”, Pachauri told Reuters. “Kyoto is not enough. We have to look at the problem afresh.” The Kyoto treaty aims for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of around 5% of 1990 levels, far short of the 60-80% over the next 50 years necessary to arrest global warming.
1990 levels are insufficient and solving warming requires global action
JAXA, April 12 2007, “Watching How The Earth Breathes- To Prevent Global Warming”, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, (http://www.jaxa.jp/article/interview/vol28/p3_e.html)
However I still don't think the Kyoto Protocol is sufficient. Its requirement of greenhouse-gas reductions by 6 to 8 percent from 1990 levels is not enough. It has been reported that we must reduce emissions by two thirds or three quarters in order to keep the average temperature from increasing by 2?degreeC. If the global temperature increases by just a few degrees, the climate will become unstable, and we'll experience conditions such as large scale typhoons, or unusually hot or cold weather. It is also believed that the consequences of a global temperature increase of more than 2 degreeC are not only climate change, but also further acceleration of global warming due to the melting of polar ice, and the spread of infectious diseases through the increased proliferation of mosquitoes. I think that the Kyoto Protocol is an insufficient solution to global warming prevention because, aside from the insufficiency of its reduction targets, the United States and China are outside the framework, despite being, respectively, the top two producers of greenhouse-gas emissions, followed by Russia and Japan. I think that the U.S. and China, and all the other nations, must take collaborative actions on global warming, or our Earth will face catastrophic consequences.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 189
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Price Caps Bad
Carbon price caps damage the economy and will not limit global emissions
Annie Petsonk, March 27 2007, “Climate Change- International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries”, J.D., Harvard Law School. Adjunct professor, George Washington University and University of Maryland law schools (1994-present); trial attorney in Policy, Legislation and Special Litigation, US Department of Justice (1990-1995); environmental law unit, United Nations Environment Programme (1986-1989), (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf)
If Congress enacts a cap and trade program with a cap on total tons of GHG emissions, that program could dovetail well with existing and emerging international carbon markets, and provide a model for developing nations to cap their total emissions too. Suppose, however, Congress adopts price controls (which some have dubbed a kind of "safety valve"), such that if the price of carbon in our market rises above a certain number of dollars per ton, then government prints more allowances for sale to those industries at the controlled price. Some of America's trading partners might consider this to be an actionable subsidy under the World Trade Organization (WTO). Others, particularly industrialized countries with national cap-and-trade programs, would decide that because the "price cap" busts our emissions cap, it precludes having the U.S. link to other cap-and-trade markets. But more fundamentally, what kind of leadership-by-example would this escape hatch show to developing nations? Some would be tempted to adopt their own escape hatch, patterned on ours. They might set their prices at our levels, or they might cap prices at significantly lower levels commensurate with their lower levels of economic development. American low-carbon technologies and highefficiencyproducts might not be able to compete at price-capped levels in these nations. A downward cascade of protectionist price caps would lead to a race to the bottom, freezing American ingenuity out of other nations' markets and sacrificing effective limits on the emissions of all the countries that deploy this kind of escape hatch. To lead by example, Congress should recognize that the real danger is not that the costs of abatement will be too high. every serious study, and a nowsubstantialbody of experience with the U.S. Acid Rain Trading Program, teaches that the costs always turn out to be lower than estimated. The real danger is that price caps will simply give developing countries a new and additional economic advantage to use against industrialized countries with emissions caps. To guard against this danger, Congress should refrain from enacting carbon market price controls.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 190
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Aviation
Air travel is a major cause of climate change and produces massive emissions.
IPCC 99 (Inter-governmental panel on climate change, “IPCC Highlights the Growing Contribution of Aviation to Global Warming”, 6/4, p. 1, http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm#nobel)
Geneva, Friday, 4 June 1999 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has today released a special report on the effect of aviation on the global atmosphere entitled "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere". The report has been developed over the last two years by a group of more than 100 scientists from around the world and was endorsed during a three-day IPCC meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica in mid-April 1999. It represents the results of unprecedented collaboration between the IPCC and the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and provides a detailed assessment of the impact of aircraft engine emissions on climate and atmospheric ozone. Air travel is projected to grow by about five per cent annually until 2015, burning three per cent more fuel per year in that period. This report finds that aircraft emissions, and their impacts, will be far greater in 2050 unless new technologies and operational modes are developed. Fuel consumption by civil aviation is expected to reach 300 million tonnes in 2015 and 450 million tonnes in 2050, compared to 130 million tonnes in 1992, with corresponding high emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour as well as nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides. The aviation industry has undergone rapid growth and projections suggest that the trend is likely to continue. It is, therefore, highly relevant to consider current and possible future effects of aircraft on the atmosphere. The report considers all the gases and particles emitted by aircraft into the atmosphere and the role which they play in climate change, and modification of the ozone layer. The report also considers how potential changes in aircraft technology, air transport operations and the institutional, regulatory and economic framework might affect emissions in the future. It describes the state of scientific knowledge together with associated uncertainties.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 191
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Pipeline
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise is inevitable.
IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, 12/12-17, p. 24-25)
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised. {WGI 10.4, 10.5, 10.7, SPM} If radiative forcing were to be stabilised, keeping all the radiative forcing agents constant at B1 or A1B levels in 2100, model experiments show that a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected by 2200. In addition, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999). Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries, due to the time required to transport heat into the deep ocean. {WGI 10.7, SPM}Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If such a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland (1.9 to 4.6°C global) are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea level rise. {WGI 6.4, 10.7, SPM} Dynamical processes related to ice flow – which are not included in current models but suggested by recent observations – could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {WGI 4.6, 10.7, SPM} Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {WGI 10.7, SPM} Both past and future anthropogenic CO2 emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for the removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {WGI 7.3, 10.3, Figure 7.12, Figure 10.35, SPM}
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 192
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Wavelength Saturation
No solvency- The carbon cycle will filter light regardless of human contributions
Daly, John (Writer for John Daly.com) “CO2 Absorption Spectrum” http://nov55.com/ntyg.html 1998
Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance. Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through obfuscation of complexities. This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks. Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. A 3% increase in CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel by 3% before total absorption occurs. In other words, at mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 1,000m instead of 300m. Reducing those distance by 3% is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact. As shown on the page titled "Crunching the Numbers," the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming. There's another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase. The miniscule area of concern on the shoulders of the absorption peak for CO2 is shown on one of Heinz Hug's graphs, linked below
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 193
Scholars Lab Warming
No Solve – Wavelength Saturation
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere traps as much heat as is physically possibly
Petschauer 6, Richard (Senior Member IEEE Abstract) 8/28/06 "Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely A Bit Player in Global Warming" http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ARbaZxOAlVQJ:www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf+Wavelength+Saturation+Carbon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
New calculations show that doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase average global temperature by only about 1F (degrees Fahrenheit) or 0.55C (degrees Centigrade), much less that the range of 2C to 4.5C estimated by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These new calculations are based on NASA supported spectral calculations available on the Internet relating to greenhouse gases. The temperature increases are estimated to be somewhat more in winter in the colder climates because of reduced competing atmosphere water vapor, but smaller increases at other times and places. These calculations also estimate that a 10 percent increase of water vapor in the atmosphere, a stronger greenhouse gas than CO 2 , or a reduction in the average cloud cover of only about 2 percent, will increase global temperature about as much as doubling Co2 would. Each additional doubling of CO2 will cause further temperature increases of about the same as that caused by the first doubling. Greenhouse gases, except water vapor, only trap heat at certain narrow wavelengths of infrared radiation related to their molecular structures. Data shows that present concentrations of CO 2 a strong absorber are already well above the saturation value at its principal wavelength, so increases in it have a relative small affect. These new calculations are based on atmospheric models of the energy absorption bandwidths of greenhouse gases coupled with Max Planck’s equations relating to infrared wavelength distributions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 194
Scholars Lab Warming
***Warming Good – A2: Aff Impacts***
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 195
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: War (1/2)
There is very little evidence that climate change results in more conflict: Many examples disprove.
Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922, Accessed 6/28/08)
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
Creating conflict through climate change ignores the ways in which conflicts have reduced in response to a lack of resources.
These climate scare stories ignore the ways many poorly resourced communities manage their affairs without recourse to violence. Violent conflict in the Global South is generally more connected to resource abundance (competition over rich mineral reserves in the Congo or diamonds in Sierra Leone) than resource scarcity. Moreover, people and nations are as capable of cooperating as they are prone to fighting. The 1990s specter of violent water wars never materialized because of diplomacy and water-sharing agreements. Despite grandiose claims that hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees' will roam the planet, we simply don't know how many people global warming will displace. So much will depend on how effectively the international community rises to the challenge of reducing poor people's vulnerability to drought, storms, floods and sea-level rise, and implements strong disaster-response strategies.
Blaming climate change for conflicts only lets tyrannical governments off the hook who are the real source of the conflict.
Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922, Accessed 6/28/08)
Second, arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook. If the environment drives conflict, then governments bear little responsibility for bad outcomes. That’s why Ban Ki-moon’s case about Darfur was music to Khartoum’s ears. The Sudanese government would love to blame the West for creating the climate change problem in the first place. True, desertification is a serious concern, but it’s preposterous to suggest that poor rainfall—rather than deliberate actions taken by the Sudanese government and the various combatant factions—ultimately caused the genocidal violence in Sudan. Yet by Moon’s perverse logic, consumers in Chicago and Paris are at least as culpable for Darfur as the regime in Khartoum. To be sure, resource scarcity and environmental degradation can lead to social frictions. Responsible, accountable governments, however, can prevent local squabbles from spiraling into broader violence, while mitigating the risk of some severe environmental calamities. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has observed, no democracy has ever experienced a famine. Politicians who fear the wrath of voters usually do their utmost to prevent foreseeable disasters and food shortages. Accountable leaders are also better at providing public goods such as clean air and water to their citizens
Viewing conflict in Darfur as part of climate change ignores the role of a corrupt government.
Above all, the nature of institutions and power structures at the local, regional, national and international levels determines whether conflict over resources turns violent or not. Blaming the deaths in Darfur on drought and land degradation caused by climate change naturalizes profoundly political forces. Sudan is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with wealth and power concentrated in the capital Khartoum. Government agricultural policies that stole land from small peasants and redistributed it to large mechanized farms not only triggered political and ethnic grievances in Darfur, but caused ecological damage. It is to history and human agency we should look to understand the roots of crises like Darfur, not to a weather map.
Times Online 07 “Climate Change may help Rainforests” September 21, 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2500311.ece
Climate change may lead to lush growth rather than catastrophic tree loss in the Amazonian forests, researchers from the US and Brazil have found. A study, in the journal Science, found that reduced rainfall had led to greener forests, possibly because sunlight levels are higher when there are fewer rainclouds. But scientists cautioned that while the finding raises hopes for the survival of the forests, there are still serious threats. Climate models have suggested that the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Climate models have suggested in the past that the Amazon will suffer enormous die-backs as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere . Deforestation is calculated to be one of the main contributors to the rising carbon dioxide levels that are widely held by the scientific community to be causing global warming. The loss of the Amazon would cause enormous quantities of carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation to be released back into the atmosphere, intensifying the warming effect.
Warming has positive effects on Ecosystems Owen 07James (Writer for National Geographic) “Global Warming: Good for Greenland?” October 17, 2007. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071017-greenland-warming.html
For some in Greenland these days, the grass is looking greener. Rapid thawing brought on by global warming on the world's largest island has opened up new opportunities for agriculture, commercial fishing, mining, and oil exploration. The island's native people, though, may not be on the "winning" side of warming. Scientists now report Arctic temperatures are rising almost twice as fast as elsewhere in the world. (Related news: "Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says" [August 10, 2006].) A new WWF Denmark report released last week studied the effects of climate change on the people of Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark. "The warmer climate will have a definite positive effect on Greenland's economic possibilities and development , " the report said. In southwestern Greenland, for example, the grass-growing season gets longer each year, boosting productivity for some 60 sheep farms now established in the region. Up to 23,500 sheep
and lambs are slaughtered annually. Dairy cattle have recently been reintroduced, and a government-led project is expected to yield 29,058 gallons (110,000 liters) of milk annually, according to the new report. Locally grown potatoes have appeared in supermarkets, alongside broccoli and other vegetables never before cultivated in Greenland. Commercial fishermen are anticipating bumper cod catches after the fish recently moved north into Greenland's waters. Halibut are also increasing in size.
Stampf 07Olaf (Writer for Spiegel Online) “Not the end of the World as we Know it” May 07, 2007 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate. Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all. Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning
coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past. Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad. During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.
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.
Other factors outweigh – Disease link limited
World Press 7 (http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/does-global-warming-necessarily-mean-more-disease/)A much hyped claim about global warming — that it will lead to an increase in infectious disease — is simply not true. Or more precisely, there is a decided lack of evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis according to a recent National Academy of Sciences report.Donald Burke, professor of international health for John Hopkins School of Public Health, headed the panel and said that, “The potential exists for scientists one day to be able to predict the impact of global climate change on disease, but that day is not yet here.”Climate conditions do certainly play a role in how diseases are distributed, but today housing conditions, vaccination, and sanitation systems play an enormous role in the spread of disease. As many commentators have noted, malaria was an enormous problem in North America well into the 20th century. The disease was eradicated in the United States and Canada thanks to a large public health intervention to rid the continent of the disease.Climate change could cause some changes in infectious diseases, but it is more likely that socioeconomic factors would play the key role in the spread, or lack thereof, of disease.
No link between climate and disease – Temperature records prove
Kuennen 4 (Tom, http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/diseases.html, Expressways)"Some scientists fear the effects [of global warming] will be disastrous in numerous ways," reported Dan Vergano in USA Today in January 2000. "Tropical diseases, such as dengue fever and malaria, might move north into vulnerable populations." But a new article published by a journal of the federally funded U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) points out that malaria was most frequent in England and Europe during the well-documented "Little Ice Age" of the 16th and 17th centuries, and already was endemic throughout North America and elsewhere. The article puts ice on the idea that presumed global warming will lead to catastrophic spread of infectious disease. In From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age, CDCP disease entomologist Dr. Paul Reiter proves that spread of so-called "tropical" infectious diseases is a function of depressed public health, not warmer average temperatures. Claims that malaria's reappearance is due to climate change ignore reality and disregard history, Reiter said. "For example, the many statements that recent climate change has caused malaria to ascend to new altitudes are contradicted by records of its distribution in 1880 to 1945," he said. "Public concern should focus on ways to deal with the realities of malaria transmission, rather than on the weather."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 200
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – Water Shortages
Water shortages wont be widespread – increased rainfall will compensateM. Falkenmark 7 (Prof at Stockholm International Water Institute)“Global warming: water the main mediator” http://www.uneca.org/awich/Reports/Global%20warming%20and%20Water%20WF2_07_globalwarming.pdf
In terms of freshwater, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes but decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. It shows that large low- and mid-latitude areas will get up to 40% less runoff already some 40 years from now, while other low and high latitude areas will get up to 40% more runoff.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 201
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – Natural Disasters
Warming doesn’t cause disasters
Grist`5 (Grist.com, environmental news & commentary, written by David Roberts, 2005, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/6/162641/5470)
Empirical research strongly suggests that global warming has not increased the harmfulness of weather-related natural disasters in the past century, though it is likely to do so in the future. But even that future increase pales beside the ongoing rise in disaster-related deaths, which is precipitous and immediate and calls out for an equally urgent response. Most tools needed to reduce disaster vulnerability already exist, such as risk assessment techniques, better building codes and code enforcement, land-use standards, and emergency-preparedness plans. The question is why disaster vulnerability is so low on the list of global development priorities. Sarewitz and Pielke are too hard on greens in their piece, saying those who link global warming and natural disasters are either "ill-informed or dishonest" -- even as they acknowledge such a link exists. Their point, though, is that the link is tenuous and speculative, while the death toll of natural disasters is not. There's a larger point here for environmentalists. Global warming is a serious issue and warrants concerted action. But it is not the only issue, and it will not serve the environmental cause well to be associated exclusively with unremitting climate-change alarmism as a response to every issue. Deforestation, wetlands loss, and over-development are all ecological issues more directly pertinent to disaster preparedness than global warming. And on a broader level, the only thing that will prevent these ecological losses is development: lifting the poor of the world out of poverty, reducing the distance between the gap and the core. Enviros are, as I've said before, often hobbled by their single-issue focus. If we, not as enviros but as progressives, really want to reduce human suffering and protect the global environment, our energy and time is often best spent tackling ecological problems indirectly -- by fighting poverty, pushing for third-world debt relief, lobbying for fairer and more progressive tax policy in developed nations, and working to find and celebrate examples of the kind of entrepreneurial innovations in energy, transportation, urban planning, medicine, politics, etc. that will create a world where ecological health is a natural (pardon the pun) side effect.
There is no consensus and insufficient data to support the idea that warming increases weather extremes.
Green Facts Digest 01 (peer-reviewed summary of scientific consensus, “Are recent extreme weather events due to global warming?”, Scientific Facts on Climate Change: 2001 Assessment http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_2/global_warming_7.htm)
7.2. Is the occurrence of extreme temperatures increasing? "Data on climate extremes in many regions of the world are inadequate to draw definitive conclusions about possible changes that may have occurred on a global scale. However, in some regions where good data are available, there have been some significant increases and decreases in extreme events over time. For example, there has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely separated areas in recent decades (e.g., Australia, the United States, Russia, and China). The impact of such changes can manifest itself in fewer freezing days and late season frosts, such as have been documented in Australia and the United States. Indeed, we expect that the number of days with extremely low temperatures should continue to decrease as global temperatures rise. Widespread, extended periods of extremely high temperatures are also expected to become more frequent with continued global warming , such as the unprecedented high nighttime temperatures during the 1995 heat wave in Chicago, Illinois, and the midwestern United States that caused an estimated 830 deaths. However, the global frequency of such heat waves has not been analyzed at this time."7 .3. Are precipitation levels changing? "Higher temperatures lead to higher rates of evaporation and precipitation. As the Earth warms, we expect more precipitation and it is likely to fall over shorter intervals of time, thereby increasing the frequency of very heavy and extreme precipitation events. Analyses of observed changes in precipitation intensity have been conducted only for a few countries. Perhaps the best evidence of increases in extreme and very heavy precipitation events comes from data in North America as depicted for the United States in Figure 8.1. In Australia, which is historically prone to heavy precipitation, an increase in rainfall amount from major storms has also been observed. Analyses for South Africa also show increases in extreme precipitation rates. In another area, China, where data have been analyzed for the last several decades, no obvious trends are apparent, but high concentrations of air pollution
(such as sulfate particles that can cool the climate) may be counteracting such changes in this region. There is as yet no evidence for a worldwide rise in the frequency of droughts. In the future, however, it is expected that many regions will experience more frequent, prolonged, or more severe droughts, primarily due to the more rapid evaporation of moisture from plants, soils, lakes, and reservoirs. This is expected to occur even as precipitation increases and heavy precipitation events become more common." 7.4. Are storms affected by global warming? "Blizzards and snow storms may actually increase in intensity and frequency in some colder locations as atmospheric moisture increases. In more temperate latitudes,
snowstorms are likely to decrease in frequency, but their intensity may actually increase, as the world warms. Observations show that snowfall has increased in the high latitudes of North America, but snow accumulations have melted faster because of more frequent and earlier thaws. There is evidence of an increase in the frequency of intense extra- tropical storms in the northern North Atlantic and adjacent areas of Europe, such as the British Isles, but there has been a decrease in such events in the southern North Atlantic (south of 30°N) over the past few decades. It remains uncertain as to whether these changes are natural fluctuations or relate to global warming , because there is little consensus about how global warming will affect these non-tropical, yet powerful storms. There is little evidence to support any significant long-term trends in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms, or of hurricanes in the North Atlantic during the past several decades. Although the hurricane frequency was high during 1995 and 1996, an anomalously low number of hurricanes occurred during the 1960s through the 1980s, including those hitting the United States during that period (Figure 8.2). Reliable data from the North Atlantic since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased. There is also some evidence for a decrease in the frequency of cyclones in the Indian Ocean during the past two decades relative to earlier records and an increase in the frequency of typhoons in the western Pacific. Wide variations in the total number of tropical storms including hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones occurring per decade have been observed, with no apparent long-term trends in most ocean basins. There is little consensus about how global warming will affect the intensity and frequency of these storms in the future."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 203
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (2/3)
There’s no good evidence that warming causes extreme weather, and El Nino is a possible cause.
Terra Daily 07 (“Extreme weather? Sure. Blame global warming? Not so fast”, 8/10, http://www.terradaily.com/reports/070810015035.5a0gocwm.html)
But establishing a link between climate change and extreme weather is a controversial matter. The UN's weather agency says its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that "the warming of the climate is unequivocal." Preliminary observations indicated global land surface temperatures in January and April reached the highest levels ever recorded for those months, it said. "Climate change projections indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent," it said recently. A study by researchers from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Georgia Institute of Technology says about twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago. It blames warmer sea surface temperatures and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change for "fueling much of the increase," the center said in a statement. But scientists caution there is not enough evidence to blame global warming for recent extreme weather, and there are those who say there is no proof that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. Barry Gromett of Britain's Met Office weather service said much of the extreme weather was down to variability in the climate, which is affected by greenhouse gases but also other factors such as El Nino. El Nino events are when drastic changes in sea temperatures in tropical areas affect atmospheric pressure in the Pacific Ocean region, having a knock-on effect on rainfall. "There's a danger in taking isolated incidents in any given year and attributing this to something like climate change," he said. "It's really important to look for trends over a longer period of time. More heat equals more moisture equals probably higher rains, so in that respect some of it ties in quite nicely (with climate change). "But there are many different facets that appear to contradict each other." A study by British Met Office experts released on Thursday found that natural weather variations actually helped offset the effects of global warming the past couple of years, but with temperatures set to rise to new records beginning in 2009. Jean Jouzel, a climatologist who represents France on the IPCC, said "several more years would be needed to establish a link, or to not establish a link, between these extremes and global warming." "Are the extremes really changing? It's not so simple, because by definition, the extremes are rare events, and to come up with statistics, some hindsight is needed," he added.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 204
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – Crazy Weather (3/3)
No crazy weather – ocean temperatures are constant and their scientists have bad data.
We just did an internet search on “Ocean Warming” and found an incredible 7.2 million sites! We sampled a few and found exactly what we expected – endless stories of how the oceans of the world are heating up at an unprecedented rate; absolutely anything and everything related to the ocean is currently in peril according to these sites. Even if you live thousands of miles from the sea, ocean warming will negatively impact you given how ocean temperatures influence weather and climate any place on the planet. Our survey of “Ocean Warming” internet sites did not reveal anyone questioning whether or not the oceans are actually warming up – “Ocean Warming” is simply assumed to be a fact. Well, in a recent issue of the Journal of Physical Oceanography, an article appears entitled “Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000”. Once again, we at World Climate Report are attracted to research that dares to question any of the pillars of the greenhouse scare, and from just the title alone, we knew we would enjoy this article. We were not disappointed. The article is written by scientists at the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington and the research was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Harrison and Carson begin their article noting that interest in ocean temperatures is at an all-time high given the buzz about climate change and the greenhouse effect. They state that below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial “interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging” that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets. Harrison and Carson “present results that involve very little manipulation of the data and do not depend upon an analyzed field.” The scientists organized the temperature observations into 1° latitude by 1° longitude boxes, and over the past 50 years, huge areas of the southern oceans have no data whatsoever. Many other oceanic areas have data, but many of the 1° by 1° grid boxes have only one observation per year. They note that “Our results raise a number of questions about the uncertainty that should be assigned at present to basin-scale integral ocean thermal quantities, whether zonal averages, basin averages, or averages over the World Ocean.” Harrison and Carson present a figure showing different characteristics of their data. Their figure is below (Figure 1) along with their own figure caption. Do you notice anything odd in the figure? Unless you are looking at this upside-down, you cannot help but notice cooling in all five graphs for the 1980-1999 time periods (note: the graphs are for different individual gridcells, not a worldwide average). Another figure in their article is just as interesting. As seen in Figure 2, temperature trends over the past 50 years reveal some areas of warming, but also many areas of cooling, as well. In their own words, we learn “The ocean neither cooled nor warmed systematically over the large parts of the ocean for the entire analysis period.” Also evident in the figure is the oceanic expanse without data for making such any such assessment; note in their figure caption that five observations in a decade for at least four decades is all that is required to stay in the analysis! They conclude “Evidently, oceanic regional trend estimates pose substantial sampling challenges and very long records are needed.” There are 1,000 ways to interpret their results, but several themes from the research are inescapable. First and foremost, the authors asked the question “Is the World Ocean Warming” and the answer is definitely not “yes.” At no point in the article do we find any global assessment of “World Ocean Warming” and no statement is made about any global trend over the past 50 years. Second, the ocean could be warming or cooling, and we may not have the data needed to detect such a change in heat content. The research pair tells us “There are no results to offer for most of the ocean south of 20°S.” Go look at a globe, look down at it with the South Pole pointing upward. Literally everything you see is south of 20°S, and with little exception, everything you see is water. Oops, there are no data available to assess whether the water you are looking at is either warming or cooling.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 205
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – Fires
Warming doesn’t cause fires
Carpenter, Amanda (Political and Environmental Commentator) “Global Warming Examines committee analyzes forest fires” November 1, 2007 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/11/01/global_warming_committee_examines_forest_fires
After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blamed climate change for California’s raging forest fires, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D.-Calif.) newly created global warming committee tried to prove Reid’s contention true. In an October 24 news conference Reid told reporters, “One reason that we have fires burning in Southern California is global warming.” Soon after, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi formed in one of her first acts as Speaker, scheduled a Thursday morning hearing devoted to “examining the scientific link between a changing climate and the frequency and intensity of wildfires." The committee’s website features a “skeptic watch” and labels California as a “global warming impact zone . ” Other listed U.S. impact zones include Alaska, Florida and the Midwest. At his hearing, Chairman Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) said global warming was not the sole cause of the wildfires but was a contributing factor. He said, “Global warming does not cause an individual fire or hurricane, and global warming is not the cause of the California fires.” Rather, “Global warming’s contribution to wildfires is more subtle and more complex, and scientists and the firefighting community are just beginning to tease out this complex climate record from those factors which may be influencing these natural disasters in unnatural ways,” Markey’s written testimony said. He noted that it was important that authorities determine which fires were caused by a “young boy playing with matches…from what started with lighting or a power line collapse or some other common cause of such fires.” Ranking Member Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wisc.) expressed strong dissent from Markey. He said “global warming alarmists” were making Hurricane Katrina and the California fires “the poster children for global warming.” “Global warming alarmists are using these natural disasters to promote regulations that will have little or no effect on these forces of nature ,” Sensenbrenner said.
Sea level rise is inevitable from the end of the last Ice Age – warming slows it down.
Singer 07 (S. Fred, atmospheric physicist, “Global Warming will lower sea level rise, but will politicians listen?”, 6/11, http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/sealevel.html)
But recent observations and new analyses of existing data suggest an opposite outcome: A climate warming should slow down SL rise not accelerate it. To understand this counterintuitive result, one must first get rid of false leads --- just like in a detective story. The misleading argument here is the oft-quoted statement that the climate warmed by 1 F (0.6 C) in the last 100 years AND that SL rose by 18 cm. Both parts of the statement are true; but the second part does not necessarily follow from the first. The first clue that there might be something amiss with the logic is hidden in the IPCC report itself. According to their compilation of data, the contribution to SL rise of the past century comes mainly from three sources: (i) Thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; and (ii) the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm. (iii) The polar regions, on the other hand, produced a net lowering of SL, with most of this coming from the Antarctic. (The mechanism is intuitively easy to understand but difficult to calculate: A warming ocean evaporates more water, and some of it rains out in the polar regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar ice caps.) The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these contributions (neglecting the large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm. The climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the SL rise; something is missing here. The second clue comes from geological observations that SL has been rising for past centuries at about the same rate as seen by tide gauges in the last 100 years. In other words, SL was rising even during the cold Little Ice age, from about 1400 to 1850. This provides further support for the hypothesis that the observed global SL rise since 1900 is reasonably independent of this century’s temperature rise. The explanation for this riddle had been suspected for some time, based on historic data of SL rise derived independently from measurements of coral growth [Fairbanks] and from isotope determinations of ice volume [Shackleton]. But the picture was filled in only recently [Bindschadler 1998] through estimates of the rate of melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), by tracing its shrinkage (through the receding position of its “grounding line,” i.e., the line of contact of the ice sheet with the underlying continental mass) [Just published by Conway et al. in Science, Oct. 8, 1999]. A quite independent measurement of the rate of release of melt water, using isotopes to identify the melt, has just been reported and leads to a concordant result [Hohmann et al . 1999]. We can therefore describe the broad scenario as follows: The strong temperature increase that followed the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise global SL by 120 meters (360 feet). The rate of rise was quite high at first, controlled by the rapid melting away of the ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000 years ago; but then, as SL rose, the WAIS continued to melt, albeit at a lower rate -- and it is still melting at about this rate today. The principal conclusion is that this melting of the WAIS will continue for another 7000 years or so, unless another ice age takes over before then. And there is nothing that we can do to stop this future sea level rise! It is as inevitable as the ocean tides. Fortunately, coral reefs will continue to grow, as they have in the past, to keep up with SL rise. The rest of us will just have to adapt, as our ancestors did some 10,000 years ago. At least we are better equipped to deal with environmental changes. A final note: What about the effects of human-induced global warming on SL rise? Will it really increase the rate above its natural value, as predicted by the IPCC? We do have a handle on this question by observing what actually happened when the climate warmed sharply between 1900 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975. The answer is quite surprising and could not have been derived from theory or from mathematical models. The data show that SL rise slowed down when the climate warmed and accelerated when the climate cooled. Evidently, ocean-water thermal expansion and mountain-glacier melting were less important than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent (which lowers SL). By analogy, a future warming produced by an increase in greenhouse gases would give the same result: i.e., reduce the rate of rise of sea level. This is not a recommendation to burn more coal in order to save Venice from drowning. It is a modest appeal to politicians to take note of new scientific developments and recognize that the drastic limits on energy use called for by climate-treaty negotiators will not stop the rising seas.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 207
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (2/10)
Lack of acceleration proves warming does not cause sea level rise.
One of the major pillars of the greenhouse scare is that sea level is rising due to global warming, coastlines will be inundated, and disasters will occur in coastal areas throughout the world. Who could ever forget Al Gore’s documentary showing us the World Trade Center Memorial under water due to sea level rise? A year ago, climate change hero James Hansen warned the world that non-linearities in the ocean-atmosphere system could lead to a whopping 5 meter or more sea level rise over this century. As we have covered many times in the past, sea level is certainly rising – of course, it has been rising for the past 10,000 years. During the last glacial period, sea level dropped 400 feet as water was tied up in ice, and as we have moved out of the cold glacial period, sea level has recovered. The question for climate change experts is not “Is sea level rising” but rather “Is sea level rise accelerating?” In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected”, while in 2007, IPCC wrote “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.” To say the least, the IPCC has been very cautious on the issue of accelerated sea level rise. Several articles have been published recently on sea level rise that caught our eye at World Climate Report. The first appeared recently in Global and Planetary Change and was written by a pair of scientists with India’s National Institute of Oceanography. Unnikrishnan and Shankar begin their article noting “Apart from changes in the atmospheric variables, global sea-level rise is one of the good indicators of climate change. Increase in global atmospheric temperature has a direct effect on the ocean by causing a rise in ocean temperature and melting of glaciers. Both these processes lead to a rise in global sea level.” Furthermore, they state “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported values between 1–2 mm yr-1 for the 20th century sea-level rise based on tide-gauge data.” Unnikrishnan and Shankar collected tide gauge data for a variety of stations located at coastal locations around the Indian Ocean (see Figure 1). They conducted a series of tests for inter-station consistency and they also adjusted the sea level measurements for vertical land movements. At the end of the day, they found that the corrected sea level rise in the region over the past five decades was indeed between 1–2 mm yr-1. However, some of the trends were suspect, so they reduced the number of stations for conducting the analyses. They state “In conclusion, therefore, we use the estimated trends for Aden, Karachi, Mumbai, and Kochi in the Arabian Sea and for Vishakhapatnam in the Bay of Bengal. The sea-level rise estimated from these stations is between 1.06– 1.75 mm yr-1, with an average of 1.29 mm yr-1. Given the problems noted above with some of the records, the average estimate for the basin is likely to be towards the lower end of this range.” When compared to global records, they write “The present study indicates that the estimates for the north Indian Ocean are consistent with global estimates, though somewhat lower.” Imagine that — once someone collects data in their part of the world, they seem to conclude that sea level is rising at a rate slower than the rate reported by the IPCC. The second article also appears in Global and Planetary Change and was prepared by a team of French oceanographers. As their title suggests, Berge-Nguyen et al. collected thermosteric sea level data based on temperatures in the top 700 meters of the ocean, tide gauge, satellite altimetry, and ocean reanalysis data. They used a series of sophisticated multivariate statistical techniques and ultimately produced the graphic below (Figure 2). Like you, we look at this graphic and see a global increase in sea level of approximately 80 mm over the 54-year time period. The math is simple – the graph shows a rise of 1.48 mm yr-1. This team from France collected a variety of global sea level datasets, they conducted a complicated set of analyses, and they produced their best-guess of global sea level for each year from 1955 to 2003. We see a rise in sea level that is below the estimate of the IPCC and we see no acceleration through the past five decades. Basically, nothing seems to be happening with sea level that is remotely out of the ordinary. IPCC certainly seems to be exaggerating the best estimate of sea level rise, and it make us wonder what else they might be exaggerating.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 208
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (3/10)
Global warming isn’t increasing sea levels – Antarctica’s cooling proves.
When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most clearly states in their 2007 summary report “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.” Furthermore, IPCC just as clearly states “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” It would take anyone with internet access no more than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse advocates. Another major article on temperature trends in the Antarctic has appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research by a team of scientists from Ohio State University, the University of Illinois, and the Goddard Space Flight Center; the research was funded by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Glaciology Program. Monaghan et al. begin their lengthy (21 pages – quite long for geophysics) article noting that a previous research team studying Antarctica examined “station temperature records for the past 50 years and report statistically insignificant temperature fluctuations over continental Antarctica excluding the Antarctic Peninsula, with the exception of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which cooled by -0.17 K decade-1 for 1958–2000.” That is correct – despite all you have heard elsewhere on the subject, the South Pole has been cooling over the past half century. The previous research team also reported that any warming in Antarctica has slowed and the cooling has accelerated in the more recent three decades. According to Monaghan et al., yet another team previously examined Antarctic temperatures and “note that prior to 1965 the continent-wide annual trends (through 2002) are slightly positive, but after 1965 they are mainly negative (despite warming over the Antarctic Peninsula).” One of the authors of the Monaghan et al. group had previously examined trends in temperature “inferred from skin temperatures from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments on polar orbiting satellites” and found “a statistically insignificant cooling trend over continental Antarctica from 1982 to 1998.” Monaghan et al. further note “recent literature suggests there has been little overall change in Antarctic near-surface temperature during the past 5 decades” and “the absence of widespread Antarctic temperature increases is consistent with studies showing little overall change in other Antarctic climate indicators during the past 50 years such as sea ice area and snowfall.” OK, you get the message – Antarctica is definitely not cooperating with this greenhouse scare! Monaghan fairly note that there is still uncertainty “because of the sparse network of continuous, long-term near-surface temperature records (about 15 stations on a continent 1 1/2 times as large as the United States), there is still considerable uncertainty as to (1) the spatial and temporal variability of Antarctic near-surface temperature trends and (2) whether the existing network of stations provides a temperature record that is representative of the entire continent.” Accordingly, they introduce a new method for using existing temperature records, atmospheric circulation variables, topography, and a sophisticated interpolation method to build a better temperature representation for the continent. Now for the bottom line relevant to us. As seen in the figure below (Figure 1), the various Antarctic-wide temperature patterns are very highly correlated (the new datasets are the “RECON” designation). The authors have various versions of their “RECON” time series depending on several decisions made by the team, but the bottom line is obvious, the is little evidence for warming in Antarctica! They state “All records correlate significantly with all other records during all seasons from 1982 to 2001. Near-surface temperature trends are statistically insignificant (p >0.05) on annual timescales within every data set analyzed, for both the longer (1960–2002) and shorter (1982–2001) periods.” Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming their results, the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all translate into claims that “Antarctica is warming and melting.” The truth from Antarctica is hard for the greenhouse crusade to accept (although certainly they try hard to fit it in), and in the long run, the truth from Antarctica
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 209
Scholars Lab Warming
might melt away the flimsy, well-publicized claims about global climate change—especially the concerns of a rapid sea level rise.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 210
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (4/10)
No risk of sea level rise – their scientists jump to conclusions while evidence indicates key ice sheets are cooling.Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change 07 (“The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature”, Science and Public Policy Institute, 8/6, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_of_the_current_literature.html)
In the 24 March 2006 issue of Science, a number of commentaries heralded accelerating discharges of glacial ice from Greenland and Antarctica, while dispensing dire warnings of an imminent large, rapid and accelerating sea-level rise (Bindschadler, 2006; Joughin, 2006; Kerr, 2006; Kennedy and Hanson, 2006). This distressing news was based largely on three reports published in the same issue (Ekstrom et al., 2006; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006; Overpeck et al., 2006), wherein the unnerving phenomena were attributed to anthropogenic-induced global warming, which is widely claimed to be due primarily to increases in the air's CO2 content that are believed to be driven by the burning of ever increasing quantities of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. But does all of this make any sense? Consider the report of Ekstrom et al., who studied "glacial earthquakes" caused by sudden sliding motions of glaciers on Greenland. Over the period Jan 1993 to Oct 2005, they determined that (1) all of the best-recorded quakes were associated with major outlet glaciers on the east and west coasts of Greenland between approximately 65 and 76°N latitude, (2) "a clear increase in the number of events is seen starting in 2002," and (3) "to date in 2005, twice as many events have been detected as in any year before 2002." With respect to the reason for the recent increase in glacial activity on Greenland, Clayton Sandell of ABC News (23 March 2006) quoted Ekstrom as saying "I think it is very hard not to associate this with global warming," which sentiment appears to be shared by almost all of the authors of the seven Science articles. Unwilling to join in that conclusion, however, was Joughin, who in the very same issue presented histories of summer temperature at four coastal Greenland stations located within the same latitude range as the sites of the glacial earthquakes, which histories suggest that it was warmer in this region back in the 1930s than it was over the period of Ekstrom et al.'s analysis. Based on these data, Joughin concluded that the recent warming in Greenland "is too short to determine whether it is an anthropogenic effect or natural variability," a position that is supported - and in some cases even more rigorously - by numerous scientists who have researched the issue, as noted in the following brief synopses of some of their studies. Hanna and Cappelen (2003) determined the air temperature history of coastal southern Greenland from 1958-2001, based on data from eight Danish Meteorological Institute stations in coastal and near-coastal southern Greenland, as well as the concomitant sea surface temperature (SST) history of the Labrador Sea off southwest Greenland, based on three previously published and subsequently extended SST data sets (Parker et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 1996; Kalnay et al., 1996). Their analyses revealed that the coastal temperature data showed a cooling of 1.29°C over the period of study, while two of the three SST databases also depicted cooling: by 0.44°C in one case and by 0.80°C in the other. In addition, it was determined that the cooling was "significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past few decades." Image In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, Przybylak (2000) found that (1) "in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s," (2) "even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years," (3) "since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend," and (4) "the level of temperature in Greenland in the last 10-20 years is similar to that observed in the 19th century." These findings led him to conclude that the meteorological record "shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect," because, in his words, "the temperature predictions produced by numerical climate models significantly differ from those actually observed." In a study that utilized satellite imagery of the Odden ice tongue (a winter ice cover that occurs in the Greenland Sea with a length of about 1300 km and an aerial coverage of as much as 330,000 square kilometers) plus surface air temperature data from adjacent Jan Mayen Island, Comiso et al. (2001) determined that the ice phenomenon was "a relatively smaller feature several decades ago," due to the warmer temperatures that were prevalent at that time. In fact, they report that observational evidence from Jan Mayen Island indicates that temperatures there actually cooled at a rate of 0.15 ± 0.03°C per decade throughout the prior 75 years. More recently, in a study of three coastal stations in southern and central Greenland that possess almost uninterrupted temperature records between 1950 and 2000, Chylek et al. (2004) discovered that "summer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years." In fact, working with the two stations with the longest records (both over a century in length), they determined that coastal Greenland's peak temperatures occurred between 1930 and 1940, and that the subsequent decrease in temperature was so substantial and sustained that then-current coastal temperatures were "about 1°C below their 1940 values." Furthermore, they note that "at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987." At the start of the 20th century, however, Greenland was warming, as it emerged, along with the rest of the world, from the Image depths of the Little Ice Age. What is more, between 1920 and 1930, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a mere 3 to 4 ppm, there was a phenomenal warming at all five coastal locations for which contemporary temperature records are available. In fact, in the words of Chylek et al., "average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4°C [and by as much as 6°C in the winter] in less than ten years." And this warming, as they note, "is also seen in the 18O/16O record of the Summit ice core (Steig et al., 1994; Stuiver et al., 1995; White et al., 1997)." In commenting on this dramatic temperature rise, which they call the great Greenland warming of the 1920s, Chylek et al. conclude that "since there was no significant increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration during that time, the Greenland warming of the 1920s demonstrates that a large and rapid temperature increase can occur over Greenland, and perhaps in other regions of the Arctic, due to internal climate variability such as the NAM/NAO [Northern Annular Mode/North Atlantic Oscillation], without a significant anthropogenic influence."
Image In light of these several real-world observations, it is clear that the recent upswing in glacial activity on Greenland likely has had nothing to do with anthropogenic-induced global warming, as temperatures there have yet to rise either as fast or as high as they did during the great warming of the 1920s, which was clearly a natural phenomenon. It is also important to recognize the fact that coastal glacial discharge represents only half of the equation
relating to sea level change, the other half being inland ice accumulation derived from precipitation; and when the mass balance of the entire Greenland ice sheet was recently assessed via satellite radar altimetry, quite a different result was obtained than that suggested by the seven Science papers of 24 March . Zwally et al. (2005), for example, found that although "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins," it is "growing inland with a small overall mass gain." In fact, for the 11-year period 1992-2003, Johannessen et al. (2005) found that "below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is [a negative] 2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins," but that "an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 cm/year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters." Spatially averaged over the bulk of the ice sheet, the net result, according to the latter researchers, was a mean increase of 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, "or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift." Consequently,
(Continues…)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 211
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (4.5/10)
(Continued…)the Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level. In an attempt to downplay the significance of these inconvenient findings, Kerr quoted Zwally as saying he believes that "right now" the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing a net loss of mass. Why? Kerr says Zwally's belief is "based on his gut feeling about the most recent radar and laser observations." Fair enough. But gut feelings are a poor substitute for comprehensive real-world measurements; and even if the things that Zwally's intestines were telling him are ultimately found to be correct, their confirmation would only demonstrate just how rapidly the Greenland environment can change. Also, we would have to wait and see how long the mass losses prevailed in order to assess their significance within the context of the CO2-induced global warming debate. For the present and immediate future, therefore, we have no choice but to stick with what existent data and analyses suggest, i.e., that cumulatively since the early 1990s and conservatively (since the balance is likely still positive), there has been no net loss of
mass from the Greenland ice sheet. Nevertheless, to hear Al Gore and his acolytes talk nowadays, one would think the Greenland Ice Sheet is teetering on the verge of extinction, melting rapidly and all but "slip-sliding away" into the ocean, where its unleashed water will raise global sea levels to heights that will radically alter continental coastlines and submerge major cities. The recent study of Eldrett et al. (2007), however, provides further new evidence that Mr. Gore's view of the matter is poles away from the truth.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 212
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (5/10)
Warming won’t raise sea levels – studies indicate substantial ice existed in climates much warmer in the past.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change 07 (“The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature”, Science and Public Policy Institute, 8/6, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_of_the_current_literature.html)
The five researchers from the School of Ocean and Earth Science of the National Oceanography Centre of the University of Southampton in the UK report they "have generated a new stratigraphy for three key Deep Sea Drilling Project/Ocean Drilling Program sites by calibrating dinocyst events to the geomagnetic polarity timescale." In doing so, they say their detailed core observations revealed evidence for "extensive ice-rafted debris, including macroscopic dropstones, in late Eocene to early Oligocene sediments from the Norwegian-Greenland Sea that were deposited between about 38 and 30 million years ago." They further report that their data "indicate sediment rafting by glacial ice, rather than sea ice, and point to East Greenland as the likely source," and they conclude that their data thus suggest "the existence of (at least) isolated glaciers on Greenland about 20 million years earlier than previously documented." Image What is particularly interesting about this finding, as Eldrett et al. describe it, is that it indicates the presence of glacial ice on Greenland "at a time when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were substantially higher." How much higher? According to graphs the researchers present, ocean bottom-water temperatures were 5-8°C warmer, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were as much as four times greater than they are today. The problem these observations provide for Mr. Gore, to quote Eldrett et al., is that "palaeoclimate model experiments generate substantial ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere for the Eocene only in runs where carbon dioxide levels are lower (approaching the pre-anthropogenic level) than suggested by proxy records," which records indicate atmospheric CO2 concentrations fully two to seven times greater than the pre-anthropogenic level during the time of the newly-detected ice sheets. What is particularly interesting about this finding, as Eldrett et al. describe it, is that it indicates the presence of glacial ice on Greenland "at a time when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were substantially higher." How much higher? According to graphs the researchers present, ocean bottom-water temperatures were 5-8°C warmer, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were as much as four times greater than they are today. "Regardless," as the researchers say, their data "provide the first stratigraphically extensive evidence for the existence of continental ice in the Northern Hemisphere during the Palaeogene," which "is about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when global deep water temperatures and, by extension, surface water temperatures at high latitude, were much warmer."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 213
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (6/10)
Sea level rise won’t happen – Greenland’s ice sheets are keeping sea levels in check.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change 07 (“The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature”, Science and Public Policy Institute, 8/6, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_of_the_current_literature.html)
In a preliminary step required to better understand the relationship of glacier dynamics to climate change in West Greenland, Taurisano et al. (2004) described the temperature trends of the Nuuk fjord area during the last century. This analysis of all pertinent regional data led them to conclude that "at all stations in the Nuuk fjord, both the annual mean and the average temperature of the three summer months (June, July and August) exhibit a pattern in agreement with the trends observed at other stations in south and west Greenland (Humlum 1999; Hanna and Cappelen, 2003)." As they describe it, the temperature data "show that a warming trend occurred in the Nuuk fjord during the first 50 years of the 1900s, followed by a cooling over the second part of the century, when the average annual temperatures decreased by approximately 1.5°C." Coincident with this cooling trend there was also what they describe as "a remarkable increase in the number of snowfall days (+59 days)." What is more, they report that "not only did the cooling affect the winter months, as suggested by Hannna and Cappelen (2002), but also the summer mean," noting that "the summer cooling is rather important information for glaciological studies, due to the ablation-temperature relations." Last of all, they report there was no significant trend in annual precipitation. Hence, we can be thankful that whatever the rest of the Northern Hemisphere may be doing, the part that holds the lion's share of the hemisphere's ice has been cooling for the past half-century, and at a very significant rate, making it ever more unlikely that its horde of frozen water will be released to the world's oceans to raise havoc with global sea level any time soon. In their concluding discussion, Taurisano et al. remark that the temperature data they studied "reveal a pattern which is common to most other stations in Greenland." Hence, we can be thankful that whatever the rest of the Northern Hemisphere may be doing, the part that holds the lion's share of the hemisphere's ice has been cooling for the past half-century, and at a very significant rate, making it ever more unlikely that its horde of frozen water will be released to the world's oceans to raise havoc with global sea level any time soon. In addition, because the annual number of snowfall days over much of Greenland has increased so dramatically over the same time period, it is possible that enhanced accumulation of snow on its huge ice sheet may be compensating for the melting of many of the world's mountain glaciers and keeping global sea level in check for this reason too. Last of all, Greenland's temperature trend of the past half-century has been just the opposite - and strikingly so - of that which is claimed for the Northern Hemisphere and the world by the IPCC and its climate-alarmist friends. Furthermore, as Greenland contributes significantly to the land area of the Arctic, it presents these folks with a double problem, as they have historically claimed that high northern latitudes should be the first to exhibit convincing evidence of CO2-induced global warming.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 214
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (7/10)
Multiple alternate causalities to sea level rise and any rise would be small.
Yet another major article has appeared on the subject of sea level rise, and the results are not going to be popular with the developers of the million or so websites on the topic. The article is published in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors are from Tulane University and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and the work was not funded by any horrible industry group. Kolker and Hameed begin their article stating “Determining the rate of global sea level rise (GSLR) during the past century is critical to understanding recent changes to the global climate system. However, this is complicated by non-tidal, short-term, local sea-level variability that is orders of magnitude greater than the trend.” Once again, some element of the greenhouse scare that might seem simple at first glance appears to be a lot more complicated than we originally may have thought. The authors further note that “Estimates of recent rates of global sea level rise (GSLR) vary considerably” noting that many scientists have calculated rates of 1.5 to 2.0 mm per year over the 20th century. They also show that other very credible approaches have led to a 1.1 mm per year result, and they note that “the IPCC [2007] calls for higher rates for the period 1993–2003: 3.1 ± 0.7.” They state that “Debate has centered on the relative contribution of fresh water fluxes, thermal expansion and anomalies in Earth’s rotation.” We thought the “debate” regarding anything related to global warming was over, but yet another article suggests to us that some debate still exists – very interesting. They further state that “Determining GSLR rates is complicated by non-tidal, year-to-year variability in local mean sea level that is one to two orders of magnitude greater than the long-term trend, potentially masking changes in the rate of rise. The cause of this variability is largely unknown, although it has been linked to storms, winds and floods, wind driven Rossby waves, shifts in major ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, volcanically induced ocean heat content variations, and in the Pacific Ocean, the El Nino Southern Oscillation.” Alright, enough about all these unknowns and debates regarding sea level rise. Kolker and Hameed gathered long-term data regarding the Icelandic Low and the Azores High to capture variation and trend in atmospheric “Centers of Action” associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation which is regarded as “One potential driver of Atlantic Ocean sea level.” As seen in Figure 1, these large-scale features of atmospheric circulation vary considerably from year-to-year and appear to change through time in terms of latitude and longitude. You see where this is heading? Next up, the authors used to “Centers of Action” data to predict sea levels around the North Atlantic. They used the raw sea level measurements made around the basin, and the also used sea level data that were corrected to account for the “glacial isostatic adjustment” (GIA) and the mysterious “inverse barometer” (IB) effect. Very simply stated, the IB is related to deviations in sea-surface elevation in response to deviations in atmospheric pressure. As seen below (Figure 2), the COA data do a wonderful job predicting sea levels at Halifax, New York City, Charleston, Stockholm, and Cascais (coastal town near Lisbon). Kolker and Hameed note that “Overall, our multiple regressions can account for 59–79% of the variability in the RAW sea level data and 24–79% of the IB + GIA adjusted data. These findings suggest that meteorological processes drive coastal sea-level variability by redistributing water, heat, and the response of the ocean to atmospheric pressure across the ocean basin.” Kolker and Hameed used these relationships to statistically control for variations and trends in atmospheric circulation. They find that the “residual” sea level rise (that not explained by COA variability) in the North Atlantic lies somewhere between 0.49±0.25mm/yr and 0.93±0.39mm/yr depending on the assumptions they employ, which is substantially less than the 1.40 to 2.15 mm per year rise found in the data corrected for the glacial isostatic adjustment. This “residual” sea level rise includes both local processes such as sedimentation changes, as well as larger-scale processes such as rising global temperatures. Whether or not the influences of rising global temperature lie completely within the residual, or whether they also are co-mingled with the COA variation is a question that seems to be not sufficiently answered by the described methodology, but, nevertheless, the authors feel certain that they have adequately isolated the global influence in the residuals of their analysis. When extrapolating from their North Atlantic results to the globe at large, they suggest that their research yields a global sea level rise near 1.1 mm per year which is well below IPCC and other estimates.
One of the pillars of the global warming scare is that sea level is rising, the rise is accelerating due to ever higher global temperatures, and in the absence of some immediate policy to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the sea level rise will inundate islands and coastlines throughout the world. Who could ever forget seeing the World Trade Center Memorial under water in Gore’s blockbuster movie? In addition, no fewer than 1.4 million websites are found if you search “Global Warming and Sea Level Rise.” Many would be shocked to find anyone daring to question accelerated sea level rise, and yet, as covered many times before in World Climate Report, the scientific literature is full of surprises when it comes to global warming and sea level rise. How many would believe that global sea level actually dropped for a period in the mid-to-late 1990s? Well, it is true, and an article in the recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters provides some shocking news for those who never question the accelerated sea level rise axiom. S.J. Holgate of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, UK correctly notes that “When it comes to calculating long term global sea level means from tide gauge data, there are a number of problems. Firstly there is a bias in the distribution of tide gauges towards certain regions, notably Northern Europe and North America. Secondly there is the problem that not all tide gauge records are of equivalent quality. This can either be due to their location (being for example in an earthquake-prone region or an area of high glacial isostatic adjustment, GIA) or due to the quality of the instrumental record (being perhaps too discontinuous or lacking critical datum information to account for local vertical land movements).” Taking these concerns into account, Holgate notes that an extremely high quality database has been developed for nine stations around the world including New York (1856–2003), Key West (1913–2003), San Diego (1906–2003), Balboa (1908–1996), Honolulu (1905–2003), Cascais (1882–1993), Newlyn (1915–2004), Trieste (1905–2004), and Auckland (1903–2000). These tide gauge stations (Figure 1) have long term data that have been carefully recorded relative to a consistent reference level on the nearby land. Holgate states “Hence the tide gauge data presented here is of the very highest quality available. All these records are almost continuous and are far away from regions with high rates of vertical land movement due to GIA or tectonics.” nTo begin with the results, Holgate notes that “All the stations in this study show a significant increase in sea level over the period 1904–2003 with an average increase of 174 mm during that time. This mean rate of 1.74 mm/yr is at the upper end of the range of estimates for the 20th century in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report.” Well, it seems sea level is rising at what many would call an alarming rate of 174 mm (6.8 inches) per century, although this hardly seems alarming to us But here comes the big surprise. The Figure 2 shows decadal rates of sea level change over the past century, and as noted by Holgate “the two highest decadal rates of change were recorded in the decades centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) and 1939 (4.68 mm/yr) with the most negative decadal rates of change over the past 100 years during the decades centred on 1964 (-1.49 mm/yr) and 1987 (-1.33 mm/yr).” How about that – the greatest global sea level rise occurred around 1980, well before the greenhouse scare got off the ground. Also, it is immediately obvious that the rate of sea level rise during most recent couple of years has been, well, unremarkable, with declining sea levels for a short period in the mid-to-late 1990s. Holgate then writes “Despite the high decadal rates of change in the latter part of the 20th century, it is found that the first half of the record (1904–1953) has a higher rate of rise overall (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr) than the 1954–2003 period which had a rate of 1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr.” Adding more salt to the wounds of the global warming advocates, Holgate notes “However, a greater rate of rise in the early part of the record is consistent with previous analyses of tide gauge records which suggested a general deceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century.” Finally, we learn “not only is there considerable decadal variability in the individual sea level records, but there is generally little correlation between them. Stations which are in close proximity and which are affected by similar ocean and atmospheric processes show the greatest correlation.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 216
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (9/10)
Sea level rise has been steady for 1000 years – greenhouse gases aren’t the cause.
In conclusion, Larsen and Clark note that “there is no discernible divergence in the rate of sea-level rise over the past two centuries to suggest a connection with the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.” This conclusion is reinforced with the comment that over 1,000s of years “the rate of sea-level rise has been linear over this time period and shows no indication of the pronounced mid-20th-century increase” with any increase in global temperature. And for even more interesting evidence, they write “Worthy of note is the apparent opposite direction of the sea-level trends for the past few decades, which show rise in North America and fall in the Baltic, thus arguing against recent acceleration in sea-level rise.” They wrap up their interesting article stating “One of the conclusions of our study is that there has been a tendency to splice together rates of sea-level rise with little regard to the suitability of scale and to derive curves that show steadily increasing rates of sea-level rise.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 217
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts - Sea Level Rise (10/10)
Any sea level rise would take millennia.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change 07 (“The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature”, Science and Public Policy Institute, 8/6, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_of_the_current_literature.html)
Other evidence that contradicts climate-alarmist contentions of the impending demise of the Greenland Ice Sheet has been around for several years. Cuffey and Marshall (2000), for example, reevaluated previous estimates of the Greenland Ice Sheet's contribution to sea level rise during the last interglacial (a rise of one to two meters), based on a recalibration of oxygen-isotope-derived temperatures from central Greenland ice cores. The results of their analysis suggested that the Greenland Ice Sheet was much smaller during the last interglacial than had previously been thought, with melting of the ice sheet contributing somewhere between four and five and a half meters to sea level rise. Although these results suggest that wastage of the Greenland Ice Sheet could potentially raise sea levels considerably more than had previously been believed, Hvidberg (2000) put a positive spin on the subject by stating that "high sea levels during the last interglacial should not be interpreted as evidence for extensive melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and so challenges the hypothesis that the West Antarctic is particularly sensitive to climate change," which is good news, as West Antarctica presents a much greater threat to global sea level rise than does Greenland. Also, whereas the possibility exists that sea levels in the present interglacial could yet rise to the heights of those of the last interglacial as a result of a major shrinking of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Cuffey and Marshall estimate that the ice sheet's widespread melting during the prior interglacial took place over the course of a few millennia, as opposed to the decades that could be counted on one's hands and toes that are suggested by Al Gore's scaremongering
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 218
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees (1/2)
There are many alternate causalities to displacement of refugees: Viewing them as climate refugees distorts the situation and leaves out many other factors.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
The term “climate refugees” implies a mono-causality that one rarely finds in human reality. No one factor, event or process, inevitably results in forced migration or conflict. It is very likely that climate change impacts will contribute to an increase in forced migration. Because one cannot completely isolate climate change as a cause however, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stipulate any numbers. Importantly, the impacts depend not only on natural exposure, but also on the vulnerability and resilience of the areas and people, including capacities to adapt. At best, we have “guesstimates” about the possible form and scope of forced migration related to climate change.
Empirically, migration isn’t dangerous
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Importantly, not all migration related to environmental change is necessarily forced migration. Migration is one of the oldest coping strategies for dealing with environmental change. Particularly in semi-arid regions such as the Sahel (the area between Sahara and the more fertile region in the south), there are traditions of migration such as nomadic pastoralism and long-distance trade. Much of this migration is internal and temporary following weather cycles. Where people have a history of crossing borders, it may be considered legitimate and legal due to custom and tradition, but the control of borders has increased drastically in the last decades. Having looked at case studies and historical material from the Sahel, Black concludes that much of the migration could be seen as an essential part of the economic and social structure of the region, rather than forced migration caused by environmental degradation.17
Migration can depend both on personal characteristics of the affected individuals and on various other external conditions. Vulnerability can be defined as the “susceptibility of individuals and societies to such hazards as conflict and climate change, and their capacity to plan for, adapt to and resist changes in their environment and living conditions.”18 The degree of vulnerability and resilience is contextual and depends on socio-economic condition (poverty often makes people vulnerable), gender, age, disability, ethnicity, the realisation of human rights and other criteria that influence people’s ability to access resources and opportunities. Factors often overlap or reinforce each other: families’ economic vulnerability may be increased by the regional economic structure or activity, such as unequal rights of ownership or the absence of social security arrangements.19 Migration is significantly determined by the role of local and national institutions, which in turn can be influenced by global socioeconomic and political factors.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 219
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees (2/2)
There are many factors associated with refugees besides the environment including poverty and disease.
Norman Myers 2005 (May, Professor at Oxford University, “Environmental Refugees: An Emergent Security Issue”, http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Poverty serves as an additional "push" factor associated with the environmental problems displacing people. Other factors include population pressures, malnutrition, landlessness, unemployment, over-rapid urbanisation, pandemic diseases and faulty government policies, together with ethnic strife and conventional conflicts. In particular, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between refugees driven by environmental factors and those impelled by economic problems. In certain instances, people with moderate though tolerable economic circumstances at home feel drawn by opportunity for a better livelihood elsewhere. They are not so much pushed by environmental deprivation as pulled by economic promise. This ostensibly applies to many Hispanics heading for the United States. But those people who migrate because they suffer outright poverty are frequently driven also by root factors of environmental destitution. It is their environmental plight as much as any other factor that makes them economically impoverished. This generally applies to those refugees who migrate to areas where economic conditions are little if any better than back home, as is the case with many people who migrate within Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. In this instance, with poverty and "life on the environmental limits" as the main motivating force, it matters little to the migrants whether they view themselves primarily as environmental or economic refugees.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 220
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees – Security K (1/2)
Blaming climate change for conflict is only a security reason to intervene in African countries and divert attention away from the real solutions to climate change.
Why are climate change threat scenarios taking hold when there is so little credible evidence to support them? It is one of the oldest games in town to dress up issues as dangerous security threats to garner media attention, funding and political support. The climate change case is no exception. In Washington, DC, environmental lobbyists are linking climate change to national security in order to persuade conservative members of Congress to pass legislation capping carbon emissions. In the UK, Christian Aid is drumming up fear of a new "human tide" of climate refugees creating "a world of many more Darfurs" in order to raise money for its development projects. Presumably, the Nobel committee needed a reason - the threat of war - to justify giving Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the peace prize for their work on global warming. Those who pursue such strategies usually claim they are simply being pragmatic in the service of worthy goals, but their appeals to fear and security have negative consequences. They buttress and expand national security agendas while undermining the role of civilian institutions seeking practicable, democratic solutions. And intentionally or not, they reinforce racial stereotypes. Take the notion of climate refugees. The image drawn is not of rich, white landowners losing their beachfront property, but of poor, dark people swarming toward our borders. A 2003 Pentagon-sponsored Abrupt Climate Change Scenario warned of the need to strengthen US defenses against "unwanted starving immigrants" from the Caribbean, Mexico and South America. Fomenting fear of climate refugees adds fuel to the fire of the anti-immigrant backlash in both the US and Fortress Europe. In January 2007, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root won a contract from the US government to augment existing immigration detention and removal facilities "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the US." The term climate refugee is also wantonly applied to poor African-Americans internally displaced by Hurricane Katrina. "The first massive movement of climate refugees has been that of people away from the Gulf Coast of the United States," stated environmentalist Lester Brown, director of the Earth Policy Institute, in 2006. Even if we knew - which we don't - that Katrina was definitively caused by climate change, would it make sense to describe evacuees in such a manner? The extent of the disaster in New Orleans had much more to do with racial inequality and government incompetence than the strength of Katrina's winds. Equally worrying, climate change war talk gives the US military added justification for overseas interventions, especially in Africa. American defense officials are currently citing the threat of climate-induced disorder and terrorism to legitimize the establishment of AFRICOM, the Bush administration's controversial new regional military command for Africa. The CNA defense think tank's influential 2007 report, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," emphasizes how resource scarcity, environmental degradation and climate change are likely to trigger violent conflict in Africa. According to its recommendations: Some of the nations predicted to be most affected by climate change are those with the least capacity to adapt or cope. This is especially true in Africa, which is becoming an increasingly important source of US oil and gas imports. Already suffering tension and stress resulting from weak governance and thin margins of survival due to food and water shortages, Africa would be yet further challenged by climate change. The proposal by the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a new Africa Command reflects Africa's emerging strategic importance to the US, and with humanitarian catastrophes already occurring, a worsening of conditions could prompt further US military engagement. Concern is also rising that the (DOD) may invest in expensive and risky technological schemes to control the climate. The Pentagon's Abrupt Climate Change Scenario, for example, recommended the DOD "explore geo-engineering options that control the climate." A far better approach would be for the military to clean up its own act. The DOD is the largest single consumer of fuel in the US, and the present war in Iraq is not only wasting lives, but millions of gallons of oil daily. In the climate change arena, the appeal to the "high politics" of national security is low politics. It demonizes the people who have the least responsibility for global warming, turning them into a dangerous threat. Solutions to the urgent problem of climate change lie not in beating the war drums, but in taking responsibility for our own actions and working together across borders, in peace.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 221
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Refugees – Security K (2/2)
The use of the term “climate refugees” is just used to create a security agenda after the Cold War where the developed north feels scared of the refugees from the south.
Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
Arguably, the prevalent use of the term today is linked to the agendas of environmentalists, conflict researchers and a heterogeneous group of security people. The estimated numbers of climate or environmental refugees are often used to sensitise public opinion and decision-makers to the issue of global warming. There seems to be some fear in the developed countries that they, if not literally flooded, will most certainly be flooded by the ”climate refugees”. With the end of the Cold War, attention shifted away from super-power rivalry, and the environment as a potential cause for conflict and forced migration has provided new material for conflict and security researchers. By “securitizing” the issue of climate change, environmentalists and others may have succeeded in getting it on the international agenda and into the minds of decision-makers. On the other hand, the security discourse can serve to make new areas relevant for military considerations and promote repressive tendencies. A fundamental critique is found in the context of north-south discourse where “environmental security” is seen as a colonisation of the environmental problems, suggesting that the underdeveloped south poses a physical threat to the prosperous north by population explosions, resource scarcity, violent conflict and mass migration.10
Securitizing conflict through military solutions only shifts focus away from technological solutions, which are the real solution to climate change, turning the case.
Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922, Accessed 6/28/08)
Third, dire predictions about the coming environmental wars imply that climate change requires military solutions—a readiness to forcibly secure one’s own resources, prevent conflict spillovers, and perhaps gain control of additional resources. But focusing on a military response diverts attention from simpler, and far cheaper, adaptation mechanisms. Technological improvements in agriculture, which have yet to make their way to many poor farmers, have dramatically increased food output in the United States without significantly raising the amount of land under cultivation. Sharing simple technologies with developing countries, such as improved irrigation techniques and better seeds and fertilizers, along with finding alternative energy supplies and new freshwater sources, is likely to be far more effective and cost saving in the long run than arms and fortifications. States affected by climate change can move people out of flood plains and desert areas, promote better urban planning, and adopt more efficient resource-management systems.
Securitizing climate change only takes responsibility away from governments and prevents true solutions of climate change.
Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922, Accessed 6/28/08)
Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they are misleading. Even worse, they are irresponsible, for they shift liability for wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments. Additionally, focusing on climate change as a security threat that requires a military response diverts attention away from prudent adaptation mechanisms and new technologies that can prevent the worst catastrophes.
Center for Science and Public Policy 6 (Jan 12., http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
In concluding his analysis, Wallace says "there can be no greater global challenge today on which physical and social scientists can work together than the goal of producing the food required for future generations," and in this regard he notes that a "concerted focus on improving water use efficiency ... will increase the productivity of both rain fed and irrigated agriculture." If this approach is taken, and if we do nothing unwise or counter-productive with respect to the effort (such as trying to reduce anthropogenic
CO2 emissions), then, as Wallace states in his final sentence, "the prize is that more areas of the world, and especially those arid and semi-arid areas where population growth is greatest, will be able to sustain their future populations ." In light of the many significant problems we face in attempting to produce the food we will need to sustain ourselves in the not too distant future, one may well wonder, as did Waggoner (1995): "How much land can ten billion people spare for nature?" As noted by Huang et al. (2002), human populations "have encroached on almost all of the world's frontiers, leaving little new land that is cultivatable." And in consequence of humanity's ongoing usurpation of this most basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) notes that "species-area relationships , taken worldwide in relation to habitat destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end of this century." If one were to pick the most significant problem currently facing the biosphere, this would probably be it: a single species of life, Homo sapiens, is on course to completely annihilate fully two-thirds of the ten million or so other species with which
we share the planet within a mere hundred years, simply by taking their land. Global warming, by comparison , pales in significance. Its impact is nowhere near as severe , being possibly nil or even positive . In addition, its root cause is highly debated; and actions to thwart it are much more difficult, if not impossible, to both define and implement. Furthermore, what many people believe to be the cause of global warming, i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions, may actually be a powerful force for preserving land for nature.
C02 means more animal habitat- key to biodiversity
As indicated previously, both higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations enhance plant growth, especially for trees. This increases the habitat available for many animals. The bulk of scientific studies show an increase in biodiversity almost everywhere on Earth that is not restricted by habitat destruction in response to global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 223
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Biod (2/3)
Arial fertilization of C02 increases agricultural efficiency, decreases demand on scarce land resources and prevents the largest species die-off in history.
Center for Science and Public Policy 6 (Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase agricultural output without the taking of land away from nature. In conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-thirds of all species of plants and animals on the face of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, unless world agricultural output is dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence hangs over us simply because we will need more land to produce what is required to sustain ourselves and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase, because we will simply take land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in agricultural productivity is not possible, even with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, however, we should be able - but just barely - to meet our expanding food needs without bringing down the curtain on the world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist this reality is truly incredible. More CO2 means life for the planet; less CO2 means death ... and not just the death of individuals, but the death of species. And to allow, nay, to cause the extinction of untold millions of unique plants and animals has got to rank close to the top of all conceivable immoralities. We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight by getting our facts straight. We have got to do all that we can to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity; and to be successful, we have got to let the air's CO2 content rise. Any policies that stand in the way of that objective are truly obscene.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 224
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Biod (3/3)
Arial fertilization of C02 raises agricultural efficiency and saves natural habitat and is key to sustaining biodiversity.
Center for Science and Public Policy 6(Jan 12, http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
What parts of the world are likely to be hardest hit by the human land-eating machine? As described in our Editorials " 2 May 2001 and 13 June 2001, Tilman et al. (2001) note that developed countries are expected to actually withdraw large areas of land from cultivation over the next 50 years, leaving developing countries to shoulder essentially all of the burden of feeding the growing numbers of our species. In addition, they calculate that the loss of these countries' natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining land, which "could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands," along with the many unique species of both plants and animals that they support, which scenario has also been discussed. What can be done to alleviate this bleak situation? In another analysis of the problem, Tilman et al. (2002) introduce a few more facts before suggesting some solutions. They note, for example, that by 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it is today and that global grain demand could well double, due to expected increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but state the obvious when they conclude that "raising yields on existing farmland is essential for 'saving land for nature'." So how is it to be done? Tilman et al. (2002) suggest a strategy that is built around three essential tasks: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop yield per unit of water used. With respect to the first of these requirements, Tilman et al. note that in many parts of the world the historical rate of increase in crop yields is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is being approached. This observation, they say, "highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling." With respect to the second requirement, they note that "without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate it did [in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to agriculture." Hence, they say the ultimate solution "will require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen, phosphorus," and so forth. Finally, with respect to the third requirement, Tilman et al. note that "water is regionally scarce," and that "many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land." Increasing crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also a must. Although the impending biological crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman et al. (2001) report that "even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." However, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that can provide what we can't. For a nominal doubling of the air's CO2 content, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, p. 2, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
17 Although most marshes could probably not keep pace with a substantial acceleration in sea level rise, three possible exceptions are the marshes found in river deltas, tidal inlets, and on the bay sides of barrier islands. River and tidal deltas receive much more sediment than wetlands elsewhere; hence they might be able to keep pace with a more rapid rise in sea level. For example, the sediment washing down the Mississippi river for a long time was more than enough to sustain the delta and enable it to advance into the Gulf of Mexico, even though relative sea level rise there is approximately one centimeter per year, due to subsidence (Gagliano, Meyer Arendt, and Wicker 1981). A global sea level rise of one centimeter per year would double the rate of relative sea level rise there to two centimeters per year; thus, a given sediment supply could not sustain as great an area of wetlands as before. It could, however, enable a substantial fraction to keep pace with sea level rise. In response to sea level rise, barrier islands tend to migrate landward as storms wash sand from the ocean side beach to the bay side marsh (Leatherman 1982). This "overwash" process may enable barrier islands to keep pace with an accelerated rise in sea level. However, it is also possible that accelerated sea level rise could cause these islands, to disintegrate. In coastal Louisiana, where rapid subsidence has resulted in a relative sea level rise of one centimeter per year, barrier islands have broken up. The Ship Island of the early twentieth century is now known as "Ship Shoal" (Pendland, Suter, and Maslow 1986). Marshes often form in the flood (inland) tidal deltas (shoals) that form in the inlets between barrier islands. Because these deltas are in equilibrium with sea level, a rise in sea level would tend to raise them as well, with sediment being supplied primarily from the adjacent islands. Moreover, if sea level rise causes barrier islands to breach, additional tidal deltas will form in the new inlets, creating more marsh, at least temporarily. In the long run, however, the breakup of barrier islands mould result in a loss of marsh. Larger waves would strike the wetlands that form in tidal deltas and in estuaries behind barrier islands. Wave erosion of marshes could also be exacerbated if sea level rise deepens the estuaries. This deepening would allow ocean waves to retain more energy and larger waves to form in bays. Major landowners and the government of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, consider this possibility a serious threat and are taking action to prevent the breakup of Isle Demiere and others around Terrebonne Bay (Terrebonne Parish 1984).
Loss of wetlands causes ecosystem destruction and species extinctionEco-Pros 6 http://eco-pros.com/wetlandsloss.htmDESTRUCTION FROM DEFORESTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Commercial deforestation and development in wetland areas have resulted in significant declines in habitat, species populations, and critical ecosystem functions . This destruction continues in unregulated regions of the world. TOXIC POLLUTION OF WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE Along with the destruction of wetlands, human beings added pesticides and pollution, so over the years wildlife and bird populations greatly declined. DECLINE OF WATER SOURCES AND WETLANDS
FUNCTIONS Critical water changes occurred with alteration of wetlands; water tables dropped and wetland vegetation water filtration was no longer available to purify the wastes of civilization. Loss of water from various changes, led to inability of wetlands areas to maintain through normal dry periods. CHANGES TO
ECOSYSTEMS AND WEATHER In some areas, weather even changed. As the wetlands were converted for all the various reasons, natural wetland ecosystems drastically changed or disappeared entirely. Many species were left without life-support systems. DECLINE AND LOSS OF NATIVE AND MIGRATORY SPECIES Some resident native mammals, nesting birds, amphibians, insects, reptiles and organisms which inhabited the wetlands have been lost or seriously impacted.
Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, p. 2, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.html)
Offsetting this potential threat are two compensating factors. A rise in sea level would flood areas that are now dry land, creating new wetlands. Moreover, wetlands can grow upward by accumulating sediment and organic material. The potential of these two factors to prevent a major loss of wetlands in the next century, however, may be limited. People who have developed the land just inland of today's wetlands may be reluctant to abandon their houses, which new wetland creation would require. Although wetlands have been able to keep pace with the rise in sea level of the last few thousand years, no one has demonstrated that they could generally keep pace with an accelerated rise.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 227
Scholars Lab Warming
AT: Warming Impacts – A2: Plankton – Turn: Pollution Good
Pollutants from sulfur are critical to increasing photosynthesis in phytoplankton.
Science Daily 2005 (February 17, “Pollution Can Convert Airborne Iron Into Soluble Form Required for Phytoplankton Growth”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050213130304.htm, Accessed 6/28/08)
So even though small storms are limited in the amount of dust they transport to the ocean and may not cause large plankton blooms, small storms still produce enough soluble iron to consistently feed phytoplankton and fertilize the ocean. This may be especially important for high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll waters, where phytoplankton production is limited because of a lack of iron.Natural sources of sulfur dioxide, such as volcanic emissions and ocean production, may also cause iron mobilization and stimulate phytoplankton growth. Yet emissions from human-made sources normally represent a larger portion of the trace gas. Also, human-made emission sites may be closer to the storm's course and have a stronger influence on it than natural sulfur dioxide, Meskhidze said. This research deepens scientists' understanding of the carbon cycle and climate change, he added."It appears that the recipe of adding pollution to mineral dust from East Asia may actually enhance ocean productivity and, in so doing, draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide and reduce global warming," Chameides said."Thus, China's current plans to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, which will have far-reaching benefits for the environment and health of the people of China, may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating global warming," he added. "This is perhaps one more reason why we all need to get serious about reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."
Air sulfur pollution increases the activity of plankton.
Science Daily 2005 (February 17, “Pollution Can Convert Airborne Iron Into Soluble Form Required for Phytoplankton Growth”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050213130304.htm, Accessed 6/28/08)
A surprising link may exist between ocean fertility and air pollution over land, according to Georgia Institute of Technology research reported in the Feb. 16 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres. The work provides new insight into the role that ocean fertility plays in the complex cycle involving carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in global warming. When dust storms pass over industrialized areas, they can pick up sulfur dioxide, an acidic trace gas emitted from industrial facilities and power plants. As the dust storms move out over the ocean, the sulfur dioxide they carry lowers the pH (a measure of acidity and alkalinity) level of dust and transforms iron into a soluble form, said Nicholas Meskhidze, a postdoctoral fellow in Professor Athanasios Nenes' group at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and lead author of the paper "Dust and Pollution: A Recipe for Enhanced Ocean Fertilization."This conversion is important because dissolved iron is a necessary micronutrient for phytoplankton — tiny aquatic plants that serve as food for fish and other marine organisms, and also reduce carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere via photosynthesis. Phytoplankton carry out almost half of Earth's photosynthesis even though they represent less than 1 percent of the planet's biomass.In research funded by the National Science Foundation, Meskhidze began studying dust storms three years ago under the guidance of William Chameides, Regents' Professor and Smithgall Chair at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and co-author of the paper. "I knew that large storms from the Gobi deserts in northern China and Mongolia could carry iron from the soil to remote regions of the northern Pacific Ocean, facilitating photosynthesis and carbon-dioxide uptake," Meskhidze said. "But I was puzzled because the iron in desert dust is primarily hematite, a mineral that is insoluble in high-pH solutions such as seawater. So it's not readily available to the plankton."Using data obtained in a flight over the study area, Meskhidze analyzed the chemistry of a dust storm that originated in the Gobi desert and passed over Shanghai before moving onto the northern Pacific Ocean. His discovery: When a high-concentration of sulfur dioxide mixed with the desert dust, it acidified the dust to a pH below 2 — the level needed for mineral iron to convert into a dissolved form that would be available to phytoplankton.
Loss of sea ice due to global warming is causing the death of whales.
Geoffrey Lean and Robert Mendick 2001 (August 1, The Independent, “Whale Population Devastated by Warming Oceans, Scientists Say”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0801_wirewhales2.html, Accessed 6/29/08)
Global warming has caused an unexpected collapse in the numbers of the world's most hunted whale, scientists believe.They think that a sharp contraction in sea ice in the Antarctic is the likeliest explanation behind new findings, which suggest that the number of minke whales in the surrounding seas has fallen by half in less than a decade. The findings—which were the talk of the annual meeting in London last week of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the body that regulates whaling—has greatly strengthened the arguments of conservationists who are resisting moves to lift a 15-year-old official ban on the hunt. It also further underlines the importance of last week's agreement in Bonn on how to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to combat climate change. Commercial whaling has been banned officially since 1986, but Japan and Norway each continue to kill about 500 minke whales a year. Japan does so under the guise of "scientific research," allowed under the WIC's treaty; Norway by exempting itself from the ban, which is also permitted under the agreement. For years environmentalists have struggled to justify opposing the killing for conservation reasons. The last attempt to count the number of minke whales in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, between 1985 and 1991, estimated that there were some 760,000 of them—far more than could be endangered by any conceivable catch. But the latest counts, during the 1990s, suggest that there are now only about 380,000 left. The minkes in the Southern Ocean are a distinct species, far more abundant than their cousins in the northern hemisphere. Whales are notoriously difficult to count at sea, and no one is certain of the true figures. But the IWC's Scientific Committee is reassessing its official estimate of their numbers as a result of the new evidence that they are sharply declining. No one knows why their numbers are crashing. But global warming is the main suspect because the krill on which they feed live at the edge of the sea ice, and so their abundance depends on its circumference. Until recently scientists thought the sea ice in the area had not shrunk much, because satellite measurements have shown little change since they began in 1973. But Australian government research, based on more than 40,000 records from whaling ships since 1931, suggest that it dropped by a quarter between the mid-1950s and early 1970s, when global warming was beginning to take hold. As minke whales live for 60 years, it could have taken until now for the effects to become clear. Last week Sidney Holt—who served on the Scientific Committee between 1960 and 1997, and is the world's senior scientist in the field—said he thought global warming was "the likeliest hypothesis" for the crash.
Veronique LaCapra 2007 (September 17, “Despite Gains, Gray Whale Population Still Not Recovered”, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-17-voa26.cfm?CFID=6848366&CFTOKEN=10841436, Accessed 6/29/08)
The new whale numbers may also help to explain more recent changes in the species' population dynamics. Between 1999 and 2001, gray whales began starving to death. Scientists hypothesized that the population might have recovered too well, that there were now more gray whales than the ocean could support. But the new research suggests that the ocean once supported many more whales than exist today. Liz Alter says that this finding supports an alternative explanation for why the whales are starving: large-scale, ecosystem level changes are affecting the whales' feeding grounds in the Bering Sea. Other research has suggested that climate change may have reduced the gray whale's food supply, by warming deep arctic waters.
Blue whales are critical predators of plankton: A decrease in either one of them would ensure a huge increase in plankton every day.
Blue whales (like all baleen whales) are seasonal feeders and carnivores that filter feed tiny crustaceans ( krill , copepods, etc.), plankton , and small fish from the water . They are gulpers, filter feeders that alternatively swim then gulp a mouthful of plankton or fish - they lunge into dense groups of small sea organisms (krill or tiny fish) with an open mouth. 50 to 70 throat pleats allow the throat to expand a great deal, forming a gular pouch. The water is then forced through the baleen plates hanging from the upper jaw. The baleen catches the food, acting like a sieve. The blue whale has about 320 pairs of black baleen plates with dark gray bristles in the blue whale's jaws. They are about 39 inches long (1 m), 21 inches wide (53 cm), and weigh 200 pounds (90 kg). The tongue weighs 4 tons (3.8 tonnes). An average-sized blue whale will eat 2,000-9,000 pounds (900-4100 kg) of plankton each day during the summer feeding season in cold, arctic waters ( about 120 days).
Minke whales have the same diet as blue whales, so a decrease in minke whales would also have the same effect of increasing plankton.
Enchanted Learning 2004 (“MINKE WHALES”, August 31, http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Minke.shtml, Accessed 6/29/08)
Minke whales (like all baleen whales) are seasonal feeders and carnivores. They sieve through the ocean water with their baleen. They filters out small polar plankton , krill , and small fish, even chasing schools of sardines, anchovies, cod, herring, and capelin. They have the same diet as blue whales.
Populations of plankton are resilient to climate change: Empirically proven.
A’ndrea Elyse Messer 2006 (February 16, “Phytoplankton bounce back from abrupt climate change”, http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Phytoplankton-bounce-back-from-abrupt-climate-change-8096-1/, Accessed 6/29/08)
The majority of tiny marine plants weathered the abrupt climate changes that occurred in Earth's past and bounced back, according to a Penn State geoscientist. "Populations of plankton are pretty resilient," says Dr. Timothy J. Bralower, head and professor of geoscience. Bralower looked at cores of marine sediments related to thousands of years of deposition, to locate populations of these plankton during three periods of abrupt climate change. These abrupt changes were caused either by Oceanic Anoxic Events during the middle Jurassic to late Cretaceous when the oceans became uniformly depleted of oxygen or by a warming event in the early Paleocene around 55 million years ago. Marine sediment cores contain calcareous plankton -- single-celled organisms with a coating or shell of calcium carbonate -- as fossils. These tiny photosynthesizing plants float in the ocean and move with the currents. They are around 10 micrometers in size, about half the width of a human hair. Anything bigger than phytoplankton eat them. Eventually, their calcium carbonate shell falls to the ocean floor to become part of the sediment. The factors that were altered in the upper marine environment during the abrupt climate change events included increases in temperature and changes in thermal structure, changes in salinity and alkalinity, and changes in nutrient patterns and trace elements. "In every case, changes in surface habitats resulted in transient plankton communities," Bralower told attendees at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Although we have a poor understanding of ancient plankton ecology, it appears that extinctions were selective and targeted more specialized and often deeper-dwelling species." For example, about 55 million years ago there was a warming event that geologists call the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum. During that time, there were mass extinctions of organisms living on the ocean floor, but surface phytoplankton populations dipped and for the most part came back. During this event one genus of phytoplankton - Fasciculithus -- which had about five species went extinct. "We do not have anything like Fasciculitus in the oceans today," says Bralower. "But, these organisms were probably highly specialized and existed in a very narrow ecological niche. The other thing is that, as soon as some group disappears, another species comes in to occupy that niche." About 120 million years ago, during an episode of oxygen depletion another genus inhabiting surface waters -- Nannococus -- which also had about five species, went extinct. Otherwise only a few species here and there were unable to survive these abrupt changes. However, on the ocean floor during these same times, mass extinctions occurred. Other extinctions, such as that at the Cetaceous Tertiary boundary (K/T) that caused the demise of the dinosaurs, are thought to be caused by other than abrupt climate changes. The K/T event had mass extinctions on land and in the upper portions of the oceans, but not on the ocean floors. During the abrupt climate changes that Bralower investigated, the temperature of the oceans changed about 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the course of 1,000 years. "This rate of change in ocean temperature is probably slower than what is happening today in the oceans," the Penn State researcher adds. "We are not yet seeing the same effect in today's phytoplankton." Besides being a major food source, phytoplankton are also important in the balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to the carbon that is sequestered in the ocean sediment. Photosynthesizing organisms use carbon dioxide to create energy and so remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Some of the carbon that phytoplankton take out of the air as carbon dioxide is used to make their calcium carbonate coatings. Because these coatings eventually make it into the sediment, they do not immediately return to the atmosphere. It is not until chalk or limestone beds are exposed to the elements that weathering returns the carbon to the atmosphere. "Today, we are sort of in the middle of a mass experiment," says Bralower. "With the oceans warming, we do not really know what the end result will be, but we can look to the fossil record to see how they were affected in the past. It appears that abrupt climate change affects plankton with selectivity and most of the organisms bounce right back after the change."
Global warming results in an increase in coral reefs.
EurekAlert 2004 (December 9, “Global warming good for coral reefs: research”, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uons-gwg120904.php, Accessed 6/30/08)
Coral reefs around the world could expand in size by up to a third in response to increased ocean warming and the greenhouse effect, according to Australian scientists. "Our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth that will eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by as much as 35 per cent by 2100," says Dr Ben McNeil, an oceanographer from the University of News South Wales. "Our finding stands in stark contrast to previous predictions that coral reef growth will suffer large, potentially catastrophic, decreases in the future," says McNeil, who led and published the research in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, with colleagues Dr Richard Matear of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and Dr David Barnes from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. Previous research has predicted a decline of between 20 and 60 percent in the size of coral reefs by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels due to increasing CO2 levels in ocean surface waters. The new research suggests that present coral reef calcification rates are not in decline and are equivalent to late 19th century levels. Coral reefs are built from calcium carbonate when red algae cement together a framework of coral skeletons and sediments. Seawater surface temperatures and the quantity of carbonate in seawater dictate their growth rate. The Australian scientists have observed the calcification-temperature relationship at significant reef-building colonies around the world in the Indo-Pacific and at massive Porites reef colonies in Australia, Hawaii, Thailand, the Persian Gulf and New Ireland. The predicted increase in the rate of coral reef calcification is most likely due to an enhancement in coral metabolism and/or increases in photosynthetic rates of red algae, according to the scientists. They used projections of ocean warming and CO2 concentration from a CSIRO climate model that accounts for atmosphere-ice and ocean carbon cycles. "Our results show that increases in coral reef calcification associated with ocean warming outweigh decreases associated with increased atmospheric CO2", says CSIRO's Dr Richard Matear. "While initially showing a decrease in calcification up to 1964, ocean warming outweighs the CO2 effect and stimulates recovery of coral reef calcification. Our results represent an average over the entire coral reef community and it will be important to undertake more specific regional analysis of models to better understand future changes in regions such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef."
