More Warming Ev (Both Sides)

Gonzaga Debate Institute
Warming Core
Warming Bad

Warming Core
***Science Debate***

Warming Core
Warming Real Generic

Warming real - consensus
Brooks 12 - Staff writer, KQED news (Jon, staff writer, KQED news, citing Craig Miller, environmental
scientist, 5/3/12, "Is Climate Change Real? For the Thousandth Time, Yes," KQED News,
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/05/03/is-climate-change-real-for-the-thousandth-time-yes/)
BROOKS: So what are the organizations that say climate change is real ? MILLER: Virtually ever major,
credible scientific organization in the world. Its not just the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. And that's echoed in most countries around the
world. All of the most credible, most prestigious scientific organizations accept the fundamental
findings of the IPCC. The last comprehensive report from the IPCC, based on research, came out in 2007. And at that time, they said in this
report, which is known as AR-4, that there is "very high confidence" that the net effect of human activities since
1750 has been one of warming. Scientists are very careful, unusually careful, about how they put things. But then they say "very likely," or
"very high confidence," theyre talking 90%. BROOKS: So its not 100%? MILLER: In the realm of science; theres virtually never 100%
certainty about anything. You know, as someone once pointed out, gravity is a theory. BROOKS: Gravity is testable, though...
Virtually every major credible scientific organization in the world says climate change is real.
MILLER: You're right. You cant drop a couple of balls off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to prove climate change. Thats why we have to rely on
mathematical models to try to figure out where this is all going. And that's difficult. But its not impossible, as some people like to paint it. You know, the
people doing the models are not inept. Over the past nearly four years, Climate Watch has interviewed a lot of scientists, attended conferences, read
academic papers. To me, as what you might call an informed observer, the vast preponderance of scientific evidence supports this notion that the Earth is
warming and that human activity is a significant cause. BROOKS: Are there legitimate debunkers of this proposition? MILLER: Certainly there are
legitimate scientists on the other
side of the question. If you take, for example, a guy by the name of John Christy from the University
of Alabama, who is very strongly identified with climate change skeptics. That doesnt mean that his work is invalidated. He came out recently with a
study that basically refuted the idea that theres been an observable shrinkage in the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada. And we talked to other scientists
who do believe in anthropogenic or human-induced global warming and do believe that the Sierra snow pack is going to be shrinking, who thought that
this study was sound. But thats one study in a sea of studies. And you have look at the preponderance of the evidence
and not at any one particular study, not any
particular year, not even any particular ten years, because even a 10-year trend
does not necessarily constitute climate change. BROOKS: What are some of the metrics scientists have looked at to come to the conclusion that
human-caused climate change is real? MILLER: They study
temperature records. There have been tidal gauges in place for a long time,
Theyve looked at
looking at sea-level rise, and also augmented now by satellite data that measure with greater accuracy the rate of the rise.
things like ice
cores from Greenland and elsewhere which gives us sort of a reverse chronological story of what the climate has done. And you can
found is what looks to be
a pretty convincing relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the behavior of the
Earths climate. BROOKS: But there are some who refute that evidence? MILLER: Absolutely. Well get people frequently commenting on our blog
who will say the sea level is not rising and that theres been no warming for the past ten years. As I already pointed out, ten years of anything
does not constitute a definitive pattern; its just too short a time span. Its this idea of cherrypicking data, which both sides accuse the other of doing. You have to look at the Earths climate over time as a really
big, complicated jigsaw puzzle. And clearly there are pieces missing. And there are pieces sitting off to the side that arent
missing, but we dont quite know how they fit into the puzzle yet. But still, you see enough of the picture to know
whats going on. The science has yielded at least -- as Stanford's Chris Field of the IPCC puts it -- a blurry picture of the
actually pull one of those ice cores and see the amount of C02 that was in the atmosphere at the time. And what they've
future. And the blurry picture is enough to know the general direction were heading, even without knowing all of the specifics. BROOKS: Are there
former critics who now acknowledge the reality of climate change? MILLER: Richard Muller would be a good example of that. Hes the physicist over
at UC Berkeley who was identified with the skeptic camp for a long time. He
wasnt buying a lot of climate change theory. He
launched a temperature-data audit because he wasnt convinced that the temperature data being used by the IPCC and NOAA and
others was accurate, that there were fundamental issues they were getting bad data, garbage in, garbage out.
Warming now-Laundry list

Venkataramanan and smitha 11(Department of Economics, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai, India Indian
Journal of Science Causes and effects of global warming p.226-229 March 2011
http://www.indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.3/mar11-pages159-265.pdf KG)
Increasing global temperatures are causing a broad range of changes. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion of the
ocean, in addition to melting of land ice. Amounts and patterns of precipitation are changing.
The total annual power of hurricanes has already increased markedly since 1975 because their
average intensity and average duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high
correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature). Changes in temperature and
precipitation patterns increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such

4
Warming Core
as floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornadoes. Other effects of global warming include higher or
lower agricultural yields, further glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species
extinctions. As a further effect of global warming, diseases like malaria are returning into areas
where they have been extinguished earlier. Although global warming is affecting the number and magnitude of these events, it
is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to
continue past then because carbon dioxide (chemical symbol CO2) has an estimated
atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.
Warming extremely high and increasingcurrent action is key to solving
Malcolm, University of Toronto, 2k (Jay Malcolm 9/2000 http://wwf.panda.org/?2143/SpeedKills-Rates-of-Climate-Change-are-Threatening PB)
Boston, US: Global
warming represents a rapidly worsening threat to the world's wildlife and

natural habitat. The increase of global temperatures seen in the late 20th century was
unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. Professor Tom Crowley of Texas A&M University predicts that in the 21st century " the
warming will reach truly extraordinary levels" surpassing anything in the last 400,000 year s.
New research by the conservation organization WWF indicates that the speed with which global warming occurs is critically important for wildlife, and
that the accelerating rates of warming we can expect in the coming decades are likely to put large numbers of species at risk. Species in the higher
latitudes of the northern hemisphere, where the warming will be greatest, may have to migrate. Plants may need to move 10 times faster than they did at
the end of the last ice-age. Very few plant species can move at rates faster than one kilometer per year, and yet this is what will be required in many parts
of the world. The worst affected countries are likely to be Canada and Russia, where the computer models suggest that, on average, migration rates in
excess of one kilometer per year will be required in a third or more of terrestrial habitats. High migration rates will particularly threaten rare, isolated or
slow-moving species but will favour weeds and pests that can move, reproduce or adapt fast. The kudzu vine and Japanese honeysuckle are examples of
nuisance plants in the US that will likely benefit from global warming. Conditions today make it far harder for species to move to new habitat than it was
thousands of years ago. The last time the climate warmed anywhere near as fast as it is predicted to do this century, was 13,000 years ago when sabretoothed tigers and wooly mammoths still roamed the earth and humans had just begun to populate the Americas. At that time the whole of human
society probably numbered in the tens of millions and all were hunter gatherers. Farming and cities did not yet exist. Now, the human
population has swelled to six billion and vast swathes of habitat across the globe have been lost
to urban development and agriculture. Any plant or animal that needs to move must contend with roads, cities and farms. The
WWF study shows that human barriers to climate-induced migration will have the worst impact along the northern edges of developed zones in central
and northwestern Russia, Finland and central Canada. Large-scale range shifts will have a major effect on biodiversity if species are unable to move to
find suitable conditions. For example, Mexico has the highest diversity of reptiles in the world because of its ancient, isolated desert habitats. However,
several species, including the threatened desert tortoise may not be able to keep pace with the warming climate. In Africa, the nyala is vulnerable to
expected habitat change in Malawi's Lengwe National Park, and scientists have predicted that South Africa's red lark could lose its entire remaining
habitat. Reports of ecosystem changes due to recent global warming are already coming in from many parts of the world. Costa Rica's golden toad may
be extinct because of its inability to adapt to climate changes; birds such as the great tit in Scotland and the Mexican jay in Arizona are beginning to
breed earlier in the year; butterflies are shifting their ranges northwards throughout Europe; alpine plants are moving to higher altitudes in Austria; and
mammals in many parts of the Arctic - including polar bears, walrus and caribou - are beginning to feel the impacts of reduced sea ice and warming
tundra habitat. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has the potential to eventually destroy at least a
third of the world's existing terrestrial habitats , with no certainty that they will be replaced by equally diverse or productive
ecosystems, or that similar ecosystems will establish elsewhere. Unfortunately, some projections for global greenhouse gas emissions suggest that CO2
will not only double from pre-industrial levels during the 21st Century but may in fact triple if action is not taken to rein in
the inefficient use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil for energy production . Amongst the
countries likely to lose 45 per cent or more of current habitat are Russia, Canada, Kyrgyzstan,
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Uruguay, Bhutan and Mongolia. Bhutan and Mongolia in
particular are havens for extraordinary wildlife riches to which climate change represents an
alarming new threat. Local species loss may be as high as 20 per cent in the most vulnerable arctic and mountain ecosystems. Fragmented
habitats in highly sensitive regions including northern Canada, parts of eastern Siberia, Russia's Taimyr Peninsula, northern Alaska, northern
Scandinavia, the Tibetan plateau, and southeastern Australia may be most at risk. Individual mountain species that may be under threat from global
warming in isolated mountain habitats include the rare Gelada baboon of Ethiopia, the Andean spectacled bear, central America's resplendent quetzal,
the mountain pygmy possum of Australia and the monarch butterfly at its Mexican wintering grounds. Many coastal and island species will be at risk
from the combined threat of warming oceans, sea-level rise and range shifts, all of which can add significantly to existing human pressures. As can be
seen from these examples, and the growing body of science, an alarm is sounding . The rate of global warming may be a critical
determinant in the future of the global biodiversity and we cannot afford to wait to reduce
greenhouse gases. Urgent action is necessary to prevent the rate of change reaching a level that
will be catastrophic for nature and which may bring about irreversible losses of our world's
natural treasures.

Warming Core
Warming Real Anthropogenic

Warming is real and anthropogenic
C2ES 11 (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions - successor to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
and recently named the worlds top environmental think tank, "Science FAQs," http://www.c2es.org/globalwarming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm)
A more detailed, state-of-the-art attribution of various climate trends is possible using optimal fingerprinting
approaches that match individual forcings (for example, greenhouse gases, solar intensity or airborne particles)
to observed climate change patterns using global climate models. This technique has detected human-induced
trends in a wide variety of climate variables including land surface warming, vertical warming of the oceans,
loss of Arctic sea ice cover, and changes in precipitation patterns at different latitudes on the Earth.
Observations of global land and ocean surface warming and warming of all continents except
Antarctica show that no combination of forcings that excludes manmade greenhouse gases can
explain the warming trend of the past half-century (see figure). Top How do we know
greenhouse gases are increasing because of human activity? Some greenhouse gases (GHG),
such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the
atmosphere can only be explained by human activity. For naturally occurring GHG, several
independent lines of evidence make it crystal clear that they are increasing because of human activities: First,
CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide concentrations were stable for thousands of years. Suddenly, they began to
rise like a rocket around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale
agriculture and industry (see figure). Second, scientists and economists have developed estimates of
all the natural and human GHG sources. When they add them up, only the human contributions
are increasing. In fact, the amount of human-made GHG in the budget are more than enough to explain the
rise in concentrations, which means that natural processes are absorbing the excess amount, keeping GHG
concentrations from rising even more. For CO2, the most important human-produced GHG, scientists can tell
from chemical measurements of the atmosphere that the additional CO2 is from:
combustion (i.e. burning fossil fuels) because the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is
decreasing in direct proportion to the rise in CO2; a prehistoric (fossil) source because the
amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere has been decreasing over the past century;
from plants (i.e. ancient trees that became coal and oil) rather than a geological source (i.e.
volcanoes). Together, all of these independent lines of evidence leave no doubt that GHG
concentrations are increasing because of human activities.
Global Warming is real and anthropogenic multiple warrants.
Romm 10 (Jon, Editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the American Progress, former Acting Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Disputing the consensus on global warming,
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/16/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-climate-science/,)WZ
A good example of how the consensus process confuses people especially the anti-science crowd, which
gloms onto any apparent disagreement among scientists as evidence against the consensus can be found in
two Dot Earth posts on Andrew A. Lacis, the NASA climatologist whose 2005 critique of the United Nations
climate panel was embraced by bloggers seeking to cast doubt on human-driven climate change (Part I and
Part II). Lacis had commented on the Fourth Assessment, There is no scientific merit to be found in the
Executive Summary. WattsUpWithThat got all hot cool and bothered, writing, Remember, this guy is
mainstream, not a sceptic. After pointing out the IPCC authors response, Rejected. [Executive Summary]
summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature, WattsUp wrote, Simply Astonishing. This is
a consensus? Then Lacis explained exactly what he meant on DotEarth: Human-induced warming of the
climate system is established fact. My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating
in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established
fact, and not something to be labeled as very likely at the 90 percent probability level. And The bottom
line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important

6
Warming Core
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the
overall strength of the Earths greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad
way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster. Doh! He thought the IPCC
consensus was some watered down, least-common denominator piece of wishy-washiness that
understates our scientific understanding, which it is. And that brings me to my Salon piece,
which I excerpt below: The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some
things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the
conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on
climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say the science is
settled. But thats where the agreement ends. The science isnt settled its unsettling, and
getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic
consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. The big difference I have with the
doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on
the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically
understate the impact. But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community,
environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word consensus to
describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that
human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others
say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear consensus of opinion, which
can and often is dismissed out of hand. Ive met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who
simply cant believe that as old as the planet is that puny, gnawing little humans could possibly change the
climate in 70 years. Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done
in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it,
and its going to get much, much worse unless we act soon. Consensus of opinion is irrelevant to
science because reality is often counterintuitive just try studying quantum mechanics. Fortunately Kernen
wasnt around when scientists were warning that puny little humans were destroying the Earths protective
ozone layer. Otherwise we might never have banned chlorofluorocarbons in time. Consensus of opinion is also
dismissed as groupthink. In a December article ignorantly titled The Science of Gores Nobel: What If
Everyone Believes in Global Warmism Only Because Everyone Believes in Global Warmism? Holman W.
Jenkins Jr. of the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote: What if the heads being counted to certify an
alleged consensus arrived at their positions by counting heads?It may seem strange that scientists would
participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldnt. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof. Many devote
their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses, especially well-funded hypotheses, theyve chosen to
believe. Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an
orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself. How
sad that the WSJ and CNBC have so little conception of what science really is, especially since scientific
advances drive so much of the economy. If thats what Jenkins thinks science is, one would assume he is
equally skeptical of flossing, antibiotics and even boarding an airplane. (Note to WSJ: One reason science
works is that a lot of scientists devote their whole lives to overturning whatever is the current hypothesis if it
can be overturned. Thats how you become famous and remembered by history, like Copernicus, Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein.) In fact, science doesnt work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many
respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun
goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations
overturned that flawed worldview. One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term
consensus in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for
doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as
you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof
that no consensus of opinion exists. So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the
leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more
than 400 names of supposedly prominent scientists who supposedly recently voiced
significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus on man-made global
warming. As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen,
economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who arent climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a
number of people who actually believe in the consensus. But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to

7
Warming Core
climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or
famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does think global warming is real). Or, for that matter, my
opinion even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical
oceanography in the Greenland Sea. What matters is scientific findings data, not opinions. The IPCC relies
on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the
scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I
cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are
irrelevant. A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns how we
know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming. This is, of course, the deniers
favorite topic. Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is
warming, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo that human emissions
arent the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is
pointless. Last year, longtime Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote, There is still zero empirical
evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the worlds present
warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer
models to finger mankinds sinful contribution. In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the
relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and
other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized. The IPCC
concluded last year: Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely (>90 percent) caused most of the observed global
warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account the possibility that the response to solar
forcing could be underestimated by climate models. Scientists have come to understand that
forcings (natural and human-made) explain most of the changes in our climate and
temperature both in recent decades and over the past millions of years. The primary humanmade forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide
from burning coal, oil and natural gas. The natural forcings include fluctuations in the intensity
of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge
volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and
cause cooling). Over and over again, scientists have demonstrated that observed changes in the climate in
recent decades can only be explained by taking into account the observed combination of human and natural
forcings. Natural forcings alone just dont explain what is happening to this planet. For instance, in April 2005,
one of the nations top climate scientists, NASAs James Hansen, led a team of scientists that made precise
measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years, which revealed that the Earth is
absorbing far more heat than it is emitting to space, confirming what earlier computer models had shown
about warming. Hansen called this energy imbalance the smoking gun of climate change, and said, There
can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed
warming. Another 2005 study, led by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, compared actual ocean
temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans) with
climate models and concluded: A warming signal has penetrated into the worlds oceans over the
past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it
cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is
well simulated by two anthropogenically [human-caused] forced climate models. We conclude
that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model
differences. Such studies are also done for many other observations: land-based temperature
rise, atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, arctic ice melt, inland glacier melt, Greeland
and Antarctic ice sheet melt, expansion of the tropics (desertification) and changes in
precipitation. Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and
suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations.
How many studies? Well, the IPCCs
definitive treatment of the subject, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, has 11 full pages of
references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research
and actual observations reveal. And the science behind human attribution has gotten much stronger in the past
2 years (see a recent literature review by the Met Office here). That brings us to another problem with the word
consensus. It can mean unanimity or the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. Many, if not
most, people hear the second meaning: consensus as majority opinion. The scientific consensus most people
are familiar with is the IPCCs Summary for Policymakers reports. But those arent a majority opinion.
Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China,

8
Warming Core
Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism the Bush administration get to veto anything they dont like.
The deniers call this politicized science, suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of
unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative
or watered-down document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is minority rules. Last
April, in an article titled Conservative Climate, Scientific American noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and
China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the
Earths recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the
University of Leeds in England said, The difference is really a factor of 10. Then I discuss the evidence we had
even back in 2008 that the IPCC was underestimating key climate impacts, a point I update here. The bottom
line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more
imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. Thats why climate scientists are so desperate. Thats why
they keep begging for immediate action. And thats why the consensus on global warming is a phrase that
should be forever retired from the climate debate. The leading scientific organizations in this country and
around the world, including all the major national academies of science, arent buying into some sort of
consensus of opinion. They have analyzed the science and observations and expressed their understanding of
climate science and the likely impacts we face on our current emissions path an understanding that has
grown increasingly dire in recent years (see An illustrated guide to the latest climate science and An
introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water).
Warming is real and human caused an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence
Rahmstorf 8 (Stefan, Professor at the Postdam Institute for Climate Research, "Anthropogenic Climate
Change: Revisiting the Facts,"
http://www.pikpotsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) WZ
This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate, nding that this anthropogenic increase is
proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect on climate
of 3C 1.5C global warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is the classic IPCC range; my
personal assessment is that, in the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the
uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3C 1C.) This is based on consistent results from
theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence of any computer models, the same result would still
hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence,
the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it
follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming.
The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to various emissions
scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous range of future
global temperature scenarios shown in gure 3-6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations:
the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases and
aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here,
although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important
forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and
biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an
optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning
into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress.51 It is clear that even in the more
optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 23C above its
preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an
extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far
as the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable
temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope)
is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. The last major global
warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a
warming of about 5C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1C per century.52 The expected magnitude
and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risks and impacts in terms of
sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 2535 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to

9
Warming Core
increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss.53 The second part of this paper examined the
evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is known about its causes. This part
showed that global warming is already a measured and well-established fact, not a theory.
Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the observed warming of the
past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be
expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative
explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientic literature. Taken together, the
very strong evidence, accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past
decades convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially
quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we
need to deal.
Warming is anthropogenic
Wood 10 Duncan Wood is Full Professor, Director of the Program in International Relations (Duncan,
Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies, 7/1/2013,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf
JJ)
we are undergoing
a noticeable anthropogenic shift in the worlds weather and temperature. Not only are a range
of indicators showing that the planet is warming, but the retreat of the polar ice caps, the
melting of glaciers, and most importantly in the short term extreme weather conditions and
increased incidence of natural disasters have highlighted the consequences of maintaining the
status quo in our patterns of energy consumption and industrial development . It is estimated that we have
The urgency of finding alternatives to fossil fuels has been confirmed in recent years by mounting scientific evidence that
experienced a 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years and that by the end of the current century global temperatures may
have risen by as much 7 or 8 degrees. Even with the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is
contemplated by the most ambitious mitigation strategies, global temperatures may raise by as
much as 6%. This would have a dramatic and disastrous impact on both developed and developing nations and will threaten the existence of both
humans and animal and plant species. Though the connection between manmade greenhouse gases and global warming was denied for many years by
industry and governments alike, it has now been accepted that something must be done to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Given that 86% of all global energy comes from fossil fuels, and that these
fossil fuels produce 27,000,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, finding alternative sources of energy is a crucial component of climate change
mitigation strategies.
Laundry list of indicators prove warming anthropogenic

Shulman 10 (Seth Shulman, citing Benjamin Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Max Planck
Institute for Meteorology, Last updated: 7/15/10, "Global Warming Science and Impacts: Climate
Fingerprinter," Union of Concerned Scientists,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjaminsanter.html)
The key insight of the research is straightforward: the factors that might account for global
warmingwhat climate scientists call "forcings"operate in different ways. For instance,
Santer explains, if the earth's warming were caused by an increase in the sun's energy output,
"you would expect to see warming from the top of the atmospheric column straight down to the
surface." But if massive volcanic eruptions, say, were a significant factor, their influence would show up with a distinctly different profile. When
such eruptions occur, the dust they produce can reach upper portions of Earth's atmosphere, and remain there for several years. Because volcanic dust
absorbs incoming sunlight, preventing it from penetrating to the earth's surface, the data would show cooling in the troposphere (the atmospheric layer
closest to the surface) and heating in the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere) . But, Santer points out, those two
profiles are "not at all what the data show." His research, now replicated by many others,
instead documents a telltale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratospherethe
precise fingerprint that scientists since the 1960s had predicted would occur from the
intensified "greenhouse effect" as increasing amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from
fossil-fuel emissions built up in the atmosphere. Because of his groundbreaking work, Santer
was selected as the lead author on a chapter of the 1995 report issued by the Intergovernmental

10
Warming Core
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That year, for the first time, the report said that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible
human influence on global climate." That measured statement has, of course, been dramatically strengthened in the latest IPCC report, which concludes
that there is a greater than 90 percent likelihood that human activities have been the main cause of warming since the middle of the twentieth century.
Santer's cutting-edge research led to widespread acclaim from his colleagues and earned him many accolades, including a MacArthur "genius grant," but
his high-profile role in the 1995 IPCC report made him a target of those trying to stir up controversy and confuse the public about global warming. For
instance, after the 1995 report was issued, an industryfunded group led an effort to discredit Santer personally by spuriously claiming that he had
altered the IPCC's findings. He had not. "Nothing in my university training prepared me for what I faced in the aftermath of that report," Santer says of
the vicious personal attacks by fossil-fuel interests. "You are prepared as a scientist to defend your research. But I was not prepared to defend my
personal integrity. I never imagined I'd have to do that." Fifteen years later, the evidence that human activity is
causing global warming is stronger than ever and accepted by the overwhelming majority of
scientists. Our understanding of climate fingerprinting has also become far more sophisticated
and now shows human causation in the measured changes in ocean temperatures, Arctic sea
ice, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and many other aspects of climate change. Some of
Santer's more recent work, for instance, addresses changes in the height of the tropopausethe
boundary between the troposphere, the more turbulent lower layer, and the more stable
stratosphere above. (Between 5 and 10 miles above the earth's surface, a marker of the
tropopause can be seen in the flat, anvil-like top of a thundercloud.) Measurements over the
course of several recent decades have shown that the tropopause has risen markedly. By
studying tropopause changes in computer climate models, and comparing model output with
observations, Santer was able to show that both the warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the stratosphere led to a rise in the height
of the tropopauseand that the observed rise in the tropopause matched the fingerprint of an increase in heat-trapping gases. "Nobody had looked at it
before," Santer says, "but the data showed clearly that natural causes alone simply could not provide a convincing explanation for the observed change."
All the climate fingerprinting research to date, Santer explains, has arrived at the same conclusion, namely that "natural causes cannot
provide a convincing explanation for the particular patterns of climate change we see." That, he
says, is why scientists "have come to have such confidence in our understanding of what is
happeningnot because of the claims of any one individual, but because of the breadth of
scientific work and reproducibility of the results."
Warming is anthropogenic - even if there are alt causes, human emissions are the biggest factor
Fitzpatrick 6 (Melanie Fitzpatrick, Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of
Washington, 5/11/06, "Human Fingerprints," Union of Concerned Scientists,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html)\
Background: Driving the Climate ("Forcing") Climate is influenced by many factors, both natural and human. [7] Things that increase temperature, such
as increases in heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants or an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits, are examples of "positive"
forcings or drivers. Volcanic events and some types of human-made pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere,
lower temperature and are examples of "negative" forcings or drivers . Natural climate drivers include the sun's energy
output, aerosols from volcanic activity, and changes in snow and ice cover. Human climate
drivers include heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants, aerosols from pollution,
and soot particles. Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft
flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate
global climate changes under different conditions. These programs use our knowledge of
physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within Earth's atmosphere and oceans
and on its land surfaces. Mathematical models allow scientists to simulate the behavior of
complex systems such as climate and explore how these systems respond to natural and human
factors. Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm The world's oceans have absorbed about 20
times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher
temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The
measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate variation. Fingerprint 2: The Atmosphere Shifts Recent research
shows that human activities have lifted the boundary of Earth's lower atmosphere. Known as the troposphere (from the Greek tropos, which means
"turning"), this lowest layer of the atmosphere contains Earth's weather. The stable layer above is called the stratosphere. The boundary that separates
the two layers, the tropopause, is as high as nine miles above the equator and as low as five miles above the poles. In an astounding development, a 2003
study showed that this tropopause has shifted upward over the last two decades by more than 900 feet. [10] The rising tropopause marks another human
fingerprint on Earth's climate. In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic aerosols) and
three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated
models. Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heattrapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is
trapping more of Earth's outgoing heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat up the
stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 1979-1999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heattrapping emissions and ozone account for more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science
detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate. Fingerprint 3: The Surface Heats Up Measurements show that global average

Warming Core
11
temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades. [1,2] By comparing Earth's
temperature over that last century with models comparing climate drivers, a study showed that, from 1950 to the present, most of the warming was
caused by heat-trapping emissions from human activities [3]. In fact, heat-trapping emissions are driving the climate about three times more strongly
now than they were in 1950. The spatial pattern of where this warming is occurring around the globe
indicates human-induced causes. Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from
volcanic events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor
fluctuations in the sun's output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any
other current climate driver. Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human
activities as the main driver of our warming climate. Human Causes, Human Solutions

Warming Core
12
AT: Bias
Scientists are unbiased and mostly agree that warming is real
Bowman 94+ (Robert M. Lt. Cl., President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, What About
Global Warming?, http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/warming.htm) KA
Naturally, if I didnt think it was real, I wouldnt be writing this paper. But the polluters and their mouthpieces (like Rush Limbaugh) claim its just a
bunch of hot air. Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association (a front for coal and other corporate interests), for example, says, "Known apocalyptic
global warming advocates, in their zeal to convince the world that the holocaust will be upon us unless we curtail our use of fossil fuels, compose
conclusions which ignore actual observations. ... Satellites, that measure the worlds temperature so accurately that they can detect when the moon is
full, find no warming whatsoever in their entire 18-year record." On the other hand, most of the worlds scientists, acting
through the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have reached consensus on the fact
that Global Warming is real and is already happening . Dan Becker of the Sierra Club (a moderate environmental group)
says, "Assertions that satellite records show no global warming are either misinformed or intentionally untrue. The reality is that the last
30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and they have been
documented not by alarmists, but by responsible, unbiased scientists from NASA, NOAA, and
countless universities and research institutions around the world. The average surface temperature of the first
seven years of the 1990s is already higher than the average for the entire decade of the 1980s (the 1980s had previously been the warmest decade in
recorded history)." J. W. Anderson of Resources for the Future (a non-profit research group with environmental leanings) agrees that surface
temperatures have risen a full degree since reliable measurements began, and that recent decades are the warmest since at least 1400. (Little is known
about the earths climate before that time.) Over two thousand scientists have now concluded that global
warming is already changing our climate. 1995 was the warmest year since humans began keeping accurate measurements of
temperature. (Recent data indicates that it wont hold that distinction for long 1997 has been even hotter.) Scientists are documenting the rapid
melting of glaciers. Snow cover is melting much earlier in the year. Ocean temperatures have warmed, sea levels have risen almost one foot, and the
patterns of deep sea currents are shifting. Average surface temperatures in Antarctica have risen two degrees Fahrenheit since 1950. In 1994, warming
temperatures caused a 48 by 22 mile chunk to break off from the Larsen ice shelf, exposing rocks that had been encased in ice for over 20,000 years.
Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, threatening the oil pipeline, buckling highways, and causing other havoc. The ten hottest years in recorded history have
all taken place since 1980! With the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and scientists around the world, ISSS believes that the evidence
is indisputable. Global Warming is real.

Warming Core
13
AT: Idsos
Idsos are paid off
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007
(Responding to Global Warming SkepticsProminent Skeptics Organizations,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)
Greening Earth Society The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view
that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be
located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob
Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the
western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries. Spin: CO2
emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have. Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick,
Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding
from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and
utility company members. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change The Center claims to "disseminate
factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and
biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig
and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society;
the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have
been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another . Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's
good. Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders.
There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels
Association). Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso , Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer
Idsos dont have a peer review they fill their work with meaningless jargon
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2000
(Misinformation About Climate Science, February, http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climatemisinformation.html)
In an attempt to bank on the credibility science generally enjoys and to fight off accusations
of making unscientific, biased claims, skeptics also pursue the idea "if you can't beat them,
join them"if only in appearance. EXAMPLE: The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change This pseudoscientific research center located in Tempe, AZ, who are also involved with the Greening Earth Society. In a position paper on global warming
[13], the two authors (the only listed staff of the Center) state, "There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the
inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There
is also little doubt that the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature
was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for
there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena." The authors then go on to flesh out
these "problems" with scientific jargon, criticizing unscientific interpretations, and

debunking claims never made by serious climate scientists. The "scientific" positions held by
Center staff are not subjected to peer-review, and the Center's Scientific Advisors are mostly
retired scientists without past or current research in climate-related sciences. It is not clear whether
the CO2 Center is actually a separate entity from the Greening Earth Society.

Warming Core
14
AT: Adaption
Adaptation isnt sufficient reducing emissions key
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, recently named the worlds top environmental think
tank, 2011
(June 2011, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Science FAQs, http://www.c2es.org/globalwarming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
However, different regions and sectors will differ in their ability to adapt. Natural ecosystems
have inherent, but limited capability to adapt to climate change, which is further impeded by
other human impacts to the environment such as development and habitat fragmentation. Even
human societies, particularly developing countries, have limited resources to respond to the
challenge of climate change. Poor countries and poor populations within rich countries will be
disproportionately impacted by climate change because of their limited resources for
adaptation.
Some climate related impacts are difficult to adapt to. For example, extreme weather events, such as
storms and floods, are not easily ameliorated by adaptation measures. By investing in the reduction of
greenhouse gases, it will offset necessary investments in adaptation in addition to protecting
against those adverse effects of climate change for which adaptation is particularly difficult. It
isclear that responding to climate change requires both mitigation of greenhouse gases and
adaptation to unavoidable change.
Uncertainty and limitation on tech prevent short-term adaptation

Stern, head of the Government Economic Service and adviser to the Government on the
Economics of Climate Change and Development, 2006
(Nicholas, Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change, p.

413, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/media/C/2/Chapter_18_Understanding_the_Economics_of_Adaptation.pdf,
accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
An inherent difficulty for long-term adaptation decisions is uncertainty, due to limitations in
our scientific knowledge of a highly complex climate system and the likely impacts of
perturbing it. Even as scientific understanding improves, there will always remain some
residual uncertainty, as the size of impacts also depend on global efforts to control greenhouse
gas emissions. Effective adaptation will involve decisions that are robust to a range of plausible
climate futures and are flexible so they can be modified relatively easily. But there will always
be a cost to hedging bets in this way, compared to the expert optimal adaptation strategy that
is revealed only with the benefit of hindsight. There are clear limits to adaptation in natural
ecosystems. Even small changes in climate may be disruptive for some ecosystems (e.g. coral
reefs, mangrove swamps) and will be exacerbated by existing stresses, such as pollution.
Beyond certain thresholds, natural systems may be unable to adapt at all, such as
mountainous habitats where the species have nowhere to migrate. But even for human
society, there are technical limits to the ability to adapt to abrupt and large-scale climate
change, such as a rapid onset of monsoon failure in parts of South Asia. Sudden or severe
impacts triggered by warming could test the adaptive limits of human systems. Very high
temperatures alone could become lethal, while lack of water will undermine peoples ability to
survive in a particular area, such as regions that depend on glacier meltwater. Rising sea
levels will severely challenge the survival of low-lying countries and regions such as the
Maldives or the Pacific Islands, and could result in the abandonment of some highly populated
coastal regions, including several European cities.

Warming Core
15
AT: But its cold

Distinction Its about global temperature averages not regional isolated events cold
conditions could also be an indicator for warming.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, recently named the worlds top environmental think tank,
2011
(June 2011, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Science FAQs, http://www.c2es.org/globalwarming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Global warming is about changes in long-term averages and not about single events; it does not
mean an end to cold weather. Instead, it means that cold weather will become less frequent and
hot weather more frequent when averaged over decades. In fact, both of these trends have been
observed over the past 50 years in the United States and globally. Even with global warming, we will
have cold winters; however, there will be fewer of them. It is also important to remember that a cold
winter for one location doesnt mean a cold winter everywhere. In fact, many parts of the world,
including the Arctic and the tropics, had an unusually warm winter in 2010. To create heavy snowfall the East
Coast experienced during the 2009 and 2010 winters, you need two things: moist air and cold air. In recent
winters, the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical Pacific have supplied lots of moist air, and that is the key to getting
heavy precipitation. We also had more cold air than usual that spilled out of the Arctic. Conditions were just
right in the past two winters for these air masses to meet up and create massive snowstorms. Snowfall
occurs when warm, moist air is forced above the cold air and begins to precipitate into the cold
air, causing what would haven rain to freeze. Since climate change increases the moisture
content of the atmosphere, global warming can actually increase the risk of heavy snowfall.

Warming Core
16
AT: China
China would model US action on climate change
Gardner, correspondent on energy and the environment, 2007
(Timothy, Oct. 2, Scribd, Experts Say China Would Follow U.S. Lead On Climate,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30958756/Warming-General, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
China would soon follow the U.S. lead if Washington agrees to tackle its emissions in the next
few years because China's government takes the threat of global warming more seriously than
the United States does, a climate expert said on Tuesday. "My impression is that the national government -top level ministry officials -- in China regard the threats of global warming to their country with a
much higher level of seriousness than their counterparts do here in the United States," said
David Hawkins of the environmental group National Resources Defense Council. Hawkins, head
of the group's climate center, spoke by telephone to the Reuters Environment Summit in New York. If the
United States agrees to cut emissions deeply with a baseline that gets tougher over time, it
would spur U.S. manufacturers to buildlow-emissions technologies like alternative energy and
coal plants that store carbon dioxide underground. It could then market those technologies to
the world, forcing China to act."The biggest carrot is to have the U.S. to take a leadership role,"
he said. "Then countries like China are going to say, 'What does the United States know that we
don't know?' and agree to their own cuts," said Hawkins. Hawkins is based in Washington but visits
China often, meeting with government ministers heading the country's science and technology, environmental
protection, agriculture, and development reform agencies. He said they are very concerned about the
possibility that global warming would lead to drastic cuts in water for agriculture.
China reducing emissions now Leader in many areas of renewable energy, multiple pledges to
reduce emissions, and committed officials prove
Coonan, reporter for the independent, 2010
(Clifford, Sep. 3, The Independent, China's renewed effort to clean up its act,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/newenergyfuture/chinas-renewed-effort-to-clean-up-itsact-2068595.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
When it comes to environmental issues, China tends to generate negative headlines its badly
polluted skies, its dirty rivers, and its melting glaciers are all images we associate with Chinas remarkable
economic rise. What is less well known is that China is leading the world in adopting key green
technologies to help to fuel the countrys economic boom. The central government in Beijing
has set a target of generating 15 per cent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and
the effects of China going green will be felt all around the world. There is a lot to do. China assumed
the mantle of the worlds largest carbon emitter from the United States in 2007, and its people are forced to
live with the consequences of rapid industrialisation, mostly driven by burning fossil fuels. Coal provides nearly
70 per cent of Chinas energy needs, and this is not likely to end any time soon, but what is crucial is the mix of
how China supplies its energy. According to REN21s 2010 Renewables Global Status Report, China added
37GW of renewable power capacity, more than any other country, to reach 226GW of total renewables capacity.
Globally, nearly 80GW of renewable capacity was added, including 31GW of hydropower and 48GW of nonhydro capacity. China was the top market for windpower, doubling its windpower capacity for the
fifth year in a row. China added 13.8GW of windpower, representing more than one-third of the world
market up from just a 2 per cent market share in 2004. China has nearly doubled its hydropower
capacity during the five years to 2009, adding 23GW in 2009 to end the year with 197GW. Moreover, more
than 70 per cent of the worlds solar hot-water heaters are in China, and they are the main source of
hot water for many households. In July, Chinas National Development and Reform Commission

17
Warming Core
announced an alternative energy planning programme which would invest 5,000 billion yuan
(470bn) between 2011 and 2020, creating 15 million jobs in the sector. The plan was announced by
Jiang Bing, the head of the National Energy Administration, who said the bureau envisages that, by 2015,
natural gas would account for 8.3 per cent of energy, with hydropower and nuclear power jumping from 7 per
cent to 9 per cent of primary energy consumption. Windpower, solar power and biomass would increase from
less than 1 per cent now to almost 2.6 per cent of the total. There are other groundbreaking projects taking
place. China installed the first major offshore wind project outside of Europe last year, adding
63MW by year-end for a project that reached 102MW earlier this year. Shi Pengfei of the China Hydropower
Engineering consulting group believes China has the best and the newest wind turbines. By the end of 2009,
Chinas total capacity of windpower operations increased by 92.26 per cent compared with the same period of
2008, Shi said. Although China adopted some muscular negotiating tactics at the Copenhagen summit on
climate change, and some countries accuse Beijing of hijacking the talks, the smart money is on Chinas
efforts to boost green technology and clean energy options. China has pledged to cut the
intensity of carbon emissions per unit of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 by 40 to 45
per cent against 2005 levels. While this will not cut the overall amount of emissions, it is a step in the right
direction. Post-Copenhagen, China needs to continue its domestic efforts to improve green tech and
sustainability, and Im confident it will. China should also see a strong demand for it to play a leadership role
internationally, said Yang Ailun, the head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace China. China is committed
to developing clean energy because of all the domestic imperatives to do so. Its good for energy
security and its good for economic development. Announcing a target was an effort to be seen
as willing to do its fair share, Yang said. The Chinese government is investing serious resources
to stop pollution, and binding reduction targets have been included in the central governments 11th FiveYear Plan to control the discharges of key water pollutants, such as chemical oxygen demand (COD) and
sulphur dioxide. Chinas Vice-Minister of Environmental Protection, Li Ganjie, said in December if it achieves a
reduction in these pollutants, this would result in a reduction of 250 million tons in CO2 emissions. Yang
believes the main potential in clean energy lies in energy efficiency and clean energy technology. One area of
particular interest is how to make more efficient cars China is already a world leader in electric cars.
Other areas include wind energy, and solar energy, where China is already a top-three
manufacturer. The solar market is mainly manufacturing for export but growth is slowing, so its now crucial
for the government to give support for the domestic market, he said. Huang Min, the founder of the Himin
Solar Energy Group in Dezhou, is on a quest to convince his fellow Chinese of the need to go green. China
has already made a promise on emissions reduction. It shows China can behave like a big
country and it shows the Chinese government is committed. This promise is not only a
challenge, but a huge business opportunity. This pledge lifts China on to the global political and
economic stage, said Huang. When it comes to issues of sustainability, China is too big to be
ignored.

Warming Core
18
AT: CO2 from oceans

Fossil fuels are the root cause of CO2 emissions multiple indicators prove
Mackie, New Zealand chemical oceanographer, 2010
(Doug, June 26, Skeptical Science, CO2 is Coming from the Ocean,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
We can be confident the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the oxidation of fossil
fuels and not from outgassing from the ocean or from soil/land sources by using two key
observations. Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is
going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 ppm) that we are in no danger of running
out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the
carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen
has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the
form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt
in the atmosphere to produce CO2. Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the
CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be
released by fossil fuel burning each year goes. Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2
ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the
atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the missing CO2, so we can
also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and
biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is
that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up
enough.

Warming Core
19
AT: El Nino
El Nino cant explain warming your authors misfiltered data
Cook, Penn State Metereology Professor, Professor of Environmental Science at Auckland University, and
Climatic Researcher at University of East Anglia, 2010
(John, March 18, Skeptical Science, http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-tomclean-el-nino-paper.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)

A paper published mid-2009 claimed a link between global warming and the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) (McLean et al 2009). According to one of its authors, Bob Carter, the paper found that
the "close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for
any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions". This result is in strong contrast with two
decades of peer-reviewed research which find ENSO has little influence on long-term trends.
Why the discrepancy? A response has now been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical
Research (Foster et al 2010) explaining why McLean 2009 differs from the body of peer-reviewed
research. First, let's examine how McLean et al arrived at their conclusion. They compared
both weather balloon (RATPAC) and satellite (UAH) measurements of tropospheric
temperature to El Nio activity (SOI). To remove short-term noise, they plotted a 12 month running
average of Global Tropospheric Temperature Anomaly (GTTA, the light grey line) and the Southern Oscillation
Index (SOI, the black line). The Southern Oscillation Index shows no long term trend while the
temperature record shows a long-term warming trend. Consequently, McLean et al found only
a weak correlation between temperature and SOI. Next, they applied another filter to the data
by subtracting the 12 month running average from the same average 1 year later. The
comparison between the filtered data for El Nino and Temperature are as follows: From this
close correlation, McLean et al argued that more than two thirds of interseasonal and longterm variability in temperature changes can be explained by the Southern Oscillation Index.
This result contradicts virtually every other study into the connection between ENSO and
temperature variability, particularly with regard to long-term warming trends. Past analyses have
found ENSO was responsible for 15 to 30% of interseasonal variability but little of the global warming trend
over the past half century (Jones 1989, Wigley 2000, Santer 2001, Trenberth 2002, Thompson 2008). Why
does McLean come to a different result? This question is examined in Comment on "Influence
of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M.
Carter (Foster et al 2010). Foster et al examine the filtering process that McLean et al applied to
the temperature and ENSO data. This filtering has two steps - they take 12-month moving
averages then take the differences between those values which are 12 months apart. The first
step filters the high-frequency variation from the time series while the second step filters lowfrequency variation. The problem with the latter step is it removes any long-term trends from the original
temperature data. The long-term warming trend in the temperature record is where the disagreement between
temperature and ENSO is greatest. Why do McLean et al remove the long-term trend? They justify it by noting
a lack of correlation between SOI and GTTA, speculating that the derivative filter might remove noise caused
by volcanoes or wind. However, taking the derivative of a time series does not remove, or even reduce, shortterm noise. It has the opposite effect, amplifying the noise while removing longer-term changes. To further
illustrate how the filtering process increases the correlation between SOI and temperature, the authors
construct an artificial "temperature" time series as -0.02 times the SOI time series. They then add white noise
and a linear trend. This has the effect of creating a temperature time series with a long term warming trend.
The correlation between the raw artificial temperature series and the SOI series is very low (R2 = 0.0161).
However, when the McLean et al filters are applied to both time series, the correlation is now very high (R2 =
0.8295). This is because the filtering removes low frequency elements such as the long term warming trend.
Despite the extreme distorting effect of their filter, McLean et al consistently refer to the correlations as
between SOI and tropospheric temperature. They draw no attention to the fact that the correlations
are between heavily filtered time series. This failure causes what is essentially a mistaken result
to be misinterpreted as a direct relationship between important climate variables. Another

20
Warming Core
interesting feature of McLean et al 2009 is a plot of unfiltered temperature data (GTTA) against the Southern
Oscillation Index (SOI) to illustrate the quality of the match between them. However the temperature signal is
a splice of weather balloon data (RATPAC-A) to the end of 1979 followed by satellite data (UAH TLT) since
1980. RATPAC-A data show a pronounced warming trend from 1960 to 2008 with the temperature line rising
away from the SOI line. This warming trend is obscured by substituting the weather balloon data with satellite
data after 1980. It is especially misleading because the mean values of RATPAC-A and UAH TLT data during
their period of overlap differ by nearly 0.2 K. Splicing them together introduces an artificial 0.2-degree
temperature drop at the boundary between the two. Unfortunately, the splicing is obscured by the fact that the
graph is split into different panels precisely at the splicing boundary. This splicing + graph splitting technique
is an effective way to "hide the incline" of the warming trend. It has been well known for many years that
ENSO is associated with significant variability in global temperatures on short timescales of several years.
However, this relationship cannot explain temperature trends on decadal and longer time scales. McLean et
al 2009 grossly overstates the influence of ENSO, primarily by filtering out any long-term
trends.

Warming Core
21
AT: Holocene warm period

The Holocene was only regional warming natural causes cant account for modern climate
change
NOAA, 2008
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Aug. 20, National Climatic Data Center, "MidHolocene Warm Period - About 6,000 Years Ago,"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene" or a period roughly from
7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Alti-thermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the
current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of
the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about
the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of
temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the
Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation
reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated
and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the
summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes,
however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was
warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or
"Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at
the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all. In
summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer
and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know
without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the
warming over the last 100 years. For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph
courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here.

Warming Core
22
AT: Inevitable/too late to solve

Warming is not inevitable significant cuts solve
Somerville, professor of Oceanography at UC San Diego and coordinating lead author in the 2007
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011
(Richard, Mar. 8, Climate Science and EPAs Greenhouse Gas Regulations, CQ Congressional Testimony,
Lexis, , CBC)
Thus, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already at levels predicted to lead to global warming
of between 2.0 and 2.4C. The conclusion from both the IPCC and subsequent analyses is blunt and
stark - immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are urgently
needed if the 2 deg C (or 3.6 deg F) limit is to be respected. This scientific conclusion illustrates a key
point, which is that it will be governments that will decide, by actions or inactions, what level of
climate change they regard as tolerable. This choice by governments may be affected by risk tolerance,
priorities, economics, and other considerations, but in the end it is a choice that humanity as a whole,
acting through national governments, will make. Science and scientists will not and should not make that
choice. After governments have set a tolerable limit of climate change, however, climate science
can then provide valuable information about what steps will be required to keep climate change
within that limit.
Slowing the rate of climate change buys us time to adapt

Flavin, the former president of the Worldwatch Institute, an independent research organization focused on
natural resource and environmental issues, Tunali, researcher for the Worldwatch Institute, 1996
(Christopher, Odil, June 1996, Worldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 130, p. 43, CBC)
To assist policymakers, several recent studies have begun to explore the limits within which the
energy economy will have to stay if the world is to be protected from overly rapid climate
change. They show that it is the rate of warming as much as the absolute amount that will
determine the scale of the human and ecological impact. While both people and natural
systems may be able to adapt to slow change, they could be devastated by more rapid shifts,
which are more likely to cause major disruptions.
Warming is not inevitable even if temporarily over the tipping point, CO2 concentration can
be brought back down.
Dyer, PhD in Middle Eastern history, MA in military history, and environmental author, 2008
(Gwynne, Jan. 1, Climate Wars, CBC)
There is no need to despair. The slow-feedback effects take a long time to work their way
through the climate system, and if we could manage to get the carbon dioxide concentration
back down to a safe level before they have run their course, they might be stopped in their
tracks. As Hansen et al. put it in their paper: A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping
level [which puts us on course for an ice-free world] is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice-sheet inertia
permit overshoot, provided the [concentration of carbon dioxide] is returned below the tipping level before
initiating irreversible dynamic change .... However, if overshoot is in place for centuries, the thermal
perturbation will so penetrate the ocean that recovery without dramatic effects, such as ice-sheet
disintegration, becomes unlikely. The real, long-term target is 350 parts per million or lower, if we want the
Holocene to last into the indefinite future, but for the remainder of this book I am going to revert to the 450
parts per million ceiling that has become common currency among most of those who are involved in climate
change issues. If we manage to stop the rise in the carbon dioxide concentration at or not far beyond
that figure, then we must immediately begin the equally urgent and arduous task of getting it
back down to a much lower level that is safe for the long term, but one step at a time will have to

23
Warming Core
suffice. I suspect that few now alive will see the day when we seriously start work on bringing the concentration
back down to 350, so let us focus here on how to stop it rising past 450.

Warming Core
24
AT: Medieval Warm Period
Best data proves global temperature averages are higher now than the Medieval warm period
NOAA, 2008
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Aug. 20, National Climatic Data Center, "The
Medieval Warm Period," http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html, accessed
7/12/13, CBC)
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century
indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during
the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become
more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum"
temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little
Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional
patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse
going back in time prior to the last four centuries. The plot below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), shows numerous Northern Hemisphere paleoclimatic
temperature reconstructions. The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying
paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice
Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century
temperatures. In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest
period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. For a summary of the latest available research on the nature of
climate during the "Medieval Warm Period", please see Box 6.4 of the IPCC 2007 Palaeoclimate chapter. To
learn more about the "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written
by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (Click here for complete review reference). Discussion of the last 2,000 years,
including the Medieval Warm Period, and regional patterns and uncertainties, appears in the National
Research Council Report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", available from
the National Academy Press.

Warming Core
25
AT: Natural Cycle

Warming is unprecedented only human factors can account for climatic data in the 20th and
21st centuries
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011
(Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?,

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-9.2.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late
20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the
20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This
rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should
respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past
century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate
should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic
activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earths climate. When
the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external
factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The
models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are
included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that
which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at
high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are
associated with internal climate processes, such as El Nio. Variations in the Earths climate over time are
caused by natural internal processes, such as El Nio, as well as changes in external influences. These external
influences can be natural in origin, such as volcanic activity and variations in solar output, or caused by human
activity, such as greenhouse gas emissions, human-sourced aerosols, ozone depletion and land use change. The
role of natural internal processes can be estimated by studying observed variations in climate and by running
climate models without changing any of the external factors that affect climate. The effect of external influences
can be estimated with models by changing these factors, and by using physical understanding of the processes
involved. The combined effects of natural internal variability and natural external factors can also be estimated
from climate information recorded in tree rings, ice cores and other types of natural thermometers prior to the
industrial age. The natural external factors that affect climate include volcanic activity and variations in solar
output. Explosive volcanic eruptions occasionally eject large amounts of dust and sulphate aerosol high into the
atmosphere, temporarily shielding the Earth and reflecting sunlight back to space. Solar output has an 11-year
cycle and may also have longer-term variations. Human activities over the last 100 years, particularly
the burning of fossil fuels, have caused a rapid increase in carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, these gases had remained at
near stable concentrations for thousands of years. Human activities have also caused increased
concentrations of fine reflective particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere, particularly during the
1950s and 1960s. Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Nio, can cause variations in global
mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors.
Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the
early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas
concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity.
During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels
and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective
dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when
the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors. Numerous experiments have been
conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These
experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they
only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, as shown in Figure 1, models
are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most

26
Warming Core
important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural
external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century
climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations.
The human influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface
temperature during the past half century. An important source of uncertainty arises from the incomplete
knowledge of some external factors, such as human sourced aerosols. In addition, the climate models
themselves are imperfect. Nevertheless, all models simulate a pattern of response to greenhouse gas
increases from human activities that is similar to the observed pattern of change. This pattern
includes more warming over land than over the oceans. This pattern of change, which differs
from the principal patterns of temperature change associated with natural internal variability,
such as El Nio, helps to distinguish the response to greenhouse gases from that of natural
external factors. Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the
troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another fingerprint of change that reveals the
effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been responsible for
the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed. In addition,
differences in the timing of the human and natural external influences help to distinguish the climate responses
to these factors. Such considerations increase confidence that human rather than natural factors were the
dominant cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years. Estimates of Northern Hemisphere
temperatures over the last one to two millennia, based on natural thermometers such as tree rings that vary in
width or density as temperatures change, and historical weather records, provide additional evidence that the
20th-century warming cannot be explained by only natural internal variability and natural external forcing
factors. Confidence in these estimates is increased because prior to the industrial era, much of the variation
they show in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures can be explained by episodic cooling caused by large
volcanic eruptions and by changes in the Suns output. The remaining variation is generally consistent with the
variability simulated by climate models in the absence of natural and human-induced external factors. While
there is uncertainty in the estimates of past temperatures, they show that it is likely that the
second half of the 20th century was the warmest 50-year period in the last 1300 years. The
estimated climate variability caused by natural factors is small compared to the strong 20thcentury warming.
CO2 concentrations indicate this cycle is not natural
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011
(Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earths History?,"
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.2.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earths history. Some aspects of the current
climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at
an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been
during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming
continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely
unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past
climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50
years is attributable to human activities. When comparing the current climate change to earlier, natural
ones, three distinctions must be made. First, it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse
gas concentration or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value or their rate
of change? Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often
much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift
the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback).
Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in
greenhouse gas concentration or solar activity). Third, it is necessary to distinguish between time scales.
Climate changes over millions of years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental drift)
compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale. The main reason for the current concern
about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some

27
Warming Core
other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years).
The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During
this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm
during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379
ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the
past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions
of years ago (see FAQ 6.1). Temperature is a more difficult variable to reconstruct than CO2 (a globally wellmixed gas), as it does not have the same value all over the globe, so that a single record (e.g., an ice core) is only
of limited value. Local temperature fluctuations, even those over just a few decades, can be several degrees
celsius, which is larger than the global warming signal of the past century of about 0.7C. More meaningful for
global changes is an analysis of large-scale (global or hemispheric) averages, where much of the local variation
averages out and variability is smaller. Sufficient coverage of instrumental records goes back only about 150
years. Further back in time, compilations of proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, etc., go back more than a
thousand years with decreasing spatial coverage for earlier periods (see Section 6.5). While there are
differences among those reconstructions and significant uncertainties remain, all published reconstructions
find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th
centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been
reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. These conclusions are
supported by climate modelling as well. Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been
systematically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present
global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Section 6.4).
There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level,
prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past
millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural,
slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant (see Box 6.1). A different matter is the
current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest
temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature
changed by 4C to 7C 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 counterexamples, 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 5C warming in this century (the upper end of the
range) are realised, 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 Core
28
AT: Sun Variance

Solar activity cant account for the recent global warming trends your evidence is based on
flawed data
Benestad, PHD in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University and Member
of European Meteorological Society, 2004
(Rasmus, Dec. 6, RealClimate, Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays,"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galacticcosmic-rays/, accessed 7/13/12, CBC)
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic
cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991),
there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earths climate.
Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from
variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earths cloud
cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and
reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by
both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is
clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also
in papers by Svensmark). Svensmarks failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant
long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming
without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for
recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in
GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number
and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started. The fact that
there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for
earths climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how
solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the
solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earths temperatures respond to
changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the
mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related
to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Recent evidence proves that when the Suns activity increases, it tends to cool the Earth
ScienceDaily, 2010
(Oct. 7, ScienceDaily, Decline in Suns Activity Does Not Always Mean That Earth Becomes Cooler,
Study Shows, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006141558.htm, accessed 7/13/12,
CBC)
The Sun's activity has recently affected Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways,
according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial
College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does
not always mean that Earth becomes cooler. It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and
wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching Earth
decreases. This latest study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a
declining part of its 11-year activity cycle. Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the
new research shows that it may have actually caused Earth to become warmer. Contrary to
expectations, the amount of energy reaching Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than

29
Warming Core
decreased as the Sun's activity declined, causing this warming effect. Following this surprising
finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and
that in periods when the Sun's activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm, Earth. This
is based on what is already known about the relationship between the Sun's activity and its total energy output.
Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is
possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather
than a small warming effect as had previously been thought.

Warming Core
30
AT: Urban heat island effect

The urban heat island effect doesnt affect temperature readings
Black, BBC environment correspondent, 2004
(Richard, Nov. 8, BBC, Climate change skeptics wrong,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4021197.stm, accessed 7/13/12, CBC)
A major argument used by sceptics of global warming is flawed, a UK Met Office study in
Nature magazine says. This argument maintains that much recorded climate data is inherently
unreliable because of where weather instruments are situated. Most are in or near cities,
which produce their own heat; so the rapid warming measured over the last century could be
just a record of urbanisation. The Met Office believes its study shows this "urban heat island"
idea is wrong. The analysis has been done by Dr David Parker. He used data for the last 50 years to create
two separate graphs. One plots temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights.
Warming over oceans disprove narrow urban heat island theory

Revkin, senior editor of Discover, staff writer at the LA Times, and senior writer at Science Digest, 2007
(Andrew, Jan. 14, New York Times, Connecting the Global Warming Dots,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14basics.html?_r=0, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on
the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today.
The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely
undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a
formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and
acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis and the proof that people are driving much of the
warming still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people
to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at
which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific
agreement on the planets warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning
emerges from the broadest view, from the balance of evidence, as the scientific case is described in the
periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panels fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in
Paris on Feb. 2. In the panels last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming
report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused
most of the recent warming. A number of trends have been identified:The global average
minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in
the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating
from the earths surface, even after the sun has gone down.)The stratosphere, high above the earths
surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the
surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the suns output, for example, would instead cause
similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.) There has been a parallel warming
trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot
be the only culprit.) Theres no urbanization going on on the ocean, said Jay Lawrimore, chief of
the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another
important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models
remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and
present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary
Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr.

Warming Core
Lawrimore said. Without the greenhouse gases, he said, you just dont get what weve
observed.
31
The Urban Heat Island Effect is not relevant to warming trends

Muller, professor of physics at Berkely, 2011
(Richard, Mar. 31, Climate Change Policy Issues, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis, CBC)
Let me now address the problem of Poor Temperature Station Quality Many temperature
stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony
Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology
Network would be ranked "poor" by NOAA's own standards , with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C. Did
such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We've studied this issue,
and our preliminary answer is no. The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50
years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good
stations. Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not
appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important. Our key
caveat is that our results are preliminary and have not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. We have begun that
process of submitting a paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and we are preparing several
additional papers for publication elsewhere. NOAA has already published a similar conclusion - that station quality
bias did not affect estimates of global warming based on a smaller set of stations, and Anthony
Anthony Watts and his team have a paper submitted, which is in late stage peer review, using over 1000 stations, but it
has not yet been accepted for publication and I am not at liberty to discuss their conclusions and how they might differ.
We have looked only at average temperature changes, and additional data needs to be studied, to look at (for example)
changes in maximum and minimum temperatures. In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more
warming in the U.S. than the poor stations by 0.009 0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what might be expected, but
also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and performing the calculation in several different ways.
But we are consistently finding that there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to
the inclusion of the poorly ranked US stations.
The Urban Heat Island Effect has zero influence on climate modeling studies prove
Archer, professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, 2008
(David, Oct. 6, The Long Thaw, pg. 32, CBC)
One oft-discussed issue with regard to the reconstruction of average temperature is called the
urban heat island effect. Paved land is measurably warmer than vegetated land, no doubt about it, because
vegetated land cools by evaporation. The question is whether any warming in the computed average
temperature could actually be the urban heat island effect instead of global warming. Hot
urban centers are part of the Earth, and they do contribute to the average temperature of the
Earth, but their warmth is not caused by rising CO2 concentration. The easiest solution is to
throw out urban data, by picking it out by hand, to leave the average temperature of the nonurban Earth. This is a subjective, imprecise task, but replicate studies find that it makes little
difference to the global average whether urban areas are excluded or not. It turns out to be a
non-issue. Independent, competing studies produce very similar-looking global average land
temperature records, regardless of how they deal with urban heat island effects (Figure 4). So

32
Warming Core
unless someone comes up with believable proof that the urban heat island is important, we'll
not worry about it.

Warming Core
33
AT: Volcanoes
Volcanoes are comparatively irrelevant to global warming humans emit over a 100 times
more CO2
Gerlach, geologist at the USGS, 2010
(Terry, June 30, Earth Magazine, Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing
science, http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans. So says geologist Ian
Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing
Science. With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate
change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion. Although discussions of volcanic
carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 5 percent of Heaven and Earths text, the alleged
predominance of volcanic over human carbon dioxide emissions is one of its most publicized
takeaway messages. And one that will reverberate in the media and blogosphere no matter how
vociferously professionals who investigate volcanic carbon dioxide emissions bristle and huff about how
appallingly at odds Plimers claim is with our research findings. The treatment of volcanic versus
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in this book illustrates one of the pathways by which myths,
misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate. Like several climate
skeptic publications, blogs and websites, Heaven and Earth does not provide the published estimates of the
present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. These estimates are, ironically, the missing
science of a book professing to rectify supposed excesses of missing science a book that appears
impressively authoritative by citing a mountain of scientific literature. Several studies containing these
estimates are among its 2,311 citations, but the estimates themselves are never divulged. Moreover, the book
and other purveyors of this myth never explain, nor cite sources that explain, how it is known that volcanoes
wholly outdo humans in adding carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere. Published estimates based on
research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial
and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year,
with an average of about 200 million metric tons, These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed
by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land
use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008,
according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you
take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year,
human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
Occasionally, scaled-down versions of the myth surface for example, Volcanoes produce more carbon
dioxide than the worlds cars and industries combined. The truth is that data from the Carbon Dioxide
Information and Analysis Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the International Energy Agency
indicate that light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, wagons) contribute about 3,040 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and industry adds another 6,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
The combined output is about 35 times greater than estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide
output. Another version of the myth is the all-powerful but poorly understood volcanic source.
For example, Heaven and Earth describes submarine volcanoes as poorly understood because of the lack of
continuous observation and measurement, yet carbon dioxide from tens of thousands of submarine hot
springs associated with these submarine basalt volcanoes quietly dissolves in the cold high-pressure deep
ocean water. Then, this statement: One hot spring can release far more carbon dioxide than a 1,000megawatt coal-fired power station yet they are neither seen nor measured. If this is neither seen nor
measured, then how does Plimer know how much carbon dioxide a hot spring emits? No supporting evidence
or references are offered. In fact, there are measurements on the carbon dioxide flux of mid-ocean ridge
hydrothermal fluids, but they do not support the power station comparison. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the average carbon dioxide emission rate from coal-fired
power generation in the United States is 1.02 metric tons per megawatt-hour. So, 1.02 metric
tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, times 1,000 megawatts, times 24 hours per day,
times 365 days per year, equals 8,935,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, one of
these submarine hot springs allegedly generates far more than 9 million metric tons of

34
Warming Core
carbon dioxide per year or far more than three times the annual baseline output of Kilauea
Volcano in Hawaii! Just 12 of these hot springs would exceed carbon dioxide emission rate estimates for the
entire 65,000-kilometer-long mid-ocean ridge system. To scale up volcanic carbon dioxide output to the
current anthropogenic level would require adding thousands of volcanoes to the 50 to 60 normally active
volcanoes of the subaerial landscape and more than a hundred additional mid-ocean ridge systems to the
seafloor. Global volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates contain uncertainties and are
variable, but there is virtually no doubt that volcanism adds far less carbon dioxide to the
oceans and atmosphere than humans.
Volcanoes prove that climate models are accurate and that warming is anthropogenic
Science Daily, 2002
(Feb. 1, Science Daily, Pinatubo Volcano Research Boosts Case For Human-Caused Global
Warming, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020220075850.htm, accessed 7/13/13, CBC)
Feb. 21, 2002 NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, NJ Research into the worldwide climatic
impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption during the 10 years since the eruption has
strengthened the case for human causes of global warming, a Rutgers scientist reports in a
paper published in the February 14 issue of the international journal, Science. Share This: The
Pinatubo research also has improved scientists' ability to forecast the impact of future
volcanoes on weather and climate, says the paper's author, Alan Robock of the university's
Center for Environmental Prediction in the Department of Environmental Sciences, Cook
College. According to Robock, the eruption on Luzon Island in the Philippines on June 15, 1991
produced the largest volcanic cloud of the 20th century and caused changes in worldwide
climate and weather that were felt for years. The changes wrought by Pinatubo's sulfuric acid
cloud, which blocked a large percentage of sunlight from reaching the earth, initially included
cooler summers and warmer winters, an overall net cooling at the earth's surface and altered
winds and weather patterns, Robock said. In certain areas such as the Middle East, it produced
a rare snowstorm in Jerusalem and led to the death of coral at the bottom of the Red Sea, he
noted. The cloud also caused depletion of the ozone layer over Temperate Zone regions of the
Northern Hemisphere where much of the world's population resides, in addition to the regular
ozone "hole" which appears in October over Antarctica, the researcher said. Most significant,
the scientist said, Pinatubo helped validate computer-generated climate models that
demonstrate human-caused global warming. Using computer modeling, said Robock, scientists
have been able to account for natural warming and cooling, as found in Arctic and Antarctic ice
core samples and tree rings covering hundreds of years up to the last century. "If you plug in
volcanic eruptions, El Nios, solar variations and other natural causes and try to simulate past
climate changes, you can do a pretty good job of modeling climate change until the end of the
19th Century," the researcher said. After that period, he said, natural causes alone don't
account for the amount of warming, about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit), that
has taken place in the last century. "But when you factor in Pinatubo and other eruptions along
with anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions," said the scientist, "it accounts for the
observed record of climate change for the past century, including the overall warming and
episodic cooling, and validates the climate models."

Warming Core
35
Impacts

Warming Core
36
Global Instability
Climate change will cause global instability
The Guardian 2007 [Climate Wars Threaten Billions, Common Dreams,
11/5/07,http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5016/] Victor, 7-12-13, KB
A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed
conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilization,
affecting another 1.2 billion individuals. This stark warning will be outlined by the peace group International
Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict, this week. Much of Africa, Asia and South America will suffer
outbreaks of war and social disruption as climate change erodes land, raises seas, melts
glaciers and increases storms, it concludes. Even Europe is at risk. 'Climate change will compound
the propensity for violent conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer and less able to cope with
the consequences of climate change,' the report states. The worst threats involve nations lacking
resources and stability to deal with global warming, added the agency's secretary-general, Dan Smith.
'Holland will be affected by rising sea levels, but no one expects war or strife,' he told The Observer. 'It has the
resources and political structure to act effectively. But other countries that suffer loss of land and water
and be buffeted by increasingly fierce storms will have no effective government to ensure
corrective measures are taken. People will form defensive groups and battles will break out.'
Consider Peru, said Smith. Its fresh water comes mostly from glacier melt water. But by 2015 nearly all Peru's
glaciers will have been removed by global warming and its 27 million people will nearly all lack fresh water. If
Peru took action now, it could offset the impending crisis, he added. But the country has little experience of
effective democracy, suffers occasional outbreaks of insurgency, and has border disputes with Chile and
Ecuador. The result is likely to be 'chaos, conflict and mass migration'. A different situation affects Bangladesh.
Here climate-linked migration is already triggering violent conflict, says International Alert.
Droughts in summer combined with worsening flooding in coastal zones, triggered by
increasingly severe cyclones, are destroying farmland. Millions have already migrated to India,
causing increasingly serious conflicts that are destined to worsen. In Africa, rivers such as the
Niger and Monu are key freshwater resources passing through many nations. As droughts
worsen and more water is extracted from them conflicts will be inevitable. In Europe, most
countries are currently considered stable enough to cope with global warming, apart from the
Balkans; wars have left countries such as Serbia and Montenegro politically weakened. As
temperatures rise and farmland is reduced, population pressures will trigger violence that
authorities will be unable to contain. Some nations on the risk map, such as Russia, may cause
surprise. 'Moscow's control of Russia as a whole will not be undermined by global warming,'
said Smith. 'But loss of farmland in some regions will lead to local rebellions like those already
triggered in Chechnya.' Conflict triggered by climate change is not a vague threat for coming
years, he added. 'It is already upon us.'

Warming Core
37
Warming Bad Generic

Warming causes extinction - a preponderance of evidence proves it's real, anthropogenic, and
outweighs other threats
Deibel 7 (Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Conclusion: American
Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent
nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the
stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been
observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere
possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900
articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted
that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it
is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global
warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost
weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal
droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could
literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and
malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide,
plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied
by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from
direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths
warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as
disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who
lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the
founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are
accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to
slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and
how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing
the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and
animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation
of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets
could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer
banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich
Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline
circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.
Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of
warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most
frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the
buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global
temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of
carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds
continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths
climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York
University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature
it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During
the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear
war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life
on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as
serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form

38
Warming Core
terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and
prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
Warming causes biodiversity loss, storms, and agriculture
Weart 11 (Spencer Weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics,
December 2011, The Discovery of Global Warming)
A large body of scientific studies, exhaustively reviewed, has produced a long list of possibilities.
Nobody can say that any of the items on the list are certain to happen. But the world's climate experts almost
all agree that the impacts listed below are more likely than not to happen. For some items, the probabilities
range up to almost certain. The following are the likely consequences of warming by a few degrees
Celsius that is, what we may expect if humanity manages to begin restraining its emissions
soon, so that greenhouse gases do not rise beyond twice the pre-industrial level. Without strong action the
doubling will come well before the end of this century, bringing the planet to temperatures not seen since the
spread of agriculture. By 2007, many of the predicted changes were observed to be actually happening. For
details see reports referenced in this footnote: (22) * Most places will continue to get warmer,
especially at night and in winter. The temperature change will benefit some regions while
harming others for example, patterns of tourism will shift. The warmer winters will improve health and
agriculture in some areas, but globally, mortality will rise and food supplies will be endangered due
to more frequent and extreme summer heat waves and other effects. Regions not directly
harmed will suffer indirectly from higher food prices and a press of refugees from afflicted
regions. * Sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries. The last time the planet was 3C
warmer than now, the sea level was at least 6 meters (20 feet) higher.(23) That submerged
coastlines where many millions of people now live, including cities from New York to Shanghai.
The rise will probably be so gradual that later generations can simply abandon their parents' homes, but a
ruinously swift rise cannot be entirely ruled out. Meanwhile storm surges will cause emergencies. <=Sea rise &
ice * Weather patterns will keep changing toward an intensified water cycle with stronger floods and droughts.
Most regions now subject to droughts will probably get drier (because of warmth as well as less precipitation),
and most wet regions will get wetter. Extreme weather events will become more frequent and worse. In
particular, storms with more intense rainfall are liable to bring worse floods. Some places will get more
snowstorms, but most mountain glaciers and winter snowpack will shrink, jeopardizing important water
supply systems. Each of these things has already begun to happen in some regions.(24) Drought in the 2060s *
Ecosystems will be stressed, although some managed agricultural and forestry systems will
benefit, at least in the early decades of warming. Uncounted valuable species, especially in the
Arctic, mountain areas, and tropical seas, must shift their ranges. Many that cannot will face
extinction. A variety of pests and tropical diseases are expected to spread to warmed regions. These problems
have already been observed in numerous places. * Increased carbon dioxide levels will affect biological
systems independent of climate change. Some crops will be fertilized, as will some invasive
weeds (the balance of benefit vs. harm is uncertain). The oceans will continue to become markedly
more acidic, gravely endangering coral reefs, and probably harming fisheries and other marine life.
<=Biosphere * There will be significant unforeseen impacts. Most of these will probably be
harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to the present climate. The climate
system and ecosystems are complex and only partly understood, so there is a chance that the
impacts will not be as bad as predicted. There is a similar chance of impacts grievously worse
than predicted. If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level along
with a rise of other greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if we do not take strong action
soon, the results will certainly be worse. Under a "business as usual" scenario, recent calculations give
even odds that global temperature will rise 5C or more by the end of the century causing a radical
reorganization and impoverishment of many of the ecosystems that sustain our civilization.(25) All this is
projected to happen to people who are now alive. What of the more distant future? If emissions
continue to rise for a century whether because we fail to rein them in, or because we set off
an unstoppable feedback loop in which the warming itself causes ever more greenhouse gases
to be evaporated into the air then the gases will reach a level that the Earth has not seen since tens of
millions of years ago. The consequences will take several centuries to be fully realized, as the Earth settles into
its new state. It is probable that, as in the distant geological eras with high CO2, sea levels will be many tens of

39
Warming Core
meters higher and the average global temperature will soar far above the present value: a planet grossly unlike
the one to which the human species is adapted.
Climate change leads to massive death and economic and agricultural loss
Reuters, international news agency, 12 (Reuters 9/6/12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html PB)
LONDON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - More than 100 million people will die and the global economy will
miss out on as much as 3.2 percent of its potential output annually by 2030 if the world fails to
tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global average
temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps,
extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said
the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA. It calculated that five million deaths occur
each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbonintensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current
patterns of fossil fuel use continue. More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing
countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries
in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing
countries threatened by climate change. "A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100
million lives between now and the end of the next decade," the report said. It said the effects of
climate change was already costing the global economy a potential 1.6 percent of annual output
or about $1.2 trillion a year, and this could double to 3.2 percent by 2030 if global temperatures
are allowed to rise. COUNTING THE COST Responding to the report, Oxfam International said the costs of
political inaction on climate were "staggering". "The losses to agriculture and fisheries alone could
amount to more than $500 billion per year by 2030, heavily focussed in the poorest countries where
millions depend on these sectors to make a living," said executive director Jeremy Hobbs. British economist
Nicholas Stern told Reuters earlier this year investment equivalent to 2 percent of global GDP was needed to
limit, prevent and adapt to climate change. His report on the economics of climate change in 2006 said that
without any action to tackle climate change, the overall costs and risks of climate change would be equivalent to
a cut in per-capita consumption of perhaps up to 20 percent. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Almost 200 nations agreed in 2010 to limit the global average
temperature rise to below 2C (3.6 Fahrenheit) to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change. But climate
scientists have warned that the chance of limiting the rise to below 2C is getting smaller as
global greenhouse gas emissions rise due to burning fossil fuels. The world's poorest nations are the
most vulnerable as they face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty and disease. On
average, they could see an 11 percent loss in GDP by 2030 due to climate change, DARA said. "One degree
Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent productivity loss in farming. For us, it means losing
about 4 million metric tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5 billion. That is about 2
percent of our GDP," Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said in response to the report. "Adding up
the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about 3-4 percent of
GDP." Even the biggest and most rapidly developing economies will not escape unscathed. The United
States and China could see a 2.1 percent reduction in their potential GDPs by 2030, while India
could experience a more than 5 percent loss of potential output.
Climate change leads to death and instability

Vidal, The guardians environment chief editor, 09 (John Vidal 2/29/2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/29/1 PB)
Climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people,
according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming. It projects that
increasingly severe heatwaves, floods, storms and forest fires will be responsible for as many as
500,000 deaths a year by 2030, making it the greatest humanitarian challenge the world faces.
Economic losses due to climate change today amount to more than $125bn a year more than

40
Warming Core
all the present world aid. The report comes from former UN secretary general Kofi Annan's thinktank, the
Global Humanitarian Forum. By 2030, the report says, climate change could cost $600bn a year.
Civil unrest may also increase because of weather-related events, the report says: "Four billion people are
vulnerable now and 500m are now at extreme risk. Weather-related disasters ... bring hunger,
disease, poverty and lost livelihoods. They pose a threat to social and political stability". If
emissions are not brought under control, within 25 years, the report states: 310m more people will suffer
adverse health consequences related to temperature increases 20m more people will fall into
poverty 75m extra people will be displaced by climate change. Climate change is expected to have
the most severe impact on water supplies, it said. "Shortages in future are likely to threaten food
production, reduce sanitation, hinder economic development and damage ecosystems. It
causes more violent swings between floods and droughts. Hundreds of millions of people are
expected to become water stressed by climate change by the 2030." The study says it is impossible to
be certain who will be displaced by 2030, but that tens of millions of people "will be driven from their
homelands by weather disasters or gradual environmental degradation. The problem is most severe in Africa,
Bangladesh, Egypt, coastal zones and forest areas." The study compares for the first time the number of people
affected by climate change in rich and poor countries. Nearly 98% of the people seriously affected, 99% of all
deaths from weather-related disasters and 90% of the total economic losses are now borne by developing
countries. The populations most at risk it says, are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and the
small island states of the Pacific. But of the 12 countries considered least at risk, including Britain, all but one
are industrially developed. Together they have made nearly $72bn available to adapt themselves to climate
change but have pledged only $400m to help poor countries. "This is less than one state in Germany is
spending on improving its flood defences," says the report. The study comes as diplomats from 192 countries
prepare to meet in Bonn next week for UN climate change talks aimed at reaching a global agreement to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in December in Copenhagen. "The world is at a crossroads. We can no longer
afford to ignore the human impact of climate change. This is a call to the negotiators to come to the
most ambitious agreement ever negotiated or to continue to accept mass starvation, mass sickness and mass
migration on an ever growing scale," said Kofi Annan, who launched the report today in London. Annan
blamed politicans for the current impasse in the negotiations and widespread ignorance in many countries.
"Weak leadership, as evident today, is alarming. If leaders cannot assume responsibility they will fail humanity.
Agreement is in the interests of every human being." Barabra Stocking, head of Oxfam said: "Adaptation
efforts need to be scaled up dramatically.The world's poorest are the hardest hit, but they have done the least to
cause it. Nobel peace prizewinner Wangari Maathai, said: "Climate change is life or death. It is the new
global battlefield. It is being presented as if it is the problem of the developed world. But it's the developed
world that has precipitated global warming." Calculations for the report are based on data provided by the
World Bank, the World Health organisation, the UN, the Potsdam Insitute For Climate Impact Research, and
others, including leading insurance companies and Oxfam. However, the authors accept that the estimates are
uncertain and could be higher or lower. The paper was reviewed by 10 of the world's leading experts incluing
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia
University and Margareta Wahlstrm, assistant UN secretary general for disaster risk reduction.
Warming causes famine, disease, and resource wars impacts already happening
Lean 7 (Geoffrey Lean, Enviorment Editor for The Indepedant, news agency,
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/wars-of-the-world-how-global-warming-puts60-nations-at-risk-442788.html)
Scores of countries face war for scarce land, food and water as global warming increases. This is
the conclusion of the most devastating report yet on the effects of climate change that scientists and
governments prepare to issue this week. More than 60 nations, mainly in the Third World, will have existing
tensions hugely exacerbated by the struggle for ever-scarcer resources. Others now at peace - including China,
the United States and even parts of Europe - are expected to be plunged into conflict. Even those not
directly affected will be threatened by a flood of hundreds of millions of "environmental refugees". The threat
is worrying world leaders. The new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, told a global warming
conference last month: "In coming decades, changes in the environment - and the resulting
upheavals, from droughts to inundated coastal areas - are likely to become a major driver of war and
conflict." Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has repeatedly called global warming "a

41
Warming Core
security issue" and a Pentagon report concluded that abrupt climate change could lead to
"skirmishes, battles and even war due to resource constraints". The fears will be increased by
the second report this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The result of six years'
work by 2,500 of the world's top scientists, it will be published on Good Friday. The first report, released
two months ago, concluded that global warming was now "unequivocal" and it was 90 per cent
certain that human activities are to blame. The new one will be the first to show for certain that
its effects are already becoming evident around the world. Tomorrow, representatives of the world's
governments will meet in Brussels to start four days of negotiation on the ultimate text of the report, which
they are likely to tone down somewhat. But the final confidential draft presented to them by the scientists
makes it clear that the consequences of global warming are appearing far sooner and faster than expected.
"Changes in climate are now affecting biological and physical systems on every continent," it says. In 20 years,
tens of millions more Latin Americans and hundreds of millions more Africans will be short of water, and by
2050 one billion Asians could face water shortages. The glaciers of the Himalayas, which feed the great rivers
of the continent, are likely to melt away almost completely by 2035, threatening the lives of 700 million people.
Though harvests will initially increase in temperate countries - as the extra warmth lengthens growing seasons
- they could fall by 30 per cent in India, confronting 130 million people with starvation, by the 2050s. By
2080, 100 million people could be flooded out of their homes every year as the sea rises to
cover their land, turning them into environmental refugees. And up to a third of the world's wild
species could be "at high risk of irreversible extinction" from even relatively moderate warming.
International Alert, "an independent peace-building organisation", has complied a list of 61
countries that are already unstable or have recently suffered armed conflict where existing
tensions will be exacerbated by shortages of food and water and by the disease, storm flooding
and sea-level rise that will accompany global warming, or by the deforestation that helps to
cause it. The list forms the basis of the map on the opposite page. Four years ago the Pentagon
report concluded: "As famine, disease and weather-related disasters strike... many countries'
needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely
to lead to offensive aggression." Many experts believe this has begun. Last year John Reid, the Home
Secretary, blamed global warming for helping to cause the genocide in Darfur. Water supplies are seen as a key
cause of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The Golan Heights are important because they control key springs and rivers
and the Sea of Galilee, while vital aquifers lie under the West Bank. John Ashton, the Government's climate
change envoy, says that global warming should be addressed "not as a long-term threat to our environment,
but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity".

Warming Core
42
Warming Bad Africa War

Warming will push unstable African nations over the brink causing conflicts and wars
Stern, Head of the British Government Economic Service, Former Head Economist for the World Bank, I.G.
Patel Chair at the London School of Economics and Political Science, 2007 (Nicholas The Economics of
Climate Change: The Stern Review, The report of a team commissioned by the British Government to study
the economics of climate change led by Siobhan Peters, Head of G8 and International Climate Change Policy
Unit, Cambridge University Press, p. 112-113 NMS)
The effects of
climate change - particularly when coupled with rapid population growth, and existing
economic, political, ethnic or religious tensions - could be a contributory factor in both national
and cross-border conflicts in some developing countries. Long-term climate deterioration (such as rising
temperatures and sea levels) will exacerbate the competition for resources and may contribute to forced
dislocation and migration that can generate destabilising pressures and tensions in
neighbouring areas. Increased climate variability (such as periods of intense rain to prolonged dry periods) can result in
adverse growth shocks and cause higher risks of conflict as work opportunities are reduced, making recruitment into
rebel groups much easier. Support for this relationship has been provided by empirical work in Africa , using rainfall
Drought and other climate-related shocks may spark conflict and violence, as they have done already in many parts of Africa.
shocks as an instrument for growth shocks.99 Adverse climatic conditions already make societies more prone to violence and conflict across the
developing world, both internally and cross-border. Long periods of drought in the 1970s and 1980s in Sudans
Northern Darfur State, for example, resulted in deep, widespread poverty and, along with many
other factors such as a breakdown in methods of coping with drought , has been identified by some studies as a
contributor to the current crisis there.100 Whilst climate change can contribute to the risk of conflict, however, it is very unlikely to be the single driving
factor. Empirical evidence shows that a changing and hostile climate has resulted in tension and conflict in some countries but not others. The risk
of climate change sparking conflict is far greater if other factors such as poor governance and
political instability, ethnic tensions and, in the case of declining water availability, high water
interdependence are already present. In light of this, West Africa, the Nile Basin and Central Asia have been identified as regions
potentially at risk of future tension and conflict. Box 4.6 indicates areas vulnerable to future tension and past conflicts where an adverse climate has
played an important role. Future risks West Africa: Whilst there is still much uncertainty surrounding the future changes in rainfall in this part
of the world, the region is
already exposed to declining average annual rainfall (ranging from 10% in the wet tropical
falling discharge in major river systems of
between 40 to 60% on average. Changes of this magnitude already give some indication of the
magnitude of risks in the future given that we have only seen 0.7C increase and 3C or 4C more could be on the way in the next 100
to 150 years. The implications of this are amplified by both the high water interdependence in the
region - 17 countries share 25 transboundary watercourses and plans by many of the countries to invest in large dams that will both increase water
withdrawals and change natural water allocation patterns between riparian countries.101 The region faces a serious risk of
water-related conflict in the future if cooperative mechanisms are not agreed . 102 The Nile: Ten countries
zone to more than 30% in the Sahelian zone since the early 1970s) and
share the Nile. 103 While Egypt is water scarce and almost entirely dependent on water originating from the upstream Nile basin countries,
approximately 70% of the Niles waters flow from the Ethiopian highlands. Climate change threatens an increase in
competition for water in the region, compounded by rapid population growth that will increase
demand for water. The population of the ten Nile countries is projected to increase from 280 million in 2000 to 860 million by 2050. A recent
study by Strzepek et al (2001) found a propensity for lower Nile flows in 8 out of 8 climate scenarios, with impacts ranging from no change to a roughly
40% reduction in flows by 2025 to over 60% by 2050 in 3 of the flow scenarios. 104 Regional cooperation will be critical to avoid future climate-driven
conflict and tension in the region.
Great power war

Glick 7 - Senior Middle East Fellow Center for Security Policy (Caroline, Condis African Holiday, 12-12,
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?
sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=90&newsid=11568)
The Horn of Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars, which rage continuously, can
easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the conflicts in this
tinderbox , which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can

43
Warming Core
potentially give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional
actors and global powers. The Horn of Africa includes the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya.

Warming Core
44
Warming Bad Arctic War

Warming melts arctic ice that opens up new areas of conflict
Kramnik 4/19/12 (Ilya Kramnik, writer for The Voice of Russia, News Agency about Russian
Affair, NATO, Russia stage Arctic war games
4/19/12, http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_19/72301024/)
As global warming is thawing permafrost around the Earth's poles, the Arctic is gradually
emerging from under the eternal ice as a new geopolitical arena, a focal point of interest and
concern to the major world powers. The conflict of economic interests is already on the horizon and wont
probably be resolved any soon, although military clashes remain an equally hazy perspective. In the past, only
scientist and journalists seemed to be concerned about the opening up of the Arctic. Now, politicians and
the military are also turning their gaze to this region, which rising temperatures have made
more accessible than ever. The global media and especially local agencies are bristling with threats of a new
Cold War in the Arctic, while major northern states are meeting to discuss regional security. One of
such meetings was held by military chiefs of all Arctic powers in Canada on April 12, 13. It was attended, among
others, by Gen. Nikolai Makarov, Chief of Russias Armed Forces General Staff. The meeting took place at a
time when the icy region was buzzing with activity, with both Russia and NATO engaged in war
games beyond the Arctic Circle. In March, NATO wrapped up its Cold Response maneuvers on the stretch
from Sweden to Canada, with 16,300 troops engaged in this unprecedented military exercise. The war game
was only clouded by a crash, when a Norwegian C-130J plane rammed into the western slope of the Swedish
mountain, Kebnekaise, killing five servicemen. The Russian military kept apace, staging their own
maneuvers. Its 200th motor rifle brigade from Murmansk tested the T-80 tanks, which are believed to be
best-suited for the Arctic climate, with their gas turbine engines, which are much easier to start in the cold
weather than the traditional diesel ones. The Russian Northern Fleet, as well as Air Defense planes, choppers
and marine aviation participated in the drills. The Air Forces also trained in Russias northern reaches. On
April 9-15, Russia staged Ladoga 2012 maneuvers at the Karelian Besovets air base with 50
choppers and aircraft, which engaged and shot down over 150 air targets. In their war games,
NATO and Russia are both pursuing one and the same goal. As rising temperatures are freeing larger and
larger areas of the Arctic from its icy shackles, all regional key players are flexing their military muscle to score
psychological points in the information battlespace, the main arena of modern diplomatic conflicts. No one
wants a Hot War. Even more so, the US, the potential northern leader, is now focused on more pressing
issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific, where it is engaged in a standoff with China. However, Arctics
natural riches, territorial disputes and expanding shipping lanes have rendered it a very
lucrative region and thus potentially a hot one. The situation around maritime traffic nodes has
never been simple. Such was the case with the Mediterranean, the Horn of Africa, or the Strait of Malacca. If
the Arctic emerges as another junction of sea lanes it will spawn conflicts among the world powers, depending
on how determined they will be to protect their national interests. Russia is one of such ambitious
northern powers, currently planning on boosting its Arctic infrastructure, for instance building
twenty frontier posts to protect its polar reaches. Some of them will be erected close to nine emergency
and transport ministerial centers, set up to further the development of Russias Northern Sea Route. The rest of
the frontiers will be built on the islands. A satellite system called Arktika will allow for their uninterrupted
communication with the "mainland." These frontier posts, which are to be erected in the upcoming years, will
serve as Russias bulwark beyond the Arctic Circle and will be secured by its Northern Fleet, air forces and the
so-called Arctic brigades, specially trained to operate in the polar region. For now, Arctic conflicts are
still a matter of theoretical disputes and an inspiration for computer games designers. For
instance, the recent game called Naval Warfare: Arctic Circle tells a story about navies and air
forces of Russia and NATO fighting for Arctic dominance. Today, major world powers are too busy
wrestling with global economic crisis to let this story out of its cyber realm. But no one knows what the nearest
future has in store for us.
Nuclear war
Staples 9 (Stephen, Rideau Institute, Danish Institute of International Studies, "Steps Toward an Arctic
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone," August)

45
Warming Core
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming an zone of increased military competition. Russian President
Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Russian General
Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that
Russias submarine fleet would increase its operational radius. This week, two Russian attack
submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years.6 In January, on the eve of
Obamas inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional
Policy. As Michael Hamel-Greene has pointed out, it affirmed as a priority to preserve U.S. military vessel and
aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater
capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. The Bush administrations disastrous eight years in office,
particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar
in Eastern Europe, has greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today. The Arctic has figured in
this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic
Missile Early Warning System radar for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has
put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including
proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep water port. Denmark
last week released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a
dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship-based
helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes could be patrolling Greenlandic airspace. Last
year, Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In
March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a
fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia
which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the
Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala,
President of Pugwash and former UN Under-Secretary for Disarmament Affairs, summarizes the situation
bluntly. He warns us that From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being
expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states the United States and the Russian Federation, which
together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world converge on the Arctic and have competing
claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and
Norway could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Warming Core
46
Warming Bad Authoritarianism

Climate change leads to authoritarianism studies prove
Fritsche 12 (Immo Fritsche, Institut fr Psychologie, Lehrstuhl fr Sozialpsychologie, Friedrich-SchillerUniversitt Jena, Germany, J. Christopher Cohrs, School of Psychology, Queens University Belfast, United
Kingdom, Thomas Kessler, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Germany, Judith Bauer, Institut fr Psychologie,
Abteilung Sozialpsychologie, Universitt Leipzig, Germany, journal published on 3/12, published online on
9/24/11, Global warming is breeding social conflict: The subtle impact of climate change threat on
authoritarian tendencies, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 1-10,
ScienceDirect)
Climate change can increase societies propensity to conflict by changes in socio-structural
conditions (e.g., resource scarcity, migration). We propose an additional, subtle, and general effect
of climate change threat via increases in authoritarian attitudes. Three studies in Germany and
the UK support this suggestion. Reminding participants of the adverse consequences climate
change may have for their country increased the derogation of societal groups that may
threaten the collective (e.g., criminals) as well as general authoritarian attitudes. Salient climate
change threats also led to system justification and approval of system supporting groups (e.g., judges) in those
people who were highly identified with their nation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the
explanation of authoritarian attitudes and the question of how societies may cope with the subtle social
psychological effects of climate change.
Climate change doubles risk of civil conflict
Schiermeier 11 (Quirin Schiermeier, staff writer, published online on 8/24/11, Climate cycles drive civil
war, Nature, International weekly journal of science, accessed online,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.501.html)
Previous studies have focused on the question of how anthropogenic climate change might increase conflict
risk. A 2009 study2 by economist Marshall Burke at the University of California, Berkeley, and
his co-workers found that the probability of armed conflict in sub-Saharan Africa was about 50%
higher than normal in some unusually warm years since 1981. But critics point to statistical problems
for instance when linking possibly random local temperature and rainfall variations with outbreaks of civil
war that may have resulted in a false appearance of causality. To overcome this problem,
Solomon Hsiang, an economist currently at Princeton University in New Jersey, and his colleagues
opted to look at how historical changes in the global, rather than local, climate affect conflict
risk1. Clear signal The team designed a 'quasi-experiment' for which they divided the world into
regions strongly affected by the ENSO the tropical parts of South America, Africa and the AsiaPacific
region, including parts of Australia and regions only weakly affected by it. They then searched for a
link between climate and armed conflicts that arose in the first group between 1950 and 2004. A very clear
signal appeared in the data. The team found that the risk of annual civil conflict doubles, from 3%
to 6%, in countries of the ENSO-affected, or 'teleconnected', group during El Nio years relative to
La Nia years. In many cases, conflicts that might have broken out anyway may have occurred earlier owing
to the effects of El Nio, Hsiang suggests.
Climate change could link to one fifth of global civil conflicts
Schiermeier 11 (Quirin Schiermeier, staff writer, published online on 8/24/11, Climate cycles drive civil
war, Nature, International weekly journal of science, accessed online,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.501.html)
Civil conflicts have been by far the most common form of organized political violence in recent decades, Hsiang
says. Globally, one-fifth of the 240 or so civil conflicts since 1950 could be linked to the 47-year
climate cycle originating in the southern Pacific, the study concludes. The results were
unaffected by any modification to the statistical set-up of the analysis such as excluding
particularly crisis-prone African countries which the team performed to confirm the robustness of
their findings.

Warming Core
47
Climate change impacts stability doubles likelihood of civil war and may have caused one fifth
of global conflicts
Goodman 11 interview conducted by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, A Daily Independent
Global News Hour, 8/29/11, Global Warming & War: New Study Finds Link Between Climate Change and
Conflict, an interview with Solomon Hsiang, lead author of a study linking civil wars with global climate
change, and postdoctoral researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at
Princeton University, Democracy Now!)
We move to another issue around climate. A new study has found that war is associated with global
climate. According to the report, there are links between the climate phenomenon El Nio and
outbreaks of violence in countries from southern Sudan to Indonesia and Peru. In fact, the
scientists find that El Nio, which brings hot and dry conditions to tropical nations, doubles the
risk of civil war in up to 90 countries. The study was published online last week in the journal Nature. El
Nio may help account for a fifth of conflicts worldwide during the past 50 years.
Global warming is real, feedbacks cause rapid escalation, and it causes population
migrations fueling political instability and failed states, escalating to nuclear war and
extinction
Kaku , co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory. 11 Michio Kaku, He received a B.S. (summa
cum laude) from Harvard University in 1968 where he came first in his physics class. (Physics of the Future
http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf PB)
By midcentury, the full impact of a fossil fuel economy should be in full swing: global warming. It is
now indisputable that the earth is heating up. Within the last century, the earths
temperature rose 1.3 F, and the pace is accelerating . The signs are unmistakable everywhere
we look: The thickness of Arctic ice has decreased by an astonishing 50 percent in just the
past fifty years. Much of this Arctic ice is just below the freezing point, floating on water. Hence, it is
acutely sensitive to small temperature variations of the oceans, acting as a canary in a mineshaft,
an early warning system. Today, parts of the northern polar ice caps disappear during the summer
months, and may disappear entirely during summer as early as 2015. The polar ice cap may vanish
permanently by the end of the century, disrupting the worlds weather by altering the flow of
ocean and air currents around the planet. Greenlands ice shelves shrank by twenty-four square
miles in 2007. This figure jumped to seventy-one square miles in 2008. (If all the Greenland ice were
somehow to melt, sea levels would rise about twenty feet around the world.) Large chunks of
Antarcticas ice, which have been stable for tens of thousands of years, are gradually breaking
off. In 2000, a piece the size of Connecticut broke off, containing 4,200 square miles of ice. In 2002, a
piece of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaites Glacier. (If all Antarcticas ice were to melt,
sea levels would rise about 180 feet around the world.) For every vertical foot that the ocean rises,
the horizontal spread of the ocean is about 100 feet . Already, sea levels have risen 8 inches in
the past century, mainly caused by the expansion of seawater as it heats up . According to the
United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Some scientists have said that the UN
report was too cautious in interpreting the data. According to scientists at the University of Colorados
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, by 2100 sea levels could rise by 3 to 6 feet. So gradually the
map of the earths coastlines will change. Temperatures started to be reliably recorded in the late
1700s; 1995, 2005, and 2010 ranked among the hottest years ever recorded; 2000 to 2009 was the
hottest decade. Likewise, levels of carbon dioxide are rising dramatically. They are at the highest
levels in 100,000 years. As the earth heats up, tropical diseases are gradually migrating northward.
The recent spread of the West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes may be a harbinger of things to come.
UN officials are especially concerned about the spread of malaria northward. Usually, the eggs of
many harmful insects die every winter when the soil freezes. But with the shortening of the winter
season, it means the inexorable spread of dangerous insects northward. CARBONDIOXIDE
GREENHOUSEGAS According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists

Warming Core
48
have concluded with 90 percent confidence that global warming is driven by human activity,
especially the production of carbon dioxide via the burning of oil and coal. Sunlight easily passes
through carbon dioxide. But as sunlight heats up the earth, it creates infrared radiation, which does
not pass back through carbon dioxide so easily. The energy from sunlight cannot escape back into
space and is trapped. We also see a somewhat similar effect in greenhouses or cars. The sunlight
warms the air, which is prevented from escaping by the glass. Ominously, the amount of carbon
dioxide generated has grown explosively, especially in the last century. Before the Industrial
Revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the air was 270 parts per million (ppm). Today, it has
soared to 387 ppm. (In 1900, the world consumed 150 million barrels of oil. In 2000, it jumped to 28
billion barrels, a 185-fold jump. In 2008, 9.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were sent into the air from
fossil fuel burning and also deforestation, but only 5 billion tons were recycled into the oceans, soil,
and vegetation. The remainder will stay in the air for decades to come, heating up the earth.) VISIT
TO ICELAND The rise in temperature is not a fluke, as we can see by analyzing ice cores. By drilling
deep into the ancient ice of the Arctic, scientists have been able to extract air bubbles that are
thousands of years old. By chemically analyzing the air in these bubbles, scientists can reconstruct the
temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere going back more than 600,000 years.
Soon, they will be able to determine the weather conditions going back a million years. I had a chance
to see this firsthand. I once gave a lecture in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and had the privilege of
visiting the University of Iceland, where ice cores are being analyzed. When your airplane lands in
Reykjavik, at first all you see is snow and jagged rock, resembling the bleak landscape of the moon.
Although barren and forbidding, the terrain makes the Arctic an ideal place to analyze the climate of
the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. When I visited their laboratory, which is kept at
freezing temperatures, I had to pass through thick refrigerator doors. Once inside, I could see racks
and racks containing long metal tubes, each about an inch and a half in diameter and about ten feet
long. Each hollow tube had been drilled deep into the ice of a glacier. As the tube penetrated the ice, it
captured samples from snows that had fallen thousands of years ago. When the tubes were removed, I
could carefully examine the icy contents of each. At first, all I could see was a long column of white
ice. But upon closer examination, I could see that the ice had stripes made of tiny bands of different
colors. Scientists have to use a variety of techniques to date them. Some of the ice layers contain
markers indicating important events, such as the soot emitted from a volcanic eruption. Since the
dates of these eruptions are known to great accuracy, one can use them to determine how old that
layer is. These ice cores were then cut in various slices so they could be examined. When I peered into
one slice under a microscope, I saw tiny, microscopic bubbles. I shuddered to realize that I was seeing
air bubbles that were deposited tens of thousands of years ago, even before the rise of human
civilization. The carbon dioxide content within each air bubble is easily measured. But calculating the
temperature of the air when the ice was first deposited is more difficult. (To do this, scientists analyze
the water in the bubble. Water molecules can contain different isotopes. As the temperature falls,
heavier water isotopes condense faster than ordinary water molecules. Hence, by measuring the
amount of the heavier isotopes, one can calculate the temperature at which the water molecule
condensed.) Finally, after painfully analyzing the contents of thousands of ice cores, these scientists
have come to some important conclusions. They found that temperature and carbon dioxide levels
have oscillated in parallel, like two roller coasters moving together, in synchronization over many
thousands of years. When one curve rises or falls, so does the other. Most important, they found a
sudden spike in temperature and carbon dioxide content happening just within the last century. This
is highly unusual, since most fluctuations occur slowly over millennia. This unusual spike is not part
of this natural heating process, scientists claim, but is a direct indicator of human activity . There are
other ways to show that this sudden spike is caused by human activity, and not natural cycles.
Computer simulations are now so advanced that we can simulate the temperature of the earth with
and without the presence of human activity. Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a
relatively flat temperature curve. But with the addition of human activity, we can show that there

Warming Core
49
should be a sudden spike in both temperature and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual
spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the amount of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the
earths surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of heat that is reflected into outer space from
the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with input equaling output. But in
reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then if we calculate the
amount of energy being produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human activity
is causing the current heating of the earth. Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing
any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the atmosphere is enough to continue
global warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire. Scientists
have created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels
continue to rise. Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated,
with Wall Street underwater. Governments will have to decide which of their great cities and capitals
are worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a combination of
sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish
under the ocean, creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and population
centers of the world are next to the ocean, this could have a disastrous effect on the world economy.
Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms can send surges of water
into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm surge flooded Manhattan,
paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation flooded, the economy
grinds to a halt. FLOODING BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM A report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change isolated three hot spots for potential disaster: Bangladesh, the Mekong
Delta of Vietnam, and the Nile Delta in Egypt. The worst situation is that of Bangladesh, a country
regularly flooded by storms even without global warming. Most of the country is flat and at sea level.
Although it has made significant gains in the last few decades, it is still one of the poorest nations on
earth, with one of the highest population densities. (It has a population of 161 million, comparable to
that of Russia, but with 1/120 of the land area.) About 50 percent of the land area will be permanently
flooded if sea levels rise by three feet. Natural calamities occur there almost every year, but in
September 1998, the world witnessed in horror a preview of what may become commonplace. Massive
flooding submerged two-thirds of the nation, leaving 30 million people homeless almost overnight;
1,000 were killed, and 6,000 miles of roads were destroyed. This was one of the worst natural
disasters in modern history. Another country that would be devastated by a rise in sea level is
Vietnam, where the Mekong Delta is particularly vulnerable. By midcentury, this country of 87 million
people could face a collapse of its main food-growing area. Half the rice in Vietnam is grown in the
Mekong Delta, home to 17 million people, and much of it will be flooded permanently by rising sea
levels. According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if
sea levels rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt
water, permanently destroying the fertile soil of the area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in
Vietnam, many will flock to Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the city will also be
underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that
showed that, in a worst-case scenario, chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As
millions of refugees cross national borders, governments could lose all authority and collapse, so
countries could descend into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In this desperate situation,
nations, when faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to
nuclear weapons. Envision Pakistan, India, and Chinaall armed with nuclear weapons
skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land, the report said.
Peter Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of the Pentagon study,
confided to me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border
between India and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be
driven out of their homes, sparking one of the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could
rapidly rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass rioting breaks out.

Warming Core
50
Schwartz sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort. In a worst-case scenario, we
could have a greenhouse effect that feeds on itself. For example, the melting of the tundra in the
Arctic regions may release millions of tons of methane gas from rotting vegetation. Tundra covers
nearly 9 million square miles of land in the Northern Hemisphere, containing vegetation frozen since
the last Ice Age tens of thousands of years ago. This tundra contains more carbon dioxide and
methane than the atmosphere, and this poses an enormous threat to the worlds weather. Methane
gas, moreover, is a much deadlier greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It does not stay in the
atmosphere as long, but it causes much more damage than carbon dioxide. The release of so much
methane gas from the melting tundra could cause temperatures to rapidly rise, which will cause even
more methane gas to be released, causing a runaway cycle of global warming.

Warming Core
51
Warming Bad CCP Stability

Climate change threatens the stability of the CCP, which leads to massive protests
Inter Press Service 2007 (September 4, 2007 Inter Press News Service ECONOMY-CHINA: Global
Warming Fuels Inflation. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39144 NMS)
Yet government officials now fear that the combined effects of climate change and inflation
pressures could destabilise public mood ahead of the 17th Communist Party Congress a fiveyearly meeting, designed to chart the partys policy and seal the legacy of its current leaders. Drought is
already affecting 22 of Chinas 31 provinces. Meteorological experts say that global warming would
exacerbate things as a one-degree rise in temperature could aggravate ground water evaporation by seven
percent. Zheng Guogan, head of the State Meteorological Administration forecasts global warming will cut
Chinas annual grain harvest by up to 10 percent. That would mean about 50 million tonnes less
grain in the current tight supply situation and a potential for further inflation. Given the
tightened food supply in the international market, a decline in domestic grain production could lead to more
price hikes, Song Tingmin, vice-president of the China National Association of Grain told the China Daily. A
surge in food prices saw Chinas consumer price index (CPI) rise to a 10-year high of 5.6
percent in July, far above the governments upper target of 3 percent for the whole year.
Economists say the August inflation rose even higher on the back of soaring pork costs. The social
dimensions of such leaps in inflation are not lost on a government, which remembers that 1989
pro-democracy movement that saw thousands of students, workers and intellectuals out in street
protests was triggered by public anger over inflation.
Extinction
Renxing 5 (San, Contributor. Epoch Times. http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-4/30931.html)
Since the Partys life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to postpone its life. The CCP, that
disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, coupled with
seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. The speech, free of all disguises, lets the
public see the CCP for what it really is: with evil filling its every cell, the CCP intends to fight all of
mankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. And that is the theme of the speech. The theme is
murderous and utterly evil. We did witness in China beggars who demanded money from people by threatening
to stab themselves with knives or prick their throats on long nails. But we have never, until now, seen a
rogue who blackmails the world to die with it by wielding biological, chemical, and nuclear
weapons. Anyhow, the bloody confession affirmed the CCPs bloodiness: a monstrous murderer, who has
killed 80 million Chinese people, now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with
their lives.

Warming Core
52
XT CCP
Food shortages from warming will threaten the CCP and lead to violent protests and draw in
other major powers
Feffer and Bleicher, co-director of Institute for Foreign Policys Foreign Policy in Focus, and Professor of
Law at Georgetown 2008 (John and Samuel, May 8 2008, Foreign Policy in Focus China: Superpower or
Basket Case? http://fpif.org/china_superpower_or_basket_case/ NMS)
In light of these realities, the West is overly focused on the Chinese emerging superpower threat
and giving far too little attention to the real risks and foreign policy challenges that would flow
from a serious breakdown in Chinese economic, political, or social structures. A crisis might be
triggered by any number of factors. A dramatic slowdown in the Chinese or world economy could
disrupt the lives of millions of factory workers. Serious rationing of water, food, or energy, whether by
dramatic price increases or some other mechanism, could be unacceptably painful for a large part of
the population. The loss of individual savings from a stock market or banking collapse could fuel
popular discontent among the new urban elite. Even with continuing economic progress, widening
income disparities could generate increasingly serious opposition in rural areas. A widespread
farmers strike might cut off food to the urban centers, leaving them in a state of chaos. Systemic
crisis could then lead to an open challenge to the regime. Here are two scenarios to consider. In one,
students, factory workers, and peasants gather again in Tiananmen Square to protest economic
conditions and perceived political non-responsiveness. When urban professionals start to join
them, the central government calls in the army. It begins a brutal campaign of violently repressing
demonstrators, arresting domestic and foreign media representatives, and purging
uncooperative members of the Party and civilian government, entirely disregarding the legal
system. The demonstrations do not stop, and various groups ask for outside help to protect foreign
residents and foreign investment and to end the wholesale disregard of human rights. Overseas Chinese
and major U.S. banks and corporations with investments and supply lines at stake argue that
the situation is too dangerous to ignore.

Warming Core
53
Warming Bad Central Asian Stability

Global warming causes Central Asian instability due to a decrease in agricultural yields and the
economy
TR 2009 [Technical Reform, International Green Week, January 16, 2009 Climate Change in Central Asia
http://www.irthebest.com/globalwarming_climate_change_in_central_asia.html NMS]
Agriculture is one of the most vulnerable sectors to the impacts of climate change not only in
Central Asia but worldwide. Despite the enormous progress of scientific knowledge and technological
developments in recent decades, weather is still the major factor in agricultural productivity. It is
acknowledged that the impacts of climate change are highly location specific. In Central Asia, water and
agricultural sectors are likely to be the most sensitive to the negative effects of global warming.
The major factors related to climate change affecting agricultural productivity in Central Asia:
increasing temperature, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, changes of precipitation,
surface water access and extreme weather conditions. Temperature will rise in average- even if
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are stabilized at current levels - and the water coverage as
well as surface runoff will also alter in the region. However rising concentration of carbon in the
atmosphere could benefit certain crop yields (e.g. maize and sorghum), it can not compensate the negative
impacts of more intense droughts and floods. Central Asia significantly contributes to global warming by
generating large volume of GHG emissions, and agricultural sector is among the major contributors.
Agriculture is a significant sector of the economy in the Central Asian countries, with around 60%
of the population living in rural areas, occupying more than 40% of the total labor force, and agriculture
accounting for approximately 25% of GDP on average. Kazakhstan is the only exception with
agriculture accounting for only 8% of GDP (but still around 33% of total employment). Currently the two
most significant crops in Central Asia are cotton and wheat. It is foreseen that due to global
warming, agricultural productivity in Central Asia might suffer severe losses because of high
temperature, severe drought, flood conditions, and soil degradation, which may endanger food
security and agriculturally-based livelihood systems in the region. Climate change poses
serious threats to the regions rural population, which can lead to accelerated rural-urban
migration, increased urban unemployment and consequently, social and political tensions.
Central Asia war would trigger WWIII with Russia
F. William Engdhal, Global Research Associate, 10/11/08, The Caucasus Washington Risks nuclear war by
miscalculation http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9790
So far, each step in the Caucasus drama has put the conflict on a yet higher plane of danger. The
next step will no longer be just about the Caucasus, or even Europe. In 1914 it was the "Guns of
August" that initiated the Great War. This time the Guns of August 2008 could be the detonator of
World War III and a nuclear holocaust of unspeakable horror. Nuclear Primacy: the larger strategic
danger Most in the West are unaware how dangerous the conflict over two tiny provinces in a remote part of
Eurasia has become. What is left out of most all media coverage is the strategic military security context of the
Caucasus dispute. Since the end of the Cold War in the beginning of the 1990s NATO and most directly
Washington have systematically pursued what military strategists call Nuclear Primacy. Put simply, if one of
two opposing nuclear powers is able to first develop an operational anti-missile defense, even
primitive, that can dramatically weaken a potential counter-strike by the opposing sides
nuclear arsenal, the side with missile defense has "won" the nuclear war. As mad as this sounds, it
has been explicit Pentagon policy through the last three Presidents from father Bush in 1990, to Clinton and
most aggressively, George W. Bush. This is the issue where Russia has drawn a deep line in the sand,
understandably so. The forceful US effort to push Georgia as well as Ukraine into NATO would present Russia
with the spectre of NATO literally coming to its doorstep, a military threat that is aggressive in the extreme,
and untenable for Russian national security. This is what gives the seemingly obscure fight over two
provinces the size of Luxemburg the potential to become the 1914 Sarajevo trigger to a new

54
Warming Core
nuclear war by miscalculation. The trigger for such a war is not Georgias right to annex South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. Rather, it is US insistence on pushing NATO and its missile defense right up to Russias door.

Warming Core
55
Warming Bad Disease

Warming causes disease spread
Adair 12 ( KIRSTEN ADAIR, CONTRIBUTING REPORTER for Daily Yale News, Wednesday, April 11, 2012,
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/apr/11/global-warming-may-intensify-disease/)
There may be more to fear from global warming than environmental changes. According to several leading
climate scientists and public health researchers, global warming will lead to higher incidence
and more intense versions of disease. The direct or indirect effects of global warming might
intensify the prevalence of tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, dengue and Lyme disease, they said, but
the threat of increased health risks is likely to futher motivate the public to combat global
warming. The environmental changes wrought by global warming will undoubtedly result in major ecologic
changes that will alter patterns and intensity of some infectious diseases, said Gerald Friedland, professor of
medicine and epidemiology and public health at the Yale School of Medicine. Global warming will likely
cause major population upheavals, creating crowded slums of refugees, Friedland said. Not
only do areas of high population density facilitate disease transmission, but their residents are
more likely to be vulnerable to disease because of malnutrition and poverty, he said. This pattern
of vulnerability holds for both tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, increasing the incidence of both the acquisition and
spread of the diseases, he explained. He said these potential effects are not surprising, since tuberculosis
epidemics historically have followed major population and environmental upheavals. By contrast, global
warming may increase the infection rates of mosquito-borne diseases by creating a more
mosquito-friendly habitat. Warming, and the floods associated with it, are like to increase rates
of both malaria and dengue, a debilitating viral disease found in tropical areas and transmitted
by mosquito bites, said Maria Diuk-Wasser, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Yale
School of Public Health. The direct effects of temperature increase are an increase in immature mosquito
development, virus development and mosquito biting rates, which increase contact rates (biting) with humans.
Indirect effects are linked to how humans manage water given increased uncertainty in the water supply caused
by climate change, Diuk-Wasser said. Global warming may affect other diseases in even more complicated
ways, Diuk-Wasser said. The effect of global warming on the incidence of Lyme disease, a tick-borne chronic
disease, is more difficult to examine and measure, though she said it will probably increase. One possible way
in which temperature may limit tick populations is by increasing the length of their life cycle from two to three
years in the north, where it is colder, she said. Climate change could be reverting that and therefore
increasing production of ticks. The transmission of the Lyme bacterium is so complex, though, that it is
difficult to tease out a role of climate change. Diuk-Wasser added, however, that scientists do find an effect of
climate change on the distribution of Lyme disease in their data, but are not yet sure of the reasons behind such
results. While the study of global warming itself is relatively new, research on the impact of global warming on
disease is an even more recent endeavor that draws on the skills and expertise of a wide variety of scientists and
researchers. The field is multi-sourced, and recently interest has been evolving among
climatologists, vector biologists, disease epidemiologists, ecologists, and policymakers alike,
said Uriel Kitron, professor and chair of the environmental studies department at Emory
University. Kitron said that in order to mitigate the effects of global warming on disease, the public must turn
its attention to water management and an increased understanding of the connecting between global
processes and local impact. Diuk-Wasser said that raising awareness about the public health effects of global
warming might aid climate control efforts, because it made the potential impact of global warming more
personal. Theres been a great interest in climate advocacy groups to look for negative effects of climate change
on health, since studies have found that this motivates people to adopt measures to curb climate change,
Diuk-Wasser said. The Yale Climate and Engery Institute recently won a grant to study the direct and indirect
effects of climate change on dengue transmission in Colombia.
Mutated disease cause extinction
Discover 00 (Twenty Ways the World Could End by Corey Powell in Discover Magazine, October 2000,
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld)

56
Warming Core
If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have
always coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack . The Black Plague killed one European in four
during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still
going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58
percent. Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics.
Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens.
International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever . Michael Osterholm, an infectious
disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim
against the current of a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a
strain that spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control,
perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot . About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions
swept through the Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which
humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.

Warming Core
57
XT Disease
Warming spreads tropical disease everywhere
Irfan 12 (Umfair Irfan, reporter for Scientific America, a scientific news agency, June 4, 2012,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exotic-diseases-warmer-climate-us-gain)
Diseases once thought to be rare or exotic in the United States are gaining a presence and
getting new attention from medical researchers who are probing how immigration, limited
access to care and the impacts of climate change are influencing their spread. Illnesses like
schistosomiasis, Chagas disease and dengue are endemic in warmer, wetter and poorer areas of the world,
often closer to the equator. According to the World Health Organization, almost 1 billion people are afflicted
with more than one tropical disease. Caused by bacteria, parasites and viruses, these diseases are
spread through bites, excrement and dirty water stemming from substandard housing and
sanitation. Consequently, the United States has been largely isolated from them. But Americans
are traveling more, and as tropical vacationers return home, they may unwittingly bring back dangerous
souvenirs. Immigrants from endemic regions are also bringing in these diseases, some of which can lie
dormant for years. All the while, the flies, ticks and mosquitoes that spread these illnesses are moving north as
rising temperatures make new areas more welcoming. In 2009, dengue emerged in south Florida and
infected more than 60 people, the first outbreak since 1934, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dengue is caused by four closely related viruses spread
by mosquitoes. It results in joint and muscle pain, severe headaches and bleeding. The outbreak
was first detected in a Rochester, N.Y., woman who traveled to Key West, Fla., for one week, with several Key
West residents subsequently reporting infections. The infection rate rose to 5 percent, which CDC said
indicated "a serious risk of transmission." According to the Monroe County Health Department, there
hasn't been a confirmed dengue case in the Florida Keys since November 2010. "We keep the
public aware that they need to be dumping standing water and wearing mosquito repellent,"
explained Chris Tittle, public information officer at the health department. The outbreak may
have been linked to travel from Latin America and the Caribbean, where the disease's incidence
has risen fourfold over the past 30 years. In 2010, Puerto Rico faced the largest dengue
epidemic in its history. However, not every outbreak is imported, and future epidemics may come from
within. "There's a substantial but hidden burden of tropical disease in the United States, particularly among
people in poverty," said Peter Hotez, founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, the first such
school in the United States, at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. Diseases like leishmaniasis often are not
tracked rigorously in this country and are classified as neglected, unlike vector-borne illnesses like Lyme
disease that are monitored.
Warming makes spreads disease misquitos
Surendran et al 12 (Ranjan Ramasamy and Sinnathamby Noble Surendran, National Center for
Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Published online 2012 June 19,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377959/)
Models have been developed for forecasting the impact of global climate change on mosquitoborne diseases, notably the global distributions of malaria (Lindsay and Martens, 1998; Githeko et
al., 2000; Rogers and Randolph, 2000; Paaijmans et al., 2009) and dengue (Hales et al., 2002). One model
used current temperature, rainfall, and humidity ranges that permit malaria transmission to
forecast malaria distribution in 2050 in a global climate change scenario (Rogers and Randolph,
2000). This model found surprisingly few changes, but predicted that some parts of the world
that are presently free of malaria may be prone to a greater risk of malaria transmission while
certain malaria-endemic areas will have a decreased risk of malaria transmission (Rogers and
Randolph, 2000). Larger areas of northern and eastern Australia are expected to become more conducive for
the transmission of dengue (McMichael et al., 2006) and a greater proportion of the global population at risk of
dengue (Hales et al., 2002) as a result of global climate change. While these models did not specifically address
changes in coastal zones, the transmission of malaria (Rogers and Randolph, 2000) and dengue (Hales et al.,
2002; McMichael et al., 2006) were generally predicted to increase in coastal areas of northern and eastern
Australia. Many modeling forecasts are limited by uncertainties in the extent of global climate change as a

58
Warming Core
result of the inability to accurately predict major drivers such as future emission rates of greenhouse gases.
Other factors such as the resilience of the geosphere and biosphere that are difficult to estimate precisely, and
regional characteristics, can also influence climate change parameters. Furthermore, the considerable
adaptability of mosquito vectors and their pathogens to changing environments are difficult to model. Models
however have an important role in highlighting potential problems and the need to develop measures to
counter possible increases in disease transmission. Global climate change has led to observable
alterations in the global distribution of plants and animals with species adapted to warmer
temperatures moving to higher latitudes (Root et al., 2003). However there is no unequivocal
evidence yet that global climate change has already affected the distribution of a mosquitoborne disease in inland or coastal areas. The reports of increased incidence of malaria epidemics related
to warmer temperatures in the Kenyan highlands have been controversial as changes in many other factors
could have influenced malaria transmission in this area, and perhaps even masked an increase in transmission
due to higher temperatures (Githeko et al., 2000; Alonso et al., 2011; Omumbo et al., 2011; Chaves et al.,
2012). However it is clear that the incidence of malaria has decreased over the last decade in
many countries due primarily to better case detection and treatment, the use of insecticide
treated mosquito nets and indoor residual spraying of more effective insecticides (World
Health Organization, 2011). It seems quite likely that such improvements in malaria control
measures worldwide have masked any tendency for the incidence of malaria to increase as a
result of global climate change (Gething et al., 2010). On the other hand, there is evidence that
short term changes in global climate can influence the incidence of mosquito-borne diseases.
The El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) entails multi-annual cyclic changes in the
temperature of the eastern Pacific Ocean that influences air temperature and rainfall in large
areas of the bordering continents, spreading as far as Africa. ENSO has been associated with a higher
incidence of dengue in some countries, notably in parts of Thailand in recent times (Tipayamongkholgul et al.,
2009). Global warming due to the greenhouse effect may increase the frequency of ENSO events
(Timmermann et al., 1999) and therefore cause more numerous epidemics of dengue. The warming of surface
sea temperatures in the western Indian Ocean due to short term fluctuations known as the Indian Ocean
Dipole (IOD) is associated with higher malaria incidence in the western Kenyan highlands (Hashizume et al.,
2009). The effects of short term ENSO and IOD events are a likely indication of the potential impacts of long
term global climate change on mosquito-borne diseases that can also affect coastal zones. There have been very
few studies on other primary climate changes like wind and atmospheric pollution that can also affect mosquito
populations in coastal areas. Changes in wind patterns as a result of climate change are difficult to predict and
likely to be locality-specific. It can be expected that higher onshore wind velocities will tend to disperse
mosquito populations further inland. Atmospheric pollution will be higher in the vicinity of urban coastal
areas, and it may be anticipated that mosquitoes will adapt to pollution with time. The gaps in knowledge in
these areas need to be addressed.
Warming causes disease parasites
SPPI 12 (Science and Public Policy Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
"Global Warming and Animal Parasitic Diseases. Last modified February 8, 2012.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/p/summaries/animalparasites.php.)
One of the perceived great tragedies of CO2-induced global warming is that rising temperatures
will increase the development, transmission, and survival rates of parasites in general, leading
to a perfect storm of biological interactions that will raise the prevalence of parasitic disease
among animals in the future. But is this really so? In a provocative paper analyzing the
intricacies of this complex issue, Hall et al. (2006)1 begin their analysis of the subject by asking
Will an increasingly warmer world necessarily become a sicker world? They posed this
question because, in their words, increased temperatures can accelerate the fitness of
parasites, reduce recruitment bottlenecks for parasites during winter, and weaken hosts,
while further noting that warmer temperatures may allow vectors of parasites to expand their
range, which would enable them to introduce diseases to novel habitats, which is something
climate alarmists frequently claim about mosquitoes and malaria. However, as they continue, these
doom-and-gloom scenarios do not necessarily apply to all taxa or all situations, and they note that warming
does not necessarily increase the fitness of all parasites. Enlarging upon these latter points, the four

59
Warming Core
biologists and their statistician co-author write that the virulence of parasites may not change,
may decrease, or may respond unimodally to increasing temperatures (Stacey et al., 2003;
Thomas and Blanford, 2003), and in this regard they further note that vital rates increase
with temperature until some optimum is reached, and that once temperature exceeds this
optimum, vital rates decline gradually with increasing temperature for some taxa, but rapidly
for others, such that in some host-parasite systems, a parasites optimum occurs at cooler
temperatures than the optimum of its host, citing the work of Carruthers et al. (1992), Blanford and
Thomas (1999) and Blanford et al. (2003) on fungus-grasshopper associations in substantiation of this
scenario. In such cases, as they describe it, a host can use warmer temperatures to help defeat its parasites
through behavioral modification of its thermal environment.However, the situation sometimes can be even
more complex than this; for Hall et al. write that warmer temperatures can also lead to shifts in temperature
optima (Huey and Hertz, 1984; Huey and Kingsolver, 1989, 1993), and that the exact evolutionary trajectory
of host-parasite systems in a warmer world may depend sensitively upon underlying genetic correlation
structures and interactions between host genotypes, parasite genotypes, and the environment (Blanford et al.,
2003; Thomas and Blanford, 2003; Stacey et al., 2003; Mitchell et al., 2004). Consequently, they
conclude that longer-term response of the physiology of host-parasite systems to global
warming becomes difficult to predict. But these considerations are not the end of the story
either; for the researchers note that other species can profoundly shape the outcome of
parasitism in host populations, and that predators provide an important example because,
as they elucidate, predators can actually inhibit epidemics by selectively culling sick hosts
and/or by maintaining host densities below levels required for parasites to persist (Hudson et al.,
1992; Packer et al., 2003, Lafferty, 2004; Ostfeld and Holt, 2004; Duffey et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2005). When
all is said and done, therefore, Hall et al. conclude that global warming does not necessarily mean that disease
prevalence will increase in all systems.
Warming will increase our vulnerability to HIV/AIDs and will cause new, drug resistant strains
Age News, 2008 (April 29. Age NewsGlobal warming set to fan the HIV fire.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/global-warming-set-to-fan-the-hiv-fire-20080430-29eh.html NMS)
Climate change is the latest threat to the world's growing HIV epidemic, say Australian experts who
warn of the "grim" outlook in the fight against the infectious disease. A leading professor of health and
human rights, Daniel Tarantola, has cautioned that global warming will indirectly make citizens
of developing countries even more vulnerable to death and severe ill health from HIV/AIDS. "It was
clear soon after the emergence of the HIV epidemic that discrimination, gender inequality and lack of access to
essential services have made some populations more vulnerable than others," said Prof Tarantola, of the
University of NSW. Those problems had not gone away, he said, and extra threats were lurking on the horizon
"as the global economic situation deteriorates, food scarcity worsens and climate change begins to affect
those who were already dependent on survival economies". Advertisement "Climate change will
trigger a chain of events which is likely to increase the stress on society and result in higher
vulnerability to diseases including HIV," said Prof Tarantola, due to address an HIV forum in Sydney.
Prominent HIV scientist Professor David Cooper, director of the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and
Clinical Research, agreed environmental change would have a negative impact on HIV sufferers. "Climate
change will lead to food scarcity and poorer nutrition, putting people with perilous immune
systems at more risk of dying of HIV, as well as contracting and transmitting new and unusual
infections," Prof Cooper said. "And this would effect Australia too, because these infections could
potentially spread. Just look at the horror that SARS and avian flu have caused." The specialist
said the HIV landscape was grim, with 16,000 new infections worldwide each day and the failure
of research to produce a much-needed cure or vaccine. He echoed the deep pessimism of 35 top British and
US scientists who predicted this week that a vaccine would be at least 10 years and maybe even 20 years away.
"It's a pretty grim situation," Prof Cooper said. "I don't think we have any idea of how to harness a
vaccine for this and we need a strong basic science breakthrough to get anywhere with it."
Climate change can spread disease
Harvard School of Public Health, The medical section of the University studying Diseases, 12 (Harvard
School of Public Health 2012 http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/climate-change-and-infectious-disease PB)

60
Warming Core
Many prevalent human infections, including malaria, dengue fever, and cholera, are climate
sensitive. In some cases, such as with malaria and dengue fever, this is in part because the disease is
transmitted by mosquitoes which cannot survive if temperatures are too low. For others, climate
restricts where an infection can occur because it limits the distribution of other species that are required for
disease transmission. Although some evidence indicates that warming may be causing malaria, for
instance, to spread to higher elevations on mountains in East Africa, predicting how climate change will
ultimately influence the incidence of diseases transmitted by insects remains challenging. Consider that
malaria was once common over much of North America and Europe in the 19th century but is not routinely
present on either continent today, even after the temperature has warmed in the intervening century. More
predictable as climate change unfolds is the spread of so-called waterborne infections. These
infections most often cause diarrheal illness and flourish in the wake of heavy rainfalls as
runoff from land enters into and may contaminate water supplies. Many pathogens that cause
diarrheal disease reproduce more quickly in warmer conditions as well
Climate Changes has claimed many lives and will continue to spread disease
Patz, Professor & Director of the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, 05
(Jonathan A Patz, 11/17/2205 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04188.html
PB)
The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to
anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually.
Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular
mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious
diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or
resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large
influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing
evidence that climatehealth relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections
of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to
increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions
include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific
and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Nio/Southern
Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme
climatic events
The Spread of Disease leads to extinction

Smith, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University., 06 (Katherine F. Smith
10/5/2006, http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/evidemnce%20for
%20role%20of%20disease.pdf PB)
Infectious disease is listed among the top five causes of global species extinctions. However, the
majority of available data supporting this contention is largely anecdotal. We used the IUCN Red List of
Threatened and Endangered Species and literature indexed in the ISI Web of Science to assess the role of
infectious disease in global species loss. Infectious disease was listed as a contributing factor in <4%
of species extinctions known to have occurred since 1500 (833 plants and animals) and as
contributing to a species status as critically endangered in <8% of cases (2852 critically
endangered plants and animals). Although infectious diseases appear to play a minor role in global
species loss, our findings underscore two important limitations in the available evidence: uncertainty
surrounding the threats to species survival and a temporal bias in the data. Several initiatives could help
overcome these obstacles, including rigorous scientific tests to determine which infectious diseases present a
significant threat at the species level, recognition of the limitations associated with the lack of baseline data for
the role of infectious disease in species extinctions, combining data with theory to discern the circumstances
under which infectious disease is most likely to serve as an agent of extinction, and improving surveillance
programs for the detection of infectious disease. An evidence-based understanding of the role of infectious

61
Warming Core
disease in species extinction and endangerment will help prioritize conservation initiatives and protect global
biodiversity. Recent studies suggest that infectious diseases in wildlife populations are emerging
at unusually high rates. Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are those caused by parasites and pathogens
that have recently increased in incidence, occupied host species or geographic extent; have been newly
discovered; or are caused by a newly evolved agent. The diversity of EIDs afflicting wildlife, coupled
with the fear that an increased frequency of outbreaks will occur in the future, have raised
concern that infectious disease may play a strong role in species extinction. Indeed, infectious
diseases can extirpate local populations, mediate community dynamics, and shrink host ranges. Given the
effects of infectious diseases on wildlife, it is not surprising that a survey of biologists listed
infectious disease among the top five causes of species extinctions in the United States (Wilcove et
al. 1998). However, the majority of available data supporting this contention is largely anecdotal. Moreover,
epidemiological theory predicts that infectious diseases should only drive species to extinction under specific
circumstancesmost commonly when pre-epidemic population size is small, reservoir hosts are available, or
when the infectious agent can survive in the abiotic environment (de Castro & Bolker 2005). In response to a
growing interest in global species loss and emerging infectious diseases, it is worth investigating the
generalization that infectious diseases play a widespread role in species extinction. Infectious disease was
infrequently listed as a contributing factor to species extinction or endangerment. The IUCN
Red List (IUCN 2004) reports that in the past 500 years, 100 plant and 733 animal species are
known to have gone extinct. Whereas multiple causal factors are typically listed as having contributed to
a species extinction, the most common causes appear to be habitat loss and overexploitation (IUCN 2004). Of
these 833 known species extinctions, only 31 cases (3.7%) have been attributed, at least in part, to infectious
disease

Warming Core
62
Warming Bad Food Prices

Warming causes rising food prices which will lead to global unrest, riots, and war
Adam, Environmental Correspondent for the Guardian, 2008 (David, April 8, 2008 The Guardian Food
price rises threaten global security UN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/09/food.unitednations NMS)
Rising food prices could spark worldwide unrest and threaten political stability, the UN's top
humanitarian official warned yesterday after two days of rioting in Egypt over the doubling of
prices of basic foods in a year and protests in other parts of the world. Sir John Holmes, undersecretary
general for humanitarian affairs and the UN's emergency relief coordinator, told a conference in Dubai that
escalating prices would trigger protests and riots in vulnerable nations. He said food scarcity
and soaring fuel prices would compound the damaging effects of global warming. Prices have
risen 40% on average globally since last summer. "The security implications [of the food crisis]
should also not be underestimated as food riots are already being reported across the globe,"
Holmes said. "Current food price trends are likely to increase sharply both the incidence and
depth of food insecurity." He added that the biggest challenge to humanitarian work is climate
change, which has doubled the number of disasters from an average of 200 a year to 400 a year in the past
two decades. As well as this week's violence in Egypt, the rising cost and scarcity of food has been
blamed for: Riots in Haiti last week that killed four people Violent protests in Ivory Coast Price
riots in Cameroon in February that left 40 people dead Heated demonstrations in Mauritania,
Mozambique and Senegal Protests in Uzbekistan, Yemen, Bolivia and Indonesia UN staff in Jordan also
went on strike for a day this week to demand a pay rise in the face of a 50% hike in prices, while Asian
countries such as Cambodia, China, Vietnam, India and Pakistan have curbed rice exports to ensure
supplies for their own residents. Officials in the Philippines have warned that people hoarding rice could
face economic sabotage charges. A moratorium is being considered on converting agricultural land for housing
or golf courses, while fast-food outlets are being pressed to offer half-portions of rice. The UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation says rice production should rise by 12m tonnes, or 1.8%, this year, which would help
ease the pressure. It expects "sizable" increases in all the major Asian rice producing countries, especially
Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines and Thailand. Holmes is the latest senior figure
to warn the world is facing a worsening food crisis. Josette Sheeran, director of the UN World Food
Programme, said last month: "We are seeing a new face of hunger. We are seeing more urban
hunger than ever before. We are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to afford
it." The programme has launched an appeal to boost its aid budget from $2.9bn to $3.4bn (1.5bn to 1.7bn)
to meet higher prices, which officials say are jeopardising the programme's ability to continue feeding 73
million people worldwide. Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, said "many more people will
suffer and starve" unless the US, Europe, Japan and other rich countries provide funds. He said prices of all
staple food had risen 80% in three years, and that 33 countries faced unrest because of the price rises.
Food crisis triggers global war.
Stephen Hume, 4/16/2008. Senior writer for the Vancouver Sun. World Food Crisis Threatens Rich Nations
(That's Us), Too, Vancouver Sun, http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2008/04/10852.php
In Rome, Reuters reported Jacques Diouf, head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, warning that with 37 countries already in crisis, each day brings greater risk of
global famine. "I'm surprised that I have not been summoned to the UN Security Council," Diouf said.
"Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react." India's finance minister was
more direct. "It is becoming starker by the day," Palaniappan Chidambaram said. "Unless we act fast for a
global consensus on the price spiral, the social unrest induced by food prices in several
countries will conflagrate into a global contagion, leaving no country -- developed or otherwise
-- unscathed."

Warming Core
63
XT Food
Warming reduces global food production, which leads to global starvation
IPCC 2007 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, December 12-17-2007, p. 26 NMS)
At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to
decrease for even small local temperature increases (1 to 2C), which would increase the risk of
hunger (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM} _ Globally, the potential for food production is
projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3C, but above
this it is projected to decrease (medium confidence).

Warming Core
64
Warming Bad Hyperstorms

Warming will increase the intensity and frequency of powerful storms, known as hyperstorms
Leahy Environmental Journalist, 2005 (Stephen, September 16 2006, Inter Press News Agency
ENVIRONMENT: The Dawn of the Hypercane? http://www.ipsnews.net/2005/09/environment-the-dawnof-the-hypercane/ NMS)
The number of super-powerful storms like Hurricane Katrina has nearly doubled and there will be
even more in the future as the worlds oceans continue to warm, scientists say. Climate change is
warming the surface of the oceans, and the additional heat provides the extra energy to generate more
powerful hurricanes and cyclones. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly
doubled over the past 35 years, according to a new study published Friday in the journal Science. Warmer sea
surface temperatures have increased the amount of water vapour, which is the fuel for hurricanes, said study
co-author Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technologys School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. The
largest increases in the number of intense hurricanes occurred in the North Pacific, Southwest Pacific and the
North and South Indian Oceans, with slightly smaller increases in the North Atlantic Ocean. The link
between the global rise in sea surface temperatures and increased hurricane intensity is quite
strong, Webster told IPS. Related IPS Articles Science National Centre for Atmospheric Research The
National Climatic Data Centre I think its clear that global warming is causing oceans to warm, he said. Over
the last 40 years, the top 300 metres of the worlds oceans have warmed about 0.5C on average. Earlier this
year, Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, published a study that
provided clear evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels was responsible for ocean
warming. Hurricane Katrina offers a good illustration of the role of warm water, Webster said. Before it struck
the U.S. Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Florida as a Category 1. However when it crossed over
into the Gulf of Mexico, there was a huge, deep pool of very warm water that served as the storms high-octane
fuel, he said. Practically overnight, Katrina turned into a Category 5 super storm. The Saffir-Simpson scale
rates hurricanes from 1 to 5 according to wind speeds and destructive potential. A Category 1 storm has winds
blowing continuously above 110 kilometres an hour: A Category 5 has continuous winds above 250 kilometres
per hour. At landfall, Katrina weakened to a Category 4. But with its exceptionally large size, the damage it
caused will cost the U.S. at least 200 billion dollars. I wasnt surprised by (Websters) results, said Kevin
Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder,
Colorado. Trenberth recently published his own paper in Science about the link between human-induced
climate change and increased hurricane intensity and rainfall. Our estimate is that rainfall from Katrina
was about seven percent enhanced by global warming, Trenberth said in an interview. He also points
out that Kerry Emanuel, a leading hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, released
another study in Science showing that major storms have increased in intensity and duration by a whopping 70
percent in the North Atlantic and Northwest Pacific Oceans since the 1970s. Its important to note that
Emanuel, Webster and Trenberth took different approaches to the issue, but all arrived at similar conclusions.
We may differ on the details but there is no doubt there has been an increase in intensity of storms,
Trenberth said. The North Atlantic ocean is exceptionally hot this year about 1.5 degrees C
warmer than average and thats why double the normal number of hurricanes and tropical
storms have been forecast. That extra heat translates into an average intensity or power of these
storms that is also likely to be 15 to 20 percent higher, he said. Currently, the U.S. East Coast is being
pummeled by a weakening Hurricane Ophelia, the fifteenth named storm of the hurricane season which still
has 10 more weeks to run. Hurricanes and thunderstorms are climate regulating mechanisms for removing
heat from the surface of oceans and land upwards and into space, Trenberth explains. With the extra heat
that is trapped in the atmosphere and oceans by global warming, there has to be a
corresponding increase either in the numbers or intensity of storms. What will the future be
like when the oceans warm another 0.5 degrees C, as they inevitably will even if all human
emissions of greenhouse gases were cut off today? More Category 4 and 5 storms and possibly
beyond that towards what Emanuel and others have called hypercanes, said Webster.
Hypercanes is a speculative attempt to explain mass species extinctions 245 million years ago. Computer
models showed that continent-sized super-storms with winds averaging 600 kilometres per
hour could be produced if oceans warmed to an incredible 45 to 50 degrees C. Such temperatures
are impossible today barring a massive meteor strike or gigantic underwater volcano eruption.

Warming Core
65

Warming Core
66
Warming Bad Middle East Instability

Warming will lead to Middle East war due to struggle over resources
Duchene, Research Assistant at Pennsylvania State 2008 (Lisa, June 5th, 2008. Phys.org Probing Question:
Are water wars in our future? http://phys.org/news131901803.html NMS)
With rapid population growth, wasteful practices, and impending climate change, the situation is
likely to get worse. Water resources in semi-arid regions are expected to be especially hard-hit,
warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 summary report. By some estimates, twothirds of the world's population will be water-stressed by 2025. During a year when many states
across the U.S. are suffering some of the worst droughts ever, water is a topic on people's minds. Will
the prospect of a diminishing water supply result in serious geopolitical conflict? "Freshwater resources
are unevenly distributed around the globe," says Robert B. Packer, lecturer in political science at Penn
State, who studies international political economy and the causes of war. "While freshwater is relatively
abundant in Europe and much of North America, other regions of the globe, such as the Middle East, Central
Asia, and parts of West and Eastern Africa, face increasingly severe shortages." According to the BBC, the
number of 'water-scarce' countries in the Middle East grew from three in 1955 to eight in 1990,
with another seven expected to be added within 20 years. "Of particular concern," said Packer, "are
certain riparian basins that could explode into conflict as sources of freshwater diminish. Conflict is more likely
to occur where water can be seized and controlled in addition to being scarce." Among Middle East
countries, where every major river crosses at least one international border, up to 50 percent of water needs
of any specific state finds its source in another state, Packer noted. "Hydro-politics already play a central
role among states in riparian basins, such as the Tigris-Euphrates, the Nile, the Jordan, as well
as those sharing the underground aquifers of the West Bank." Conflicts are likely to emerge as
competition intensifies to control river waters for hydroelectricity, agricultural use, and human
consumption, he added. "Farms and cities downstream are vulnerable to the actions and decisions of upstream
countries that they have little control over. This is exemplified in the tensions over the Tigris-Euphrates, where
Turkey commenced construction of a system of hydroelectric dams. Iraq and Syria have protested, citing the
project would reduce the rivers' flow downstream. Turkey's response to the Arab states has been 'we don't
control their oil, they don't control our water.'" To the west, the Nile has been the lifeline for Egyptian
civilization dating back to antiquity. Nearly all of Egypt's 80 million people live on the three percent of
Egyptian territory that is the river's valley and delta. "For Egypt the Nile is life, and its government has voiced
to upstream countries that any reduction of Nile waters would be taken as national security threat that could
trigger a military response," says Packer. "Nearly all freshwater in the Israeli-occupied West Bank comes from
underground aquifers," he added. "Water access has become a major issue between Israelis and Palestinians."
"Perhaps the greatest of all modern Middle East conflicts, the Six Day War of 1967, began as a
dispute over water access," Packer noted. Israel built a National Water Carrier to transport freshwater
from the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee to the country's farming and urban centers. (The Carrier now supplies
half the drinking water in Israel.) In 1965, Israeli forces attacked a Syrian water diversion project that would
have cut the Carrier's supply, and prolonged violence led to war. "For Israelis, control of the Golan Heights is
important strategically in terms of controlling the headwaters of the Jordan River," Packer noted. The effects
of global warming and desertification also have impacted hydro-politics around the world. In
West Africa, rainfall has declined 30 percent over the last four decades and the Sahara is
advancing more than one mile per year. Senegal and Mauritania engaged in militarized conflict
in 1989 across the Senegal River that divides them, in part over changing access to arable land.
Middle East wars cause extinction
Russell, 9 (James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate
School, 9 (Spring)
Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East
IFRI, Proliferation Papers//, #26, __http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf__)
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that
can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce
unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about

67
Warming Core
the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically
unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a
preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by
Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation
among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation
by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of
wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly
escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an
unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which
escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and
decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster
every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with
substantial risk for the entire
world.

Warming Core
68
XT Mid East
Warming leads to middle east instability and conflicts
Guttman Washington correspondent for the Israeli daily newspaper, 2007 (Nathan, June 13, 2007 The
Jewish Daily, Congress Warned That Global Warming Is Threat to Israel and Moderate Arab States
http://forward.com/articles/10954/congress-warned-that-global-warming-is-threat-to-i/#ixzz2Yxg65IFY
NMS)
Israel is an insignificant player in contributing to global warming, but it suffers from it in a
nonproportional rate, Bar-Or said. The main changes, the Israeli experts predicted, would be a drop
in the water supply already a scarce commodity in the Middle East and an expected rise in
temperature that will make it even more difficult to replenish water sources. According to the
information presented this week, if action is not taken, then Israel might be facing a loss of up to 100
millimeters of rain a year almost 20% of the countrys annual rainfall. For Israel, water
shortages could influence not only its population but also the future of its relations with
neighboring countries. Israel is already facing difficulties fulfilling its agreement as part of its
1994 peace treaty with Jordan to transfer water to the Hashemite kingdom, and will face great problems
when trying to work out water arrangements with Palestinians in a final status agreement. The Jordanian
monarchy, which is based on support of the agricultural communities, might be in danger. The
same is true for the Palestinian leadership, which might encounter an uprising of extremists
who will feed on the poverty and despair caused by the collapse of agriculture due to lack of
water.

Warming Core
69
Warming Bad Migrations

That results in sudden onset migrations which risk resource warsescalation is likely
Bahati 10 Policy Analyst @ Africa Faith and Social Justice Network Originally published in
the Jan-Feb edition of Around Africa, Climate Change: What About the Displaced?, February 9,
2010, Bahati Ntama Jacques, Policy Analyst, http://afjn.org/focus-campaigns/other/othercontinental-issues/82-general/792-climate-change-what-about-the-displaced.html
Already, as a result of climate change, at least 18 islands have been submerged worldwide.
These include Lohachara Island in India, Bedford, Kabasgadi and Suparibhanga Island near India. Other
islands are at risk of being submerged. They include Bangladeshs Bhola Island, half of which is permanently
flooded, Kutubdia in southeastern Bangladesh with thousands of people already displaced and more to be
displaced, in Shishmaref and Kivalini of Alaska, and Maldives, a state island in the Indian Ocean whose
President wishes to relocate the entire country. Climate change-related disasters not only affect
ecosystems, but cause people to relocate either by choice or by force. Some will be displaced
within the boundaries of their affected countries (Internal Displacement or ID) and others
will cross state borders. Some will be displaced because of sudden-onset hydrometeorological disasters, such as flooding, hurricanes, landslides, etc. Others will be affected
by slow-onset disasters, like desertification, rising sea levels and droughts. Sea level rise will,
in some cases, lead to permanent loss of small state islands, Maldives being an example, which
means permanent displacement of the inhabitants of the island. In high-risk zones authorities have to
choose between the cost of rebuilding every time a disaster hits or of just displacing the people permanently.
Furthermore, as a result of displacement, disputes over resources such as water and land will
cause violence. It is more than likely that some of the violence will end up in armed conflict.
Climate change diplaces millions and destroys fundamental human rights
EFJ 11 Environmental Justice Foundation EJF a UK Registered charity working
internationally to protect the natural environment and human rights 2011 Climate Change and
migration:forced displacement, climate refugees and the need for a new legal instrument
http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/climate_briefing.pdf
Climate change is without doubt one of the foremost and most profound threats to
environmental security and basic human rights, and its e ects are already being observed
across the globe. For human populations, the impacts are considerable, with an estimated 325 million
people adversely aected, and 300,000 deaths each year 1 . Climate change is deteriorating environmental
conditions and compromising the most basic human rights to life, food, shelter, health, and water. The
short and long-term eects of climate change will compound existing poverty levels and
obstruct social and economic development. The overall impacts for the developing world are
sobering: within this century, hundreds of millions of people are likely to be displaced by
Sea Level Rise (SLR); accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for
many. The world has not previously faced a crisis on this scale, and planning for adaptation
should begin immediately 17 . Environmental factors arising from climate change and
leading to migration may be fast occurring. For example more intense tropical cyclones or in
the longer-term, eects such as desertication or sea level rise that inundates lowlying
regions damaging homes and infrastructure, increased health risks, declining soil fertility
and lack of freshwater. Fisheries and agriculture are already showing signs of stress, yet they are
projected to face a 50% increase in demand by 2030 18 . In the oceans, climate change is reducing
the abundance and diversity of sh and other marine life this could be devastating for the
520 million people around 8% of the global population who are dependent on sheries for food and
income. In Africa, an estimated 10 million people have migrated or been displaced over the
last two decades mainly because of environmental degradation and desertication 7,19 . A
recent (2009) report suggested that about 12 million people have fallen into poverty today because of
climate change 1 .

Warming Core
70
Warming Bad Ocean Acidification

Anthropogenic rising C02 causes ocean acidification which affects marine biodiversity
Doney , Marine Chemistry and Geochemistr, 09 (Sctott C. Doney 1/2009
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine
.010908.163834 PB)
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion,
reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry . The process of
ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century
unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically . Acidification alters seawater chemical
speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is
the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine
organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals . Many calcifying species
exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO 2 conditions.
Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic
organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to
increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high
priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may
be only imperfect analogs to current conditions. Over the past 250 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) levels increased by nearly 40%, from preindustrial levels of approximately 280 ppmv (parts per
million volume) to nearly 384 ppmv in 2007 (Solomon et al. 2007). This rate of increase, driven by
human fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is at least an order of magnitude faster than has
occurred for millions of years (Doney & Schimel 2007), and the current concentration is higher
than experienced on Earth for at least the past 800,000 years (Lthi et al. 2008). Rising
atmospheric CO2 is tempered by oceanic uptake, which accounts for nearly a third of
anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere (Sabine & Feely 2007, Sabine et al. 2004), and
without which atmospheric CO2 would be approximately 450 ppmv today, a level of CO2 that would
have led to even greater climate change than witnessed today. Ocean CO2 uptake, however, is not
benign; it causes pH reductions and alterations in fundamental chemical balances that together
are commonly referred to as ocean acidification . Because climate change and ocean acidification
are both caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, acidification is commonly referred to as the other
CO2 problem (Henderson 2006, Turley 2005). Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence
of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties associated with climate
change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs, are well verified
from models, hydrographic surveys, and time series data (Caldeira & Wickett 2003,2005; Feely et al.
2004, 2008; Orr et al. 2005; Solomon et al. 2007). At the Hawaii Ocean Time-Series (HOT) station
ALOHA the growth rates of surface water pCO2 and atmospheric CO2 agree well (Takahashi et al.
2006) (Figure 1), indicating uptake of anthropogenic CO2 as the major cause for long-term increases
in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and decreases in CaCO 3 saturation state. Correspondingly, since
the 1980s average pH measurements at HOT, the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series Study, and European
Station for Time-Series in the Ocean in the eastern Atlantic have decreased approximately 0.02 units
per decade (Solomon et al. 2007). Since preindustrial times, the average ocean surface water pH has
fallen by approximately 0.1 units, from approximately 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society 2005), and is
expected to decrease a further 0.30.4 pH units (Orr et al. 2005) if atmospheric CO2 concentrations
reach 800 ppmv [the projected end-of-century concentration according to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenario]. Fossil fuel combustion and
agriculture also produce increased atmospheric inputs of dissociation products of strong acids (HNO 3
and H2SO4) and bases (NH3) to the coastal and open ocean. These inputs are particularly important

Warming Core
71
close to major source regions, primarily in the northern hemisphere, and cause decreases in surface
seawater alkalinity, pH, and DIC (Doney et al. 2007). On a global scale, these anthropogenic inputs
(0.8 Tmol/yr reactive sulfur and 2.7 Tmol/yr reactive nitrogen) contribute only a small fraction of the
acidification caused by anthropogenic CO2, but they are more concentrated in coastal waters
where the ecosystem responses to ocean acidification could be more serious for humankind .
Seawater carbon dioxide measurements have been conducted since the beginning of the nineteenth
century (Krogh 1904) but were sparse until the middle of the twentieth century (Keeling et al. 1965,
Takahashi 1961) and particularly until the Geochemical Sections (GEOSECS) (19731979) (Craig &
Turekian 1976, 1980) and Transient Tracers in the Ocean (TTO) (19811983) (Brewer et al. 1985)
programs. Even so, the GEOSECS and TTO measurements were significantly less precise than those
of today. Although researchers recognized that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the surface
ocean was more or less in equilibrium with overlying atmosphere CO2, they largely dismissed the
potential impact on the ocean biota because calcite (the assumed CaCO 3 mineralogy of most calcifying
organisms) would remain supersaturated in the surface ocean. Since then, multiple studies revealed
several issues that elevate ocean acidification as a threat to marine biota : (a) the calcification
rates of many shell-forming organisms respond to the degree of supersaturation (e.g.,Smith &
Buddemeier 1992, Kleypas et al. 1999); (b) aragonite, a more soluble CaCO3 mineral equally
important in calcifying organisms, may become undersaturated in the surface ocean within the early
21st century (Feely & Chen 1982, Feely et al. 1988, Orr et al. 2005); and (c) the biological effects of
decreasing ocean pH reach far beyond limiting calcification.
Marine ecosystems are critical to the survival of all life on earth.
Craig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for
terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example,
besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide,
worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth
more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, nonextractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that
represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and
sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense,
therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems.
Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems
are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is
higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that
produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species
have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the
biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive
preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should
not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we
know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United
States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect

72
Warming Core
anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though
we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral
reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not
know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness
whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine
ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much:
if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black
Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a
monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the
web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily
unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up:
overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an
alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness.
The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is
being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to
communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygenstarved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing
marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest
that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few
fishers go out of business as a result.

Warming Core
73
Warming Bad Ozone

Global Warming depletes Ozone layer
Shah, founder of global issues and chief of environmental section, 02 (Anup Shah 6/8/02
http://www.globalissues.org/article/184/the-ozone-layer-and-climate-change PB)
Scientists believe that Global Warming will lead to a weaker Ozone layer, because as the surface
temperature rises, the stratosphere (the Ozone layer being found in the upper part) will get colder,
making the natural repairing of the Ozone slower. NASA, for example, reports that by 2030, "climate
change may surpass chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the main driver of overall ozone loss." The
Ozone layer protects all life on Earth from the harmful effects of the Sun's rays. It has been
depleting for many years now. Scientists have said that currently over Antarctica the Ozone hole is
three times the size of the United States andgrowing. Also, according to scientists, more than 60
percent of the ozone layer blanketing the Arctic Circle was lost in the 1999/2000 winter. Also,
September 9 to 10, 2000, the ozone hole stretched over a populated city for the first time. It was in Punta
Arenas, a southern Chile city of about 120,000 people, exposing residents to very high levels of ultra violet
radiation. The ozone depletion has also been correlated with higher levels of cancer in humans
and animals.\
Ozone depletion causes complete extinction scientific consensus is on our side
Greenpeace, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html
When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between
chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but
taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this
hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation
from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of
ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as
well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so
seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

Warming Core
74
Warming Bad Prolif

Global Warming causes proliferation
Schwartz, chair of the Global Business Network, and Doug Randall, co-head of the Global Business Networks consulting practice, 3 Peter, An
Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, p. 18 Google 7-12-13 KB
The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate change are
defensive and offensive. The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around
their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency. With diverse growing
climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United States could likely survive shortened
growing cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be
strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an
especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be shored up through expensive
(economically, politically, and morally) alternatives such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle
Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be
commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges on the 1944 treaty
that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be commissioned to respond
to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this
continuous state of emergency the U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The
intractable problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting military tension around
the world. As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate
change, many countries needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of
desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine
eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and
energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy
supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water
supply, eying Russias Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants
and energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China all armed with nuclear
weapons skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and
Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the
United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching
multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and
transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs
through seven.
Proliferation leads to a global nuclear war.
Taylor 6 [Theodore B., Chairman of NOVA. July 6 2006, Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
http://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html]
Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence
on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall
into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world.
Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to
use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of
vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear
wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars
between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself
losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in
desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major
superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global
nuclear war.

Warming Core
75
Warming Bad Racism

Global warming is racistU.S. emissions affect the Southern hemisphere significantly more
than itself
Paroma Basu, University of Wisconsin, 11-16-5
(Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts http://www.news.wisc.edu/11878.html) 7-12-13 KB
In a recent chilling assessment, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that human-induced
changes in the Earth's climate now lead to at least 5 million cases of illness and more than
150,000 deaths every year. Temperature fluctuations may sway human health in a surprising
number of ways, scientists have learned, from influencing the spread of infectious diseases to boosting the
likelihood of illness-inducing heat waves and floods. Now, in a synthesis report featured on the cover of the
journal Nature, a team of health and climate scientists at UW-Madison and WHO has shown that the
growing health impacts of climate change affect different regions in markedly different ways.
Ironically, the places that have contributed the least to warming the Earth are the most
vulnerable to the death and disease higher temperatures can bring. "Those least able to cope
and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected,"
says lead author Jonathan Patz, a professor at UW-Madison's Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental
Studies. "Herein lies an enormous global ethical challenge." According to the Nature report, regions at
highest risk for enduring the health effects of climate change include coastlines along the
Pacific and Indian oceans and sub-Saharan Africa. Large sprawling cities, with their urban "heat
island" effect, are also prone to temperature-related health problems. Africa has some of the lowest percapita emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, regions of the continent are gravely at risk for
warming-related disease. "Many of the most important diseases in poor countries, from malaria to
diarrhea and malnutrition, are highly sensitive to climate," says co-author Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of
WHO. "The health sector is already struggling to control these diseases and climate change threatens to
undermine these efforts." "Recent extreme climatic events have underscored the risks to human
health and survival," adds Tony McMichael, director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and
Population Health at the Australian National University. "This synthesizing paper points the way to strategic
research that better assesses the risks to health from global climate change." The UW-Madison and WHO
assessment appears only weeks before global leaders convene in Montreal during the first meeting of the
Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect in February 2005. Patz will also deliver the
keynote address at a parallel WHO/Health Canada event. The United States - the world's top emitter of
greenhouse gases - has yet to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Patz and his colleagues say their work
demonstrates the moral obligation of countries with high per-capita emissions, such as the U.S.
and European nations, to adopt a leadership role in reducing the health threats of global
warming. It also highlights the need for large, fast-growing economies, such as China and India, to develop
sustainable energy policies. "The political resolve of policy-makers will play a big role in harnessing the manmade forces of climate change," says Patz, who also holds a joint appointment with the UW-Madison
department of Population Health Sciences. Scientists believe that greenhouse gases will increase the global
average temperature by approximately 6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Extreme floods,
droughts and heat waves, such as Europe's 2003 heat wave, are likely to strike with increasing frequency. Other
factors such as irrigation and deforestation can also affect local temperatures and humidity.
Moral obligation to reject racism-Plus it outweighs
Memmi 00
MEMMI Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris Albert-; RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot,
pp.163-165
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never
achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without
concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the
house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part
in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to

76
Warming Core
the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of
the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a
possible victim (and which [person] man is not [themself] himself an outsider relative to someone else?).
Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it
illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is,
and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from
animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it
remains true that ones moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among
other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that
the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism
is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative
order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to
violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language,
racism is the truly capital sin.fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanitys spiritual traditions
counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel
respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and
disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such
sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice
engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if
one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever
sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society
contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so
that they treat you with respect. Recall, says the bible, that you were once a stranger in Egypt, which means
both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming
once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal indeed, it is a contract, however
implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and
practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A
just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then
only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to
live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.

Warming Core
77
Warming Bad Russia War

Global warming makes US Russia war inevitable
Zellen, Security Innovator, 07
Barry, The Polar Show Down: As the Arctic's ice begins to melt, a new race for its undersea resources begins
August 23, 2007 http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=12387&sectionID=43, 7-12-13, KB
In response to Russias aggressive assertion of its claims to the Arctic, Cohen believes that
legal and diplomatic actions are necessary, and pointed out that the U.S. State Department has
already expressed its skepticism of planting of the Russian Flag, and believes the act was not in legal effect.
Cohen added that Canada joined in this opposition, noting its Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, quickly
embarked upon a three-day Arctic trip during which he made major announcements that increased Canadas
naval presence in the Arctic. In order to block Russia's grab, Cohen believes that the United States
should encourage its friends and alliesespecially Canada, Denmark, and Norwayto pursue their
own claims with the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. And
while America has not ratified LOST, the Law of the Sea Treaty, Cohen noted the other Arctic states have
filed claims with the Commission in opposition to Russia's claims, and believes the U.S. should also
encourage Canada to coordinate a possible claim through the International Justice Court in The Hague against
the Russian grab, which the U.S. may join. Cohen believes Moscows decision to take an aggressive
stand has left the U.S., Canada, and the Nordic countries little choice but to forge a cooperative high-north
strategy and invite other friendly countries, such as Great Britain, to help build a Western presence in the
Arctic: This will probably have to include a fleet of modern icebreakers, submersibles, geophysics/seismic
vessels, and polar aircraft. As Cohen explained, theres too much at stake to leave the Arctic to the
Russian bear. But in an optimistic parting thought, Cohen added, I dont think Russia has financial
resources and technology to explore Artic for its riches alone, and that it would be much better if U.S.,
Canada, andas well as Denmark and Norway will have a multilateral regime negotiated that will specify the
economic zones, and will open each others resources for joint ventures that will boost economic development
in the Arctic. To understand Russias intentions, we interviewed Dr. Vladimir Frolov, the director of the
National Laboratory for Foreign Policy, a Moscow-based think tank.[18] Frolov, a former Foreign Service
officer, writes about Russias foreign policy for Russia Profile magazine and penned a prescient column in the
July 17th edition titled The Coming Conflict in the Arctic: Russia and U.S. to Square Off Over Arctic Energy
Reserves.[19] Frolov explained that there are two principal lines of thinking on global warming in Russia.
One is that global warming is a myth, the other is that global warming exists and it is good for Russia. He
added that Russia might benefit from global warming if it leads to more mild temperatures in the Arctic,
provided the problem of flooding could be solved, because a milder climate would make it less prohibitively
costly to develop the considerable energy resources that Russia has there. He noted that Russia views the
Arctic reserves as its last barrel of oil to be safeguarded and then used to Russias strategic
advantage, much like the U.S. view of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). So bountiful are Russias reserves of Arctic petroleum resources that Frolov thinks that they will
precipitate an inevitable clash between Russia and the United States reminiscent of its Cold
War clash across the Arctic. As Frolov explained in his July 17, 2007 column in Russia Profile, the stage
has been quietly set for a much more serious confrontation in the non-too-distant future
between Russia and the United Statesalong with Canada, Norway and Denmark, as Russia recently
laid claim to a vast 1,191,000 square km chunk of the ice-covered Arctic seabed. Its claim is not really about
territory, but rather about the huge hydrocarbon reserves that are hidden on the seabed under the Arctic ice
cap: these newly discovered energy reserves will play a crucial role in the global energy balance
as the existing reserves of oil and gas are depleted over the next 20 years.
US-Russia war causes extinction
Bostrom 2 - Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale (Nick, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human
Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," 38, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)

Warming Core
78
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a
real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate
our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be
used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large
nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an
existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.

Warming Core
79
Warming Bad Resources

Warming causes resource scarcity
Evans 10 (Alex Evans, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, September 9,
2010, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTWDR2011/Resources/64060821283882418764/WDR_Background_Paper_Evans.pdf)
Climate change and its effects on resource scarcity
All of these potential limitations to supply growth are before climate change is considered, which
is likely to be the most important long-term driver of change on all of the above sectors. Since pre-industrial
times, global average temperatures have increase by 0.7 Celsius, and emissions already in the
atmosphere mean that the world is committed to a further increase of 0.6 Celsius.18 Overall,
even stringent global mitigation action may not be enough to avoid a 2.0 Celsius increase on pre-industrial
temperatures. Even if the 2009 Copenhagen summit had agreed that global emissions would peak in 2015 and
decline by 3% a year thereafter, this would still have left the world with an even chance of exceeding a 2
Celsius temperature increase.19 As it is, the summits outcome appears insufficient to prevent warming of 3
Celsius or more.20 Most of the key near-term impacts of climate change will result from reduced
freshwater availability, which will expose hundreds of millions of people to additional water
stress.21 Decreased crop yields (in all areas except mid and high latitudes, and in all areas above 2.0
Celsius), will also be particularly important, and will expose tens to hundreds of millions more
people to the risk of hunger.22 The IPCC also highlights a number of regions that will be
particularly exposed to climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and densely
populated coastal megadeltas in Asia and Africa such as the Nile, Ganges-Brahmaputra and
Mekong, where tens of millions will be at increased risk of acute flood and storm damage,
chronic coastal flooding and loss of coastal wetlands.23 Significantly, these regions high exposure is in
some cases as much the result of their high vulnerability as of the scale of climate impacts they are projected to
experience; Africa, for example, is likely to be especially affected by climate change because of its low adaptive
capacity, whilst the high population densities of Asian and African megadeltas are also factors in determining
their exposure.24However, assessments of the climate and scarcity outlook are complicated by a number of
methodological issues, particularly in the area of climate change. New science findings continue to emerge
rapidly, with the effect that overall estimates quickly become dated: the IPCCs 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report is already out of date in some key respects, for example, whilst the next assessment is not due to be
published until 2014.25 Although climate models are improving all the time, their findings remain subject to a
substantial degree of uncertainty, a problem that increases at more specific levels of geographical focus. A
further challenge for policymakers arises from the fact that while some estimates of future
climate impacts may seem to imply steady, gradual changes that can be adapted to over time, in
fact past changes in the earths climate have been the opposite: highly non-linear and
unpredictable, and hallmarked by sudden shifts as key thresholds are passed. Accordingly, an
increasing concern for policymakers in recent years has been the risk of abrupt climate change that could result
from positive feedback effects, such as: rapid die-back of tropical forests or melting of Arctic tundra (both of
which would release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere);26 rapid melting of polar ice sheets or
glaciers (which would result in higher sea levels);27 or reduction in the capacity of atmospheric sinks such as
the worlds oceans to absorb carbon dioxide (which would magnify the impact of current emissions).28 While
these kinds of risk are largely omitted from IPCC assessments, due to the high degree of uncertainty associated
with them, they nonetheless remain a real consideration for policymakers wanting to take a risk management
approach based on feasible worst case scenarios.29 Some best-guess estimates suggest that global average
warming of around 2.0 Celsius may be a key threshold for some of these effects, while the IPCC concluded in
its Third Assessment Report that there is low to medium confidence that a rapid warming of over 3 Celsius
would trigger large-scale singularities in the climate system, but such assessments are highly uncertain.30
Resource conflict causes prolif and nuclear conflict.
Wooldridge 9. (Frosty, free lance writer, once lectured at Cornell University, Humanity galloping toward its
greatest crisis in the 21st century http://www.australia.to/index.php?

80
Warming Core
option=com_content&view=article&id=10042:humanity-galloping-toward-its-greatest-crisis-in-the-21stcentury&catid=125:frosty-wooldridge&Itemid=244
It is clear that most politicians and most citizens do not recognize that returning to more of the
same is a recipe for promoting the first collapse of a global civilization. The required changes in
energy technology, which would benefit not only the environment but also national security, public health, and
the economy, would demand a World War II type mobilization -- and even that might not prevent a global
climate disaster. Without transitioning away from use of fossil fuels, humanity will move further into an era
of resource wars (remember, Africom has been added to the Pentagons structure -- and China has
noticed), clearly with intent to protect US interests in petroleum reserves. The consequences
of more resource wars, many likely triggered over water supplies stressed by climate
disruption, are likely to include increased unrest in poor nations, a proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, widening inequity within and between nations, and in the worst (and not
unlikely) case, a nuclear war ending civilization.

Warming Core
81
Warming Bad South Asia War

Climate change leads to south Asian nuclear war
Sharma 10 (Rajeev Sharma, journalist-author who has been writing on international relations,
foreign policy, strategic affairs, security and terrorism for over two decades, 2/25/2010,
"Climate Change = War?" The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2010/02/25/climate-changewar/)
For all the heat generated by discussions of global warming in recent months, it is an often overlooked fact
that climate change has the potential to create border disputes that in some cases could even
provoke clashes between states. Throw into the mix three nuclear-armed nations with a
history of disagreements, and the stakes of any conflict rise incalculably. Yet such a scenario is
becoming increasingly likely as glaciers around the world melt, blurring international
boundaries. The chastened United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, still
doesnt dispute that glaciers are melting; the only question is how fast. The phenomenon is already
pushing Europeans and Africans to redraw their borders. Switzerland and Italy, for example, were
forced to introduce draft resolutions in their respective parliaments for fresh border demarcations after
alpine glaciers started melting unusually quickly. And in Africa, meanwhile, climate change has caused
rivers to change course over the past few years. Many African nations have rivers marking
international boundaries and are understandably worried about these changing course and therefore
cutting into their borders. Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan are just some of the African
countries that have indicated apprehension about their international boundaries. But it is in Asia
where a truly nightmarish scenario could play out between India, Pakistan and China
nuclear weapon states that between them have the highest concentration of glaciers in the
world outside the polar regions. A case in point is the Siachen Glacier in the Karakoram range, the largest
glacier outside the polar region, which is the site of a major bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan.
According to scientific data, Siachen Glacier is melting at the rate of about 110 meters a yearamong the
fastest of any glaciers in the world. The glaciers melting ice is the main source of the Nubra River, which
itself drains into the Shyok River. These are two of the main rivers in Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir. The
Shyok also joins the Indus River, and forms the major source of water for Pakistan. It is clear, then, why the
melting of glaciers in the Karakoram region could have a disastrous impact on ties between
India and Pakistan. French geologists have already predicted the Indus will become a seasonal
river by 2040, which would unnerve Pakistan as its granary basket, Punjab, would become
increasingly drought-prone and eventually a desertall within a few decades. It takes no great leap of
imagination to see the potential for conflict as the two nations resort to military means to
control this water source. Meanwhile, glacier melting could also be creating a potential
flashpoint between India and China. The melting Himalayan glaciers will inevitably induce changes to
the McMahon Line, the boundary that separates India and China. Beijing has already embarked upon a
long-term strategy of throttling of Indias major water source in the north-eastthe Brahmaputra River that
originates in China.
Indo-China territorial disputes go nuclear - results in great-power draw-in
Kahn 9 (Jeremy Kahn, staff writer for Newsweek, 10/9/2009, "Why India Fears China,"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/09/why-india-fears-china.print.html)
Ever since the anti-Chinese unrest in Tibet last year, progress toward settling the border dispute has
stalled, and the situation has taken a dangerous turn. The emergence of videos showing Tibetans
beating up Han Chinese shopkeepers in Lhasa and other Tibetan cities created immense domestic pressure
on Beijing to crack down. The Communist Party leadership worries that agitation by Tibetans will only
encourage unrest by the country's other ethnic minorities, such as Uighurs in Xinjiang or ethnic Mongolians
in Inner Mongolia, threatening China's integrity as a nation. Susan Shirk, a former Clinton-administration
official and expert on China, says that "in the past, Taiwan was the 'core issue of sovereignty,' as they call it,
and Tibet was not very salient to the public." Now, says Shirk, Tibet is considered a "core issue of
national sovereignty" on par with Taiwan. The implications for India's securityand the
world'sare ominous. It turns what was once an obscure argument over lines on a 1914 map and

82
Warming Core
some barren, rocky peaks hardly worth fighting over into a flash point that could spark a war between
two nuclear-armed neighbors. And that makes the India-China border dispute into an issue
of concern to far more than just the two parties involved. The United States and Europe as well as
the rest of Asia ought to take noticea conflict involving India and China could result in a nuclear
exchange. And it could suck the West ineither as an ally in the defense of Asian democracy,
as in the case of Taiwan, or as a mediator trying to separate the two sides.

Warming Core
83
Warming Bad Structural Violence

Warming enforces and entrenches societal exclusion and structural violence due to depleted
resources
Klare professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, 2006 (Michael. March 10 2006.
AlterNet The Coming Resource Wars http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243 NMS)
Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate
pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report
noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such
as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor."
Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and British
policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the
clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests
that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate
the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant
human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the
polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes
and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global
climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the
burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes.
This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand
thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the
most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an
environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on.
And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable.
But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of
the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed
by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of
entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring
conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt
climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying
capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create
a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a
greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their
populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is
already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be
replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with
greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is
this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the
inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change,
and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people
in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this
dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur
primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by
participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted
migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of
these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another
with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again.
But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring
states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and
natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy
needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and
reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make

84
Warming Core
one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its
social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and
storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes
over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however
affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.

Warming Core
85
Warming Turns Bio D

Warming destroys biodiversityLeads to extinction
Hansen, is member of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, an adjunct professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and at Columbias Earth Institute,
and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (PB)
As long as the total movement of isotherms toward the poles is much smaller than the size of the habitat, or the ranges in which the animals live, the effect on species is
limited. But now the
movement is inexorably toward the poles and totals more than one hun dred miles over the past
several decades. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm
movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade . Species at the most immediate risk
are those in polar climates and the biologically diverse slopes of alpine regions. Polar animals, in effect, will be pushed off the
planet. Alpine species will be pushed toward higher altitudes, and toward smaller, rockier areas with thinner air ; thus, in effect, they will also be pushed off the planet. A few
such species, such as polar bears, no doubt will be "rescued" by human beings, but survival in zoos or managed animal reserves will be small consolation to bears or nature
lovers. Earth's history provides an invaluable perspective about what is possible. Fossils
in the geologic record reveal that there have been

five mass extinctions during the past five hundred million years geologically brief periods in which about half
or more of the species on Earth disappeared forever . In each case, life survived and new species developed over hundreds of thousands and
millions of years. All these mass extinctions were associated with large and relatively rapid changes of atmospheric
composition and climate. In the most extreme extinction, the "end-Permian" event, dividing the Permian Triassic periods 251 million years
ago, nearly all life on Earth more than 90 percent of terrestrial and marine specieswas exterminated . None of the extinction
events is understood in full. Research is active, as increasingly powerful methods of "reading the rocks" are being developed. Yet enough is now known to
provide an invaluable perspective for what is already being called the sixth mass ex tinction, the human-caused
destruction of species. Knowledge of past extinction events can inform us about potential paths for the future and perhaps help guide our actions, as our
single powerful species threatens all others, and our own. We do not know how many animal, plant, insect, and microbe species exist today.
Nor do we know the rate we are driving species to extinction. About two million specieshalf of them being insects, including butterflieshave been cataloged, but more are
discovered every day. The order of magnitude for the total is perhaps ten million. Some biologists estimate that when all the microbes, fungi, and parasites are counted, there
may be one hundred million species. Bird species are documented better than most. Everybody has heard of the dodo, the passenger pigeon, the ivory-billed woodpeckerall
are goneand the whooping crane, which, so far, we have just barely "saved." We are still losing one or two bird species per year. In total about 1 percent of bird species have
disappeared over the past several centuries. If the
loss of birds is representative of other species, several thousand species are

becoming extinct each year. The current extinction rate is at least one hundred times greater than the average
natural rate. So the concern that humans may have initiated the sixth mass extinction is easy to understand.
However, the outcome is still very much up in the air, and human-made climate change is likely to be the determining factor. I will argue that if we continue on a
business-as-usual path, with a global warming of several degrees Celsius, then we will drive a large fraction of
species, conceivably all species, to extinction . On the other hand, just as in the case of ice sheet stability, if we bring atmospheric composition under
control in the near future, it is still possible to keep human-caus ed extinctions to a moderate level.
Biodiversity loss causes extinction

Young, PhD coastal marine ecology 2010 - (Ruth, Biodiversity: what it is and why its important, February
9th, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/biodiversity/biodiversity-what-and-why/ PB)
Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with
each other and the physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival. For example
plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as food,
medicines and timber. Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of of our food crops.
Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for many
fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by biodiversity, a team of researchers
estimated their value it amounted to $US33 trillion per year . By protecting biodiversity we maintain ecosystem
services Certain species play a keystone role in maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the
removal of these species can result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem
services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of
the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the
underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually
a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish
stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hances post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years,
over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of
control population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that
ecosystems provide for us, such as fisheries. One
could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we dont need to protect

biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and functional groups that fill the keystone roles.
However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for most ecosystems we dont know which species

86
Warming Core
are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in
maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem.
Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone species, what
back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or disease) led to the demise of these keystone species?
Would there be another species to save the day and take over this role? Classifying some species as keystone implies that the others
are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know
which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australias Great Barrier Reef. This research
examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The over-fishing was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from
them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem the coral became overgrown with algae. When the
time came to remove the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a
coral dominated ecosystem. But, surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed unimportant species the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was
previously thought to feed on invertebrates small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore a cow of the sea grazing the
Who knows how

many other species are out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases its easy to see who the keystone species are but in many
ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems. The more biodiverse an
ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future
impacts. Presently were only scratching the surface of understanding the full importance of biodiversity and how
it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy
for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve biodiversity . In doing so, we increase the chance of
maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This
is the international year of biodiversity a time to recognize that biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and
that our protection of biodiversity maintains this service.
algae in no time. So a fish previously thought to be unimportant is actually a keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae!

Warming Core
87
Warming Turns Heg

Warming collapses US heg
Smith, professor of Security Strategies at the Naval War College 11, former associate/assistant
professor with the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (Paul, The geopolitics of climate change: power
transitions, conflict and the future of military activities, Conflict, Security, & Development,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14678802.2011.593810, PB )
In particular, extreme weather events could create social, economic and political disruption for
developed countries and, in some cases, undermine public morale and confidence. Recent extreme
weather events demonstrate the persistent vulnerability of richer, powerful states to such scenarios. In Japan, a
heat wave in the summer of 2010 killed 66 people and resulted in more than 15,000 hospitalisations.62 In
2003, a heat wave in Europe killed at least, 35,000 people during a two-week period. Two years later,
Hurricane Katrina not only nearly destroyed an American city, it killed roughly 1,800 people,
left thousands homeless and displaced tens of thousands. Moreover, Hurricane Katrina had a
deleterious effect on Americans' psyche, just as the country was engaged in state-building
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The storm put the United States into an awkward position of
having been transformed into a major recipient of foreign financial assistance, for which the
American bureaucracy was ill-prepared.63 As in the case of the BRICS countries, adaptive capacity will
determine the degree to which climate change (and its varied effects) will influence current major powers. In
general, it is assumed that wealthier countries have, by virtue of available capital and other factors, high
adaptive capacity and that such capacities can effectively immunise these countries from the effects of climate
change. In reality, however, extreme climate change events can exceed adaptation measures, even
in wealthier, developed countries.64 Even when such investments are planned, they will compete
against other fiscal priorities, at a time when public debt-to-GDP ratios in richer, developed
countries are soaring.65 Thus, climate change potentially could affect the major powers by
undermining national resilience and public confidence. At the very least, the effects of climate
change (such as extreme weather events) could provoke a more inward political orientation in the
United States, European Union or Japan, as their respective populations demand their governments deploy
national assets (including military forces) solely for domestic disaster assistance or reconstruction missions.
This would also imply less willingness to act in the global commons or in countries (or continents) confronting
far less favourable conditions brought about by climate change.
Warming kills the navy stretches capabilities and destroys crucial basing
Broder Reporter at the NYT 11
[John, 3/10/2011, New York Times, Study Says Navy Must Adapt to Climate
Change, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/study-says-navy-must-adapt-to-climate-change/, 7-1213 KB
A report commissioned by the United States Navy concludes that climate change will pose profound
challenges for the sea service in coming decades, including a need to secure Arctic shipping lanes,
prepare for more frequent humanitarian missions and protect coastal installations from rising seas.
The 15-month study, conducted by the National Research Council, accepts the scientific consensus that
the climate is changing and that the effects are being felt now. Of particular consequence to American
naval forces the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are the melting polar ice cap, rising seas and
increasingly frequent severe storms and droughts that could lead to famine, mass migration
and political instability. The report from research council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences,
builds on previous work by the Pentagon, State Department, the intelligence community and independent
research groups that have concluded that climate change is a threat multiplier that adds new and
unpredictable dangers to global physical and political stability. The primary authors are Frank L. Bowman, a
retired Navy admiral who led the services nuclear propulsion unit, and Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., a
climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland,
College Park. They were assisted by a large number of climate and oceanography experts as well as corporate
planners and active-duty military officers. The group found that the precise impacts of climate

88
Warming Core
change are impossible to predict, but that actions should be undertaken now to prepare for a
range of outcomes. It also found that some impacts are already observable, including melting
sea ice in the Arctic and rising sea levels, and require planning and action by naval forces.
Even the most moderate predicted trends in climate change will present new national security
challenges for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, Mr. Bowman said. Naval forces
need to monitor more closely and start preparing now for projected challenges climate change
will present in the future. Summer sea ice is retreating at an estimated rate of 10 percent a decade, and
Arctic Ocean sea lanes could be open as early as the summer of 2030, the report found. Shipping, oil and
gas operations and other activities in the region will require an increased naval presence in the
region, new equipment such as icebreakers and increased cold-weather training, the authors write. The
report also concludes that the military should also be prepared for large-scale and frequent
missions to help people displaced by major storms or drought. The Navy should consider beefing up
its small complement of hospital ships, perhaps by contracting with private companies to provide extra
capability in emergencies, it said. What is more, major naval installations along the coasts are
vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges, and plans should be made to relocate some critical
facilities inland, the report contends, estimating that $100 billion of Navy installations would
be at risk of sea level rise of one meter or more. Although the future degree and magnitude of
climate change on regional scales is uncertain, its clear that the potential for environmental
disasters is on the rise due to the changing nature of the hydrologic cycle and sea level, Mr.
Busalacchi said. Naval forces must be prepared to provide more aid and disaster relief in the
decades ahead.
Warming destroys the US Navys ability to win the artic conflict facilitates belligerence
MSNBC 11
Navy's got new challenges with warming, experts say Report: Arctic role will grow; bases will be vulnerable to storms, rising
seas,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41990999/ns/us_news-environment/t/navys-got-new-challenges-warming-experts-say/, 7-12-13, KB
The U.S. Navy should plan for climate change impacts from costly base repairs, to mobilizing for
humanitarian aid and geopolitical conflicts in the Arctic the National Research Council said in a
report Thursday. "Even the most moderate predicted trends in climate change will present new
national security challenges," retired Adm. Frank Bowman, co-chair of the committee that wrote the
report at the Navy's request, said in a statement. "Naval forces need to monitor more closely and
start preparing now for projected challenges climate change will present in the future ," he
added. As rising temperatures continue to melt sea ice, Arctic sea lanes could be regularly
open across the Arctic by 2030, the report noted. The region is already seeing ships testing the
waters, as well as nations lining up to seek energy and mineral deposits. Russia has been among the
most aggressive in seeking energy riches, while Canada has beefed up its patrols. "The geopolitical
situation in the Arctic region has become complex and nuanced, despite the area being essentially
ignored since the end of the Cold War," the experts wrote. In order to protect U.S. interests, they
added, "the Navy should begin Arctic training and the Marine Corps should also reestablish a
cold-weather training program. Rising sea levels and more extreme storm surges tied to
warming could also become costly for the Navy. A rise of three feet , the experts said, would
place at risk 56 Navy installations worth $100 billion. The Navy should expect a rise by 2100
anywhere between a foot and six feet, they added. The report also urged the Navy to increase its
capacity for helping climate refugees via hospital ships. "Naval forces must be prepared to provide
more aid and disaster relief in the decades ahead," said panel co-chair Antonio Busalacchi,
director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland.

Warming Core
89
Warming Turns War

Global warming is real, feedbacks cause rapid escalation, and it causes population migrations
fueling political instability and failed states, escalating to nuclear war and extinction
Kaku , co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory, 11
(Michio Kaku, He received a B.S. (summa cum laude) from Harvard University in 1968 where he came first in
his physics class. (Physics of the Future http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the
%20Future.pdf PB)
By midcentury, the full impact of a fossil fuel economy should be in full swing: global warming. It is now
indisputable that the earth is heating up. Within the last century, the earths temperature rose 1.3
F, and the pace is accelerating. The signs are unmistakable everywhere we look: The thickness of Arctic
ice has decreased by an astonishing 50 percent in just the past fifty years. Much of this Arctic ice is
just below the freezing point, floating on water. Hence, it is acutely sensitive to small temperature
variations of the oceans, acting as a canary in a mineshaft, an early warning system. Today, parts of the
northern polar ice caps disappear during the summer months, and may disappear entirely during summer as
early as 2015. The polar ice cap may vanish permanently by the end of the century, disrupting the
worlds weather by altering the flow of ocean and air currents around the planet. Greenlands ice
shelves shrank by twenty-four square miles in 2007. This figure jumped to seventy-one square miles in 2008.
(If all the Greenland ice were somehow to melt, sea levels would rise about twenty feet around the world.)
Large chunks of Antarcticas ice, which have been stable for tens of thousands of years, are
gradually breaking off. In 2000, a piece the size of Connecticut broke off, containing 4,200 square miles of
ice. In 2002, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaites Glacier. (If all Antarcticas ice were to
melt, sea levels would rise about 180 feet around the world.) For every vertical foot that the ocean rises,
the horizontal spread of the ocean is about 100 feet. Already, sea levels have risen 8 inches in
the past century, mainly caused by the expansion of seawater as it heats up. According to the
United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Some scientists have said that the UN report
was too cautious in interpreting the data. According to scientists at the University of Colorados Institute of
Arctic and Alpine Research, by 2100 sea levels could rise by 3 to 6 feet. So gradually the map of the
earths coastlines will change. Temperatures started to be reliably recorded in the late 1700s; 1995, 2005, and
2010 ranked among the hottest years ever recorded; 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade. Likewise, levels
of carbon dioxide are rising dramatically. They are at the highest levels in 100,000 years. As the
earth heats up, tropical diseases are gradually migrating northward. The recent spread of the
West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes may be a harbinger of things to come. UN officials are
especially concerned about the spread of malaria northward. Usually, the eggs of many harmful insects
die every winter when the soil freezes. But with the shortening of the winter season, it means the
inexorable spread of dangerous insects northward. CARBONDIOXIDEGREENHOUSEGAS
According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists have concluded with 90
percent confidence that global warming is driven by human activity, especially the production
of carbon dioxide via the burning of oil and coal. Sunlight easily passes through carbon dioxide. But as
sunlight heats up the earth, it creates infrared radiation, which does not pass back through carbon dioxide so
easily. The energy from sunlight cannot escape back into space and is trapped. We also see a somewhat similar
effect in greenhouses or cars. The sunlight warms the air, which is prevented from escaping by the glass.
Ominously, the amount of carbon dioxide generated has grown explosively, especially in the last
century. Before the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the air was 270 parts per million
(ppm). Today, it has soared to 387 ppm. (In 1900, the world consumed 150 million barrels of oil. In 2000, it
jumped to 28 billion barrels, a 185-fold jump. In 2008, 9.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were sent into the air
from fossil fuel burning and also deforestation, but only 5 billion tons were recycled into the oceans, soil, and
vegetation. The remainder will stay in the air for decades to come, heating up the earth.) VISIT TO ICELAND
The rise in temperature is not a fluke, as we can see by analyzing ice cores. By drilling deep into the
ancient ice of the Arctic, scientists have been able to extract air bubbles that are thousands of years old. By
chemically analyzing the air in these bubbles, scientists can reconstruct the temperature and carbon
dioxide content of the atmosphere going back more than 600,000 years. Soon, they will be able to

90
Warming Core
determine the weather conditions going back a million years. I had a chance to see this firsthand. I once gave a
lecture in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and had the privilege of visiting the University of Iceland, where ice
cores are being analyzed. When your airplane lands in Reykjavik, at first all you see is snow and jagged rock,
resembling the bleak landscape of the moon. Although barren and forbidding, the terrain makes the Arctic an
ideal place to analyze the climate of the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. When I visited their
laboratory, which is kept at freezing temperatures, I had to pass through thick refrigerator doors. Once inside, I
could see racks and racks containing long metal tubes, each about an inch and a half in diameter and about ten
feet long. Each hollow tube had been drilled deep into the ice of a glacier. As the tube penetrated the ice, it
captured samples from snows that had fallen thousands of years ago. When the tubes were removed, I could
carefully examine the icy contents of each. At first, all I could see was a long column of white ice. But upon
closer examination, I could see that the ice had stripes made of tiny bands of different colors. Scientists have to
use a variety of techniques to date them. Some of the ice layers contain markers indicating important events,
such as the soot emitted from a volcanic eruption. Since the dates of these eruptions are known to great
accuracy, one can use them to determine how old that layer is. These ice cores were then cut in various slices so
they could be examined. When I peered into one slice under a microscope, I saw tiny, microscopic bubbles. I
shuddered to realize that I was seeing air bubbles that were deposited tens of thousands of years ago, even
before the rise of human civilization. The carbon dioxide content within each air bubble is easily measured. But
calculating the temperature of the air when the ice was first deposited is more difficult. (To do this, scientists
analyze the water in the bubble. Water molecules can contain different isotopes. As the temperature falls,
heavier water isotopes condense faster than ordinary water molecules. Hence, by measuring the amount of the
heavier isotopes, one can calculate the temperature at which the water molecule condensed.) Finally, after
painfully analyzing the contents of thousands of ice cores, these scientists have come to some important
conclusions. They found that temperature and carbon dioxide levels have oscillated in parallel , like
two roller coasters moving together, in synchronization over many thousands of years. When one curve
rises or falls, so does the other. Most important, they found a sudden spike in temperature and carbon
dioxide content happening just within the last century. This is highly unusual, since most fluctuations
occur slowly over millennia. This unusual spike is not part of this natural heating process, scientists
claim, but is a direct indicator of human activity. There are other ways to show that this sudden spike is
caused by human activity, and not natural cycles. Computer simulations are now so advanced that we
can simulate the temperature of the earth with and without the presence of human activity.
Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a relatively flat temperature curve. But with the
addition of human activity, we can show that there should be a sudden spike in both temperature
and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the amount
of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the earths surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of
heat that is reflected into outer space from the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with
input equaling output. But in reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then
if we calculate the amount of energy being produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human
activity is causing the current heating of the earth. Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing
any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the atmosphere is enough to continue global
warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire. Scientists have
created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels continue to rise.
Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated, with Wall
Street underwater. Governments will have to decide which of their great cities and capitals are
worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a combination of
sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish
under the ocean, creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and
population centers of the world are next to the ocean, this could have a disastrous effect on the
world economy. Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms
can send surges of water into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm
surge flooded Manhattan, paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation
flooded, the economy grinds to a halt. FLOODING BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM A report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isolated three hot spots for potential disaster: Bangladesh, the
Mekong Delta of Vietnam, and the Nile Delta in Egypt. The worst situation is that of Bangladesh, a country
regularly flooded by storms even without global warming. Most of the country is flat and at sea level. Although
it has made significant gains in the last few decades, it is still one of the poorest nations on earth, with one of

91
Warming Core
the highest population densities. (It has a population of 161 million, comparable to that of Russia, but with
1/120 of the land area.) About 50 percent of the land area will be permanently flooded if sea levels rise by three
feet. Natural calamities occur there almost every year, but in September 1998, the world witnessed in horror a
preview of what may become commonplace. Massive flooding submerged two-thirds of the nation, leaving 30
million people homeless almost overnight; 1,000 were killed, and 6,000 miles of roads were destroyed. This
was one of the worst natural disasters in modern history. Another country that would be devastated by a rise in
sea level is Vietnam, where the Mekong Delta is particularly vulnerable. By midcentury, this country of 87
million people could face a collapse of its main food-growing area. Half the rice in Vietnam is grown in the
Mekong Delta, home to 17 million people, and much of it will be flooded permanently by rising sea levels.
According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if sea levels
rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt water, permanently
destroying the fertile soil of the area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in Vietnam, many will flock to
Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the city will also be underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon
commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that showed that, in a worst-case scenario,
chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As millions of refugees cross
national borders, governments could lose all authority and collapse, so countries could descend
into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In this desperate situation, nations, when
faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to nuclear
weapons. Envision Pakistan, India, and Chinaall armed with nuclear weaponsskirmishing
at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land, the report said. Peter
Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of the Pentagon study, confided to
me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border between India
and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be driven out of
their homes, sparking one of the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could rapidly
rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass rioting breaks out. Schwartz
sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort. In a worst-case scenario, we could have a
greenhouse effect that feeds on itself. For example, the melting of the tundra in the Arctic regions
may release millions of tons of methane gas from rotting vegetation. Tundra covers nearly 9 million
square miles of land in the Northern Hemisphere, containing vegetation frozen since the last Ice Age tens of
thousands of years ago. This tundra contains more carbon dioxide and methane than the
atmosphere, and this poses an enormous threat to the worlds weather. Methane gas, moreover, is
a much deadlier greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It does not stay in the atmosphere as long, but it causes
much more damage than carbon dioxide. The release of so much methane gas from the melting
tundra could cause temperatures to rapidly rise, which will cause even more methane gas to be
released, causing a runaway cycle of global warming.

Warming Core
92
Warming Bad Water

Water Shortages are a form of structural violence driven by colonialism and present day
corporations plan breaks down oppression
Mukherjee 7 Joia S Mukherjee. Medical Director of Partners in Health. 2007. Structural
Violence, Poverty and the AIDS Pandemic http://www.palgravejournals.com/development/journal/v50/n2/full/1100376a.html
Current global inequalities are often the legacies of oppression, colonialism and slavery, and are
today perpetuated by radical, market-driven international financial policies that foment poor health.
Neo-liberal economic reforms imposed on poor countries by international financial institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank force poor governments, as the recipients of qualified loans,
to decrease their public sector budgets, privatize health services and, when they would rather invest their
minus- cule capital to protect their vulnerable citizens and educate their children, these recipient countries
are instead forced to march in lock step toward the free market, enforcing policies such as user fees for
health and primary education. In poor countries, revitalizing the public health infrastructure and
improving the delivery of es- sentials such as vaccination, sanitation and clean water are critical
aspects to remediating the structural violence that underlies disease. It is only with ongoing,
large-scale international assistance that poor governments will be able to address the right to health in a
sustained way. Advocacy to re- dress the violations of the basic right to health must recognize that more money
is needed for health now, and for decades to come. Further- more, the coercion by international
financial institutions of poor governments to restrict health spending only serves to deepen
inequalities in health care and perpetuate social injustice.
Water wars will go nuclear
Weiner 90 (Jonathan, Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University, The Next One
Hundred Years: Shaping Fate of Our Living Earth, p214)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the
C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the
other. Already in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates,
tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts
describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in the single battle-scarred nexus might trigger
international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has
stockpiled since Trinity.

Warming Core
93
XT Water
Water shortages will lead to conflict and nuclear war between India and Pakistan
Lynas, Environmental Journalist, 2008 (Mark National Geographic Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter
Planet National 336p.)
With India particularly dependent on hydroelectric power generation, dwindling summer flows
may lead to blackouts and energy shortages during the hottest months of the year. Two of the
Indus River's major tributaries-the Chenab and the Sutlej-arise in India and flow into Pakistan. Both
will also be suffering the effects of deglaciation in their upper reaches. Conflicts may well break
out between these two nuclear-armed countries as water supplies dwindle and political leaders
quarrel over how much can be stored behind dams in upstream reservoirs.

Warming Core
94
Warming Good

Warming Core
95
Defense

Warming Core
96
Warming Fake Generic

Warming not real - 30,000 scientists signed a petition saying warming is flat-out nonexistent their data is skewed
Bell 12 (Larry Bell, Prof at Univ of Houston, Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, 7/17/2012,
"That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!," Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/2/)
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines,
including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that
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 Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. Included are atmospheric
physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. So where did that famous
consensus claim that 98% of all scientists believe in global warming come from? It originated from
an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an
intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two
researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered yes to the second
question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small
subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peerreviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That 98% all scientists
referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered yes. That anything-butscientific survey asked two questions. The first: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Few would be
expected to dispute thisthe planet began thawing out of the Little Ice Age in the middle 19th century,
predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly
10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? So what constitutes significant?
Does changing include both cooling and warming and for both better and worse? And
which contributionsdoes this include land use changes, such as agriculture and
deforestation?
WARMING NOT REAL - 31,000 SCIENTISTS AGREE
PolicyMic No date
(Policymic.com A really inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real No date
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real)
Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their
belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by sci ence. This has not been getting the
attention it deserves because politicians (looking at you Al Gore) are frankly embarrassed to admit that
they are wrong about the phenomenon known as global warming. Not only has our planet stopped
warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period.
New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily
Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data
from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report
suggests we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be
significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted
theory among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even
proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling.
I share the same frustration in the political and scientific community that the sixteen scientists express. Why
did we all hop on board the global warming bandwagon started by politicians when the scientific community
didnt back it? Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed apetition agreeing with the fact that there

97
Warming Core
is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for
some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.
Their quals argument dont apply here
Wilson 12 (GLOBAL WARMING: THE SATELLITES DON'T LIE March 3, 2012 7:48 AM | 7 Comments
James A. Wilson
Over the summer Forbes Magazine published NASA satellite data indicating the alarmist
predictions - even the UN computer models on which they were based - are dead wrong. The
study, reported in the peer reviewed journal, Remote Sensing, correlates data from 2000
through 2011. It shows two phenomena surprising to the apostles of doom in the scientific and
political community. There is much less heat being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse
gases - or any other cause - than the models portend, and a lot more of it is being released
naturally into space. This is especially true over the oceans. James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for
environmental policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment and Climate News
authored the Forbes article. Credentials don't get any more impeccable.
Consensus of NASA and NOAA satellite data shows no warming
James A. Wilson
The latest satellite gathered information is consistent with NOAA and NASA data showing
humidity and the formation of cirrus clouds has lagged far behind alarmist predictions as well.
These findings, and those of NASA's ERBS satellite show similar patterns of heat exhange for
the years 1985 to 1999. In other words, we are simply not going to hell in a climate change hand
basket.

Warming Core
98
Warming Fake Not Anthro

Not anthropogenic multiple warrants
Spencer 12 (Roy, former NASA climatologist and author, Ten Years After the Warming, 2/26,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/)
As can be seen, in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all
temperature datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at
the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up
though a few days ago: So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not
that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are
supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system.
One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming. There are
5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed: 1) cooling from
anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling out warming from more greenhouse gases 2)
natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun is cancelling out the GHG
warming 3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep
ocean 4) the temperature sensitivity of the climate system is not as large as the IPCC assumes.
5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself Of course, some
combination of the above 5 explanations is also possible. The 1st possibility (aerosol cooling is cancelling out
GHG forcing) is one of the more popular explanations with the climate modelers, and especially with NASAs
James Hansen. The uncertain strength (and even sign) of aerosol forcing allows the climate
modelers to use aerosols as a tuning knob (aka fudge factor) in making their models produce
warming more-or-less consistent with past observations . Using an assumed large aerosol cooling to
cancel out the GHG warming allows the modelers to retain high climate sensitivity, and thus the fear
of strong future warming if those aerosols ever dissipate. The 2nd possibility (natural cooling) is a
much less desirable explanation for the IPCC crowd because it opens the door to Mother Nature having
as much or more influence on the climate system than do humans . We cant have that, you know.
Then you would have to consider the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 years was
natural, too. Goodbye, AGW funding. The 3rd possibility (increased ocean mixing) is one of the more legitimate possibilities, at least
theoretically. Its popular with NCARs Kevin Trenberth. But one would need more observational evidence this is happening before embracing the idea.
Unfortunately, how vertical mixing in the ocean naturally varies over time is poorly understood; the different IPCC models have
widely varying strengths of mixing, and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in the global
warming debate, as is aerosol cooling. I believe much of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be
due to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system.
The 4th possibility (the climate system is relatively insensitive to forcing ) is the top contender in the opinion of
myself, Dick Lindzen, and
a few other climate researchers who work in this field . The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs
dont really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC. Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding
would normally be Nobel Prize territoryexcept that the Nobel Prize has become more of a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically
correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites dont like the idea humans might not be destroying the Earth. The longer
we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something
seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I dont think there is a certain number of years 5, 10, 20, etc. which will disprove
the science of AGW.unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.
Warming not anthropogenic based on Earths natural cycles

De Blij 9 (Harm, John A. Hannah Professor of Geography at Michigan State University, is
author of The Power of Place: Geography, Destiny, and Globalization (Oxford University Press,
2009).
So might the greenhouse-effect-enhancing gases we are pouring into the atmosphere counter a
cooling trend rather than exacerbate a warming swing? No doubt about it: the numerous cycles axial,
solar, orbital, oceanic, atmospheric that generate natures environmental seesaws continue even as
humanity has become a major factor in the process through massive modification of the
planetary atmosphere. But supercomputer models and IPCC projections notwithstanding, no one knows the
proportional contribution to the current phase of climate change from natural and human
sources. Contrary to what some scientists are asserting, we do not know with any satisfactory
level of confidence what form climate change would be taking today in the absence of human

99
Warming Core
interference. What is clear is that humans have become an additional factor driving climate change, and that reducing the rate of pollution of the
atmosphere should have priority as a public health as well as environmental matter. But dont expect a reward in the form of
stopping climate change. Ice ages will continue to come and go. Glaciers will wax and wane.
Sea levels will fall and rise. Species, cultures, and civilizations will flourish and fail. Natures
power will prevail.

Warming Core
100
Warming Fake CO2 Not key

CO2 IS NOT THE SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING -- CFCS ARE
Bastasch 5/30/13 (Michael Bastach, REPORT: CO2 IS NOT RESPOSNIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING
May 30, 2013 http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/report-co2-not-responsible-for-global-warming/2/
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) not carbon emissions are the real culprit behind global
warming, claims a new study out of the University of Waterloo. Conventional thinking says that the
emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But
we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional
understanding is wrong, said Qing-Bin Lu, a science professor at the University of Waterloo and author of the
study. In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar
ozone hole and global warming, Lu said. Ads by Google Ads by CouponDropDown Lus findings were
published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B and analyzed data from 1850 to the present. Lus
study runs counter to the long-standing argument that carbon dioxide emissions were the driving force behind
global warming. Recently scientists warned that carbon concentrations were nearing the 400 parts per million
level. Scientists say that carbon dioxide levels must be lowered to 350 ppm to avoid the severe impacts of global
warming. The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone and should serve as a wake-up call for all of us to
support clean-energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases before its too late for our children
and grandchildren, said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher who is a member of the
Scripps CO2 Group. Lu notes that data from 1850 to 1970 show carbon emissions increasing due to the
Industrial Revolution. However, global temperatures stayed constant. The conventional warming
model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6C over the same period, similar
to the period of 1970-2002, reads the studys press release. Ads by Google CFCs are nontoxic,
nonflammable chemicals containing atoms of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine that are used to make aerosol
sprays, blowing agents for foams and packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants according to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Montreal Protocol phased out the production of CFCs
as they were believed to be linked to ozone depletion. According to the National Institutes of Health, CFCs are
considered a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, because they absorb heat in the atmosphere and send some
of it back to the earths surface, which contributes to global warming.
From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim, writes global warming blogger Anthony Watt.
While plausible, due to the fact that CFCs have very high [Global Warming Potential] numbers, their
atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by
comparison to CO2.
This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation, Watt added. But, I have to admit, the graph is
visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid,
Id say it is a case of further study is needed, and worth funding.
When Barack Obama promised to slow the earths rising sea levels and heal the planet during the 2008
campaign, he probably had no idea that curbing carbon dioxide emissions might not lower the sea levels. A
study published in the Journal of Geodesy found that the sea level has only risen by 1.7 millimeters per year
over the last 110 years about 6.7 inches per century all while carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have
risen by a third, suggesting that rising carbon concentrations have not impacted the rate at which sea
levels are rising. The study used data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment satellite mission
and analyzed continental mass variations on a global scale, including both land-ice and land-water
contributions, for 19 continental areas that exhibited significant signals over a nine-year period from 2002 to
2011. The results echoed a study conducted last year, which also found that sea level has been rising on
average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years. This was also suggested by two other studies conducted in the
last decade. The latest results show once again that sea levels are not accelerating after all, and are
merely continuing their modest rise at an unchanged rate, said Pierre Gosselin, who runs the
climate skeptic blog NoTricksZone. The more alarmist sea level rise rates some have claimed recently stem
from the use of statistical tricks and the very selective use of data. Fortunately, these fudged alarmist rates do
not agree with real-life observations. Overall the latest computed rates show that there is absolutely nothing to
be alarmed about. Other experts agree, citing data regarding the Earths rate of rotation. For the last 4050 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions, writes Nils-Axel

101
Warming Core
Mrner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University , in the
Journal Energy and Environment. The Earths rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012,
contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea
levels. But in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, U.S. coastal states have been more concerned about the possible
effects of global warming on rising sea levels. A report by 21 U.S. scientists, commissioned by Maryland
Democratic Gov. Martin OMalley, found that the sea levels are rising faster than they predicted five years ago.
Florida Keys residents are also concerned about sea levels by the island that have risen 9 inches in the past
decade, according to a tidal gauge that has operated since pre-Civil War days. It doesnt need a lot of rocket
science, said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
Weve got tide gauges that show us sea level is increasing. This is a real phenomenon. We should take it
seriously and have to plan for it. The Maryland report found that ocean waters and the Chesapeake Bay
might only rise about one foot by 2050, but the studys authors said that it would be prudent to plan for a twofoot rise in sea levels to account for the risks of flooding caused by storms. The state has already seen sea levels
rise by about a foot in the past century half coming from the natural sinking of the land and the other half
coming from rising seas from a warming ocean. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also announced
a $20 billion plan to adapt to global warming to prepare the city for rising sea levels and hotter summers. A
report commissioned by New York City found that the number of sweltering summer days could double, maybe
even triple, and that waters surrounding the city could rise by 2 feet or more New York City can do nothing
and expose ourselves to an increasing frequency of Sandy-like storms that do more and more damage,
Bloomberg remarked. Or we can make the investments necessary to build a stronger, more resilient New York
investments that will pay for themselves many times over in the years go to come.

Warming Core
102
XT Adaptation
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts---warming wont cause war
Singer et al 11, Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the
International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist
and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder
and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological
Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate
Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including
the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and
deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth
century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on societys
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and
human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain
technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater wealth and
technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated. Even
accepting the IPCCs and Stern Reviews worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded
annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in
developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in
2200. Thus, even developing countries future ability to cope with climate change would be
much better than that of the U.S. today. The IPCCs embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found even the best
biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity (Delucchi, 2010).
Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops
and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worlds
demand for fuels. The notion that global warming might cause war and social unrest is not
only wrong, but even backwards that is, global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the
past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and social
stability.

Warming Core
103
XT No Warming
Their quals argument dont apply here

James A. Wilson
Over the summer Forbes Magazine published NASA satellite data indicating the alarmist
predictions - even the UN computer models on which they were based - are dead wrong. The
study, reported in the peer reviewed journal, Remote Sensing, correlates data from 2000
through 2011. It shows two phenomena surprising to the apostles of doom in the scientific and
political community. There is much less heat being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse
gases - or any other cause - than the models portend, and a lot more of it is being released
naturally into space. This is especially true over the oceans. James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for
environmental policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment and Climate News
authored the Forbes article. Credentials don't get any more impeccable.
Consensus of NASA and NOAA satellite data shows no warming

James A. Wilson
The latest satellite gathered information is consistent with NOAA and NASA data showing
humidity and the formation of cirrus clouds has lagged far behind alarmist predictions as well.
These findings, and those of NASA's ERBS satellite show similar patterns of heat exhange for
the years 1985 to 1999. In other words, we are simply not going to hell in a climate change hand
basket.

Warming Core
104
XT Negative Feedbacks Solves

History proves that water vapor is a negative feedback- this renders their evidence obselete
McShane 8 (Owen, the chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and
director of the Center for Resource Management Studies, 4-4-8, The National Business Review (New Zealand),
Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled, Lexis)
The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against
the warming effect of CO2. That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as
increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback - while we do not hear
about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, is known for being benignly warm not dangerously hot. We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned cold.
While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain highly technical and many people
distrust their own ability to assess competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point
theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and clouds. The new Nasa
Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new
data means all previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term forecasts of
farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall? The implications of these breakthroughs in
measurement and understanding are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.

Warming Core
105
Impact Defense

Warming Core
106
Warming Uniqueness Inevitable

Cease in Gases Wont Stop Warming From Being Inevitable
Solomon, Atmospheric Chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , 2010
[Susan, 11-11-10, National Academy of Sciences, Persistence of Climate Changes Due To A Range Of
Greenhouse Gases, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2972948/]
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases increased over the course of the
20th century due to human activities. The human-caused increases in these gases are the primary
forcing that accounts for much of the global warming of the past fifty years, with carbon dioxide
being the most important single radiative forcing agent (1). Recent studies have shown that the human-caused
warming linked to carbon dioxide is nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 y, even if emissions of
the gas were to cease entirely (25). The importance of the ocean in taking up heat and slowing the
response of the climate system to radiative forcing changes has been noted in many studies (e.g., refs. 6 and 7).
The key role of the oceans thermal lag has also been highlighted by recent approaches to proposed metrics for
comparing the warming of different greenhouse gases (8, 9). Among the observations attesting to the
importance of these effects are those showing that climate changes caused by transient volcanic aerosol loading
persist for more than 5 y (7, 10), and a portion can be expected to last more than a century in the ocean (1113);
clearly these signals persist far longer than the radiative forcing decay timescale of about 1218 mo for the
volcanic aerosol (14, 15). Thus the observed climate response to volcanic events suggests that some persistence
of climate change should be expected even for quite short-lived radiative forcing perturbations. It follows that
the climate changes induced by short-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane
or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) may not decrease in concert with decreases in concentration if
the anthropogenic emissions of those gases were to be eliminated. In this paper, our primary goal is
to show how different processes and timescales contribute to determining how long the climate changes due to
various greenhouse gases could be expected to remain if anthropogenic emissions were to cease. Advances in
modeling have led to improved AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) as well as to Earth
Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs). Although a detailed representation of the climate system changes
on regional scales can only be provided by AOGCMs, the simpler EMICs have been shown to be useful,
particularly to examine phenomena on a global average basis. In this work, we use the Bern 2.5CC EMIC (see
Materials and Methods and SI Text), which has been extensively intercompared to other EMICs and to complex
AOGCMs (3, 4). It should be noted that, although the Bern 2.5CC EMIC includes a representation of the surface
and deep ocean, it does not include processes such as ice sheet losses or changes in the Earths albedo linked to
evolution of vegetation. However, it is noteworthy that this EMIC, although parameterized and simplified,
includes 14 levels in the ocean; further, its global ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity are near the mean
of available complex models, and its computed timescales for uptake of tracers into the ocean have been shown
to compare well to observations (16). A recent study (17) explored the response of one AOGCM to a sudden stop
of all forcing, and the Bern 2.5CC EMIC shows broad similarities in computed warming to that study (see Fig.
S1), although there are also differences in detail. The climate sensitivity (which characterizes the long-term
absolute warming response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) is 3 C for the model
used here. Our results should be considered illustrative and exploratory rather than fully quantitative given the
limitations of the EMIC and the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. Results One Illustrative Scenario to 2050.
In the absence of mitigation policy, concentrations of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide can be expected to increase in this century. If emissions were to cease,
anthropogenic CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere by a series of processes operating at different
timescales (18). Over timescales of decades, both the land and upper ocean are important sinks. Over centuries
to millennia, deep oceanic processes become dominant and are controlled by relatively well-understood physics
and chemistry that provide broad consistency across models (see, for example, Fig. S2 showing how the
removal of a pulse of carbon compares across a range of models). About 20% of the emitted anthropogenic
carbon remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years (with a range across models
including the Bern 2.5CC model being about 19 4% at year 1000 after a pulse emission; see ref. 19), until much
slower weathering processes affect the carbonate balance in the ocean (e.g., ref. 18). Models with stronger
carbon/climate feedbacks than the one considered here could display larger and more persistent warmings due
to both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, through reduced land and ocean uptake of carbon in a warmer
world. Here our focus is not on the strength of carbon/climate feedbacks that can lead to differences in the

107
Warming Core
carbon concentration decay, but rather on the factors that control the climate response to a given decay. The
removal processes of other anthropogenic gases including methane and nitrous oxide are much more simply
described by exponential decay constants of about 10 and 114 y, respectively (1), due mainly to known chemical
reactions in the atmosphere. In this illustrative study, we do not include the feedback of changes in methane
upon its own lifetime (20). We also do not account for potential interactions between CO2 and other gases,
such as the production of carbon dioxide from methane oxidation (21), or changes to the carbon cycle through,
e.g., methane/ozone chemistry (22). Fig. 1 shows the computed future global warming contributions for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide for a midrange scenario (23) of projected future anthropogenic emissions
of these gases to 2050. Radiative forcings for all three of these gases, and their spectral overlaps, are
represented in this work using the expressions assessed in ref. 24. In 2050, the anthropogenic emissions are
stopped entirely for illustration purposes. The figure shows nearly irreversible warming for at least 1,000 y due
to the imposed carbon dioxide increases, as in previous work. All published studies to date, which use multiple
EMICs and one AOGCM, show largely irreversible warming due to future carbon dioxide increases (to within
about 0.5 C) on a timescale of at least 1,000 y (35, 25, 26). Fig. 1 shows that the calculated future warmings
due to anthropogenic CH4 and N2O also persist notably longer than the lifetimes of these gases. The figure
illustrates that emissions of key non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CH4 or N2O could lead to warming that
both temporarily exceeds a given stabilization target (e.g., 2 C as proposed by the G8 group of nations and in
the Copenhagen goals) and remains present longer than the gas lifetimes even if emissions were to cease. A
number of recent studies have underscored the important point that reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions are an approach that can indeed reverse some past climate changes (e.g., ref. 27). Understanding
how quickly such reversal could happen and why is an important policy and science question. Fig. 1 implies
that the use of policy measures to reduce emissions of short-lived gases will be less effective as a rapid climate
mitigation strategy than would be thought if based only upon the gas lifetime. Fig. 2 illustrates the factors
influencing the warming contributions of each gas for the test case in Fig. 1 in more detail, by showing
normalized values (relative to one at their peaks) of the warming along with the radiative forcings and
concentrations of CO2 , N2O, and CH4 . For example, about two-thirds of the calculated warming due
to N2O is still present 114 y (one atmospheric lifetime) after emissions are halted, despite the fact
that its excess concentration and associated radiative forcing at that time has dropped to about
one-third of the peak value.
Warming is Ineluctable
Longley, Environmental Protection Agent
[Robert, US Government Info,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/climatetochange.htm]
Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and a greater increase in sea level
are inevitable during this century, according to a new study performed by a team of climate modelers at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Indeed, say the researchers, whose
work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), globally averaged surface air temperatures
would still rise one degree Fahrenheit (about a half degree Celsius) by the year 2100, even if no more
greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. And the resulting transfer of heat into the oceans
would cause global sea levels to rise another 4 inches (11 centimeters) from thermal expansion alone.
The team's findings are published in this week's issue of the journal "Science." This study is another in a
series that employs increasingly sophisticated simulation techniques to understand the complex interactions of
the Earth, says Cliff Jacobs of NSFs atmospheric sciences division. These studies often yield results that are
not revealed by simpler approaches and highlight unintended consequences of external factors interacting with
Earths natural systems. Many people dont realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of
global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere,
says lead author Jerry Meehl. Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will
continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level rise. The longer we wait, the more
climate change we are committed to in the future. The half-degree temperature rise predicted by the NCAR
modelers is similar to what was actually observed by the end of the 20th century, but the projected sea level
rise is more than twice the 3-inch (5-centimeter) rise that was observed then. Moreover, these forecasts do not
take into account any fresh water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, which could at least double the sea-level
rise caused by thermal expansion alone. The models also predict a weakening of the North Atlantic

108
Warming Core
thermohaline circulation, which currently warms Europe by transporting heat from the tropics.
Even so, Europe heats up along with the rest of the planet because of the overwhelming effect of
greenhouse gases. Though the study finds signs that the temperature rise will level off some 100 years after
the greenhouse gases stabilize, it also finds that ocean waters will continue to warm and expand
beyond then, causing global sea level to rise unabated.
Mass Reduction of Green House Gases Wont Cease Warming
Idso, Founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Craig, Keith, and Sherwood, 12-11, Recent Reflection of Sea Level Rise Reflect Poorly On IPCC,
http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N50/EDIT.php]
It has long been the practice of the world's climate alarmists to promote fear about the future in
terms of anthropogenic-CO2-induced increases in various types of climatic extremes. As noted by
Lee (2011), for example, "in 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested
that, for a 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas forcing scenario, global sea level could rise by 8-29
cm by 2030 and 31-110 cm by 2100," as reported by Houghton et al. (1990), which report also stated that
"even with substantial decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases, future rises in sea level
were unavoidable owing to 'lags in the climate system'." And he also noted that "the Second World Climate
Conference (Jager and Ferguson, 1991) reached similar conclusions, which in the case of the British Isles was
that there could be a [sea level] rise of between 50 and 70 cm over the next 100 years." Noting that "the IPCC
projections set the framework for the coastal policy response to sea-level rise in England and Wales," which
was developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, 1991), Lee says it was widely
predicted that the expected relative sea-level rise (RSLR) would result in an increase in wave energy at the base
of coastal cliffs that would lead to accelerated cliff recession that "inevitably would lead to increased risk to
properties behind actively retreating cliff-lines," adding that Bray and Hooke (1997) suggested that "significant
increases in recession rate could be expected to occur," as their analysis pointed towards "a 22-133% increase
in cliff recession rates on the south coast of England by 2050." As a result of these projections, Lee decided to
analyze the most recent 50-year recession records of the United Kingdom's Holderness Cliffs, stating that
"twenty years on from the IPCC First Assessment Report seems an appropriate moment to reflect on what has
actually happened." So what did he find? As Lee describes it, "relative sea level has risen over the second half
of the 20th century," and "so have Holderness cliff recession rates, from around 1.2 m/year in the early 1950s
to around 1.5 m/year by 2000." However, as he continues, "there has been no significant acceleration in the
rate of global sea-level rise since 1990 and no rapid increase in the recession rate." Thus, he states that
"predictions of 20-year recession distances made in the early 1990s that took account of the RSLR advice from
MAFF (1991) are likely to have overestimated the risk to cliff-top property and the benefits of coast
protection." In a candid expression of his feelings after conducting his analysis, Lee writes that "as someone
who was heavily involved in providing technical support to policymakers through the research and
development of methods for predicting cliff recession that took account of RSLR (see Lee et al., 2001; Hall et
al., 2000; Lee and Clark, 2002; Lee, 2005), I feel somewhat awkward about the absence of accelerated cliff
recession over the last two decades," acknowledging that "perhaps we were all too keen to accept the
unquestioned authority of the IPCC and their projections." Thus, he ends by stating "I am left with the feeling
that a healthy skepticism of the climate change industry might not be such a bad thing," suggesting that people
see, in this regard, the report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was edited by Idso and
Singer (2009).
Green House Gases Are Too Abundant, Leading To Warming
Roach, 2005
[John, 3-17-2005, National Geographic News, Global Warming Unstoppable For 100 Years, Study Says,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html
Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrownot likelywe've already spewed enough
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for
at least another century. That's the message from two studies appearing in tomorrow's issue of the
journalScience. Researchers used computer models of the global climate system to put numbers to the
concept of thermal inertiathe idea that global climate changes are delayed because it water takes longer to

109
Warming Core
heat up and cool off than air does. The oceans are the primary drivers of the global climate. "Even if you
stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases, you are still committed to a certain amount of
climate change no matter what you do because of the lag in the ocean," said Gerald Meehl, a climate
scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Greenhouse gases such
as carbon dioxide collect in the atmosphere and are believed to act as a blanket, trapping heat
and causing the Earth to warm. To stop this warming, many scientists say humans must reduce the
amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Human activities that make the largest contributions to greenhouse
gases include exhaust fumes from automobiles and commercial jets and emissions from power stations and
factories. "The longer you wait to do something, the more climate change you are committed to
in the future," Meehl said.
More evidence- theres too much CO2 in the air even if we stop
Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, 8
(James E. Hanson.. Al Gores science advisor. Introductory chapter for the book State of the Wild. Tipping
point: Perspective of a Scientist. April. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf)
The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks is that additional climate change is
already in the pipeline: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming
will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present status of Earths climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past
12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and
Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene.3 The warming that
has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together
have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate
state includes large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic
ice sheet, and much of Greenlands ice. Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these
feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an environment far
outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within
any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of
coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas
through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a
great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater
source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
Too late
Rahn 11
(Richard W. Rahn, 1/25/2011, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, Obama's regulatory
reform test, Lexis)
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding up the permitting of
new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it will cause a significant drop in U.S. economic growth and job creation, yet it will have no
measurable benefit. China, India and many other countries are rapidly increasing CO2 emissions,
overwhelming whatever actions the United States may take. Even if all new CO2 emissions were
stopped globally, it would be decades before there would be even a minor effect on global
temperatures. Now, new research is indicating that sunspot activity is much more important than CO2 when
it comes to influencing the earths temperature. The EPA ban is nothing more than national
economic suicide. Let us see if Mr. Obama has the courage to tell the EPA to stop.
Ice melting irreversibly now
FP 11
(Foreign Policy, Beating a retreat, http://www.economist.com/node/21530079, September 24, 2011)
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square
miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record lownot quite. But the
actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from
mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the
fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979 ,
when satellite records began, and
there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any
time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age. That Arctic sea ice is

110
Warming Core
disappearing has been known for decades. The underlying cause is believed by all but a handful of climatologists
to be global warming brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions . Yet the rate the ice is vanishing confounds these
climatologists' models. These predict that if the level of carbon dioxide, methane and so on in the atmosphere
continues to rise, then the Arctic Ocean will be free of floating summer ice by the end of the
century. At current rates of shrinkage, by contrast, this looks likely to happen some time between 2020 and 2050. The reason
is that Arctic air is warming twice as fast as the atmosphere as a whole . Some of the causes of this are
understood, but some are not. The darkness of land and water compared with the reflectiveness of snow
and ice means that when the latter melt to reveal the former, the area exposed absorbs more
heat from the sun and reflects less of it back into space. The result is a feedback loop that
accelerates local warming. Such feedback, though, does not completely explain what is happening. Hence the search for other things that
might assist the ice's rapid disappearance. Forcing the issue One is physical change in the ice itself. Formerly a solid mass that
melted and refroze at its edges, it is now thinner, more fractured, and so more liable to melt. But that is (literally and
figuratively) a marginal effect. Filling the gap between model and reality may need something besides this. The latest candidates are
short-term climate forcings. These are pollutants, particularly ozone and soot, that do not hang around
in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide does, but have to be renewed continually if they are to have a lasting
effect. If they are so renewed, though, their impact may be as big as CO2's. At the moment, most eyes are on soot (or black carbon, as
jargon-loving researchers refer to it). In the Arctic, soot is a double whammy. First, when released into the air as a result of
incomplete combustion (from sources as varied as badly serviced diesel engines and forest fires), soot particles absorb
sunlight, and so warm up the atmosphere. Then, when snow or rain wash them onto an ice floe,
they darken its surface and thus cause it to melt faster. Reducing soot (and also ozone, an industrial pollutant
that acts as a greenhouse gas) would not stop the summer sea ice disappearing , but it might delay the process by a decade or
two. According to a recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme, reducing black carbon and ozone in the lower part of the atmosphere,
especially in the Arctic countries of America, Canada, Russia and Scandinavia, could cut warming in the Arctic by two-thirds over the next three decades.
Indeed, the report suggests, if such measurespreventing crop burning and forest fires, cleaning up diesel engines and wood stoves, and so onwere
adopted everywhere they could halve the wider rate of warming by 2050. Without corresponding measures to cut CO2 emissions, this would be but a
temporary fix. Nonetheless, it is an attractive idea because it would have other benefits (soot is bad for people's lungs) and would not require the
wholesale rejigging of energy production which reducing CO2 emissions implies. Not everyone agrees it would work, though. Gunnar Myhre of the
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, for example, notes that the amount of black carbon in the
Arctic is small and has been falling in recent decades. He does not believe it is the missing
factor in the models. Carbon dioxide, in his view, is the main culprit. Black carbon deposited on the Arctic snow and ice, he says, will have
only a minimal effect on its reflectivity. The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice , then, illuminates the difficulty of
modelling the climatebut not in a way that brings much comfort to those who hope that fears about the future climate might prove
exaggerated. When reality is changing faster than theory suggests it should, a certain amount of
nervousness is a reasonable response . It's an ill wind The direct consequences of changes in the Arctic are mixed. They should
not bring much rise in the sea level, since floating ice obeys Archimedes's principle and displaces its own mass of water. A darkerand so more
heat-absorbentArctic, though, will surely accelerate global warming and may thus encourage melting of the
land-bound Greenland ice sheet. That certainly would raise sea levels (though not as quickly as News
Corporation's cartographers suggest in the latest edition of the best-selling Times Atlas, which claims that 15% of the Greenland sheet has melted in the
past 12 years; the true figure is more like 0.05%). Wildlife will also suffer . Polar bears, which hunt for seals along the ice's edge, and
walruses, which fish there, will both be hard-hit.
All their impacts are inevitable

Sterlicchi 9
(John Sterlicchi, BusinessGreen, US report says rising sea levels inevitable,
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1805554/us-report-rising-sea-levels-inevitable, January 29, 2009)
Some of the effects of global warming will be irreversible and others may last for at least 1,000 years,
according to a new US government-sponsored report. The study, led by researchers at the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and paid for by the Department of Energy, paints a depressing picture of the
future caused by increased CO2 emissions. If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, said the
report, the result will be less dry-season rainfall that will be reminiscent of the 1930s Dust Bowl
era in the US. There will be decreases in drinking water supplies, increased fire frequency and an
end to dry-season farming of wheat and maize. Regions that will be affected are southern Europe,
northern and southern Africa, southwestern US, and western Australia. Also, if CO2 peaks at 600ppm, global
water levels will rise by as much as one metre. If it peaks at 1,000ppm, the rise will double. Rising sea
levels would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth,
since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged," the report said.

111
Warming Core
Those grim predictions of rising sea levels also did not take into account the melting of ice at
both poles, as the result of that was unpredictable. "People have imagined that if we stopped
emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that is
not true," the head of the research team, Susan Solomon, said in a teleconference. This is because of the
role played by the world's oceans. Currently the oceans are absorbing the CO2 and keeping the
planet cool but in the future they will become saturated.

Warming Core
112
Tech Solves
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts---warming wont cause war
Singer et al 11, Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the
International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist
and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder
and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological
Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate
Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including
the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and
deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth
century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on societys
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and
human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain
technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater wealth and
technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated. Even
accepting the IPCCs and Stern Reviews worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded
annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in
developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in
2200. Thus, even developing countries future ability to cope with climate change would be
much better than that of the U.S. today. The IPCCs embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found even the best
biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity (Delucchi, 2010).
Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops
and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worlds
demand for fuels. The notion that global warming might cause war and social unrest is not
only wrong, but even backwards that is, global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the
past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and social
stability.

Warming Core
113
XT Cant Solve
Asia pollution offsets any US action global warming is inevitable
Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, 12
(Chip, Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions 7/12/06,
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/, 06/asian-air-pollution-warming/)
The whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced
by U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions. So, whats the point of forcing Americans into different energy choices? A
new study provides evidence that air pollution emanating from Asia will warm the U.S. as much or
more than warming from U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The implication? Efforts by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (and otherwise) to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is moot. If the future temperature rise in
the U.S. is subject to the whims of Asian environmental and energy policy, then what sense does it make for Americans to
have their energy choices regulated by efforts aimed at mitigating future temperature increases
across the countryefforts which will have less of an impact on temperatures than the policies
enacted across Asia? Maybe the EPA should reconsider the perceived effectiveness of its greenhouse gas emission regulationsat least when
it comes to impacting temperatures across the U.S. New Study A new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is
authored by a team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper is titled Potential Impacts
of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US Warming. Skipping the details of this climate modeling study and cutting to the chase, here is the abstract of the
paper: This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US
climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed
carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005
2024. The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating
anomalies that force large-scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an additional 0.4C warming over the
eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone experiment with
specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols. Usually, when considering the climate
impact from carbon aerosol emissions (primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot), the effect is thought to be
largely contained to the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is
only on the order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Oceana distance which requires about a
week for air masses to navigatewe usually arent overly concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the
time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean. But in the Teng et al. study, the authors find that, according to their climate
model, the
local heating of the atmosphere by the Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing
impart changes to the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation pattern s.
And these changes to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and
sunlight) can
thus induce a change in the climate here characterized by 0.4C [surface air temperature] warming on average over the eastern US during winter and
over almost the entire US during summer averaged over the 20052024 period. While most of the summer warming doesnt start to kick in until Asian
carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large
(several tenths of a C) even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions. Now lets revisit just how much global warming that stringent U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across the country. In my Master Resource post Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based
arithmetic of no gain) I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction
of global temperatures (from where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly more than the global average
(land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05C of global temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075C of temperature savings averaged
across the U.S., by the year 2050. Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian
black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points
out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how
easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. And even if the traditional form of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across
Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new
greenhouse gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again,
pointing out that a reduction in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught , at least when it comes to mitigating climate
change. So, whats the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy choices? As I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it
comes to greenhouse gas emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes to influences on the climate. What the
powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it
doesnt hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large developing nations will follow our
lead. Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a difference.
China is a greater cause of warming- destroys all solvency
Wortzel, Former Director of Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, 08
(Larry, Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Nov, p. google, js)

Warming Core
114
China argues that developed countries are the primary cause of climate change and therefore places primary responsibility for reducing emissions on
those countries rather than on China and other developing countries, a concept identified as "common but differentiated responsibilities." 190 The
United States is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and far exceeds China in emissions per capita.191 However, in the past two
years China has overtaken the United States in total production of greenhouse gas emissions. All
projections indicate that, in the absence of major energy consumption changes in China, both China's aggregate emissions and
its share of global emissions will continue to increase dramatically for the foreseeable future. The
consequent reality is that it will be impossible for the international community to resolve the climate
change problem by sufficiently reducing emissions unless China contributes to the effort . The
solution also is unachievable unless the United Statesas currently the world's second largest emitter and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse
gases makes a substantial contribution. Any efforts to address this problem will require global participation by developed and developing nations.
No modeling or momentum
Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, '10
(Walter Russell, The Death of Global Warming, http://blogs.the-americaninterest.com/wrm/2010/02/01/the-death-of-global-warming/, February 1, 2010, js)
The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during
the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the
Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for
a politically binding agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding
treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid
decline. The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics . After years in which global
warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious
agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making
inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet
another shocker; the IPCCs claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global
warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by
2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didnt care about whether it
was reality-based.Gore_Pachauri With this in mind, climategate the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists looks
sinister rather than just unsavory. The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the
global warming with much of its key data, had violated Britains Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics
could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isnt just science as
usual, as the global warming movements embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you
indeed have something to conceal. The urge to make the data better than it was didnt just come
out of nowhere. The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their
realization that the actual evidence they had which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in
my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing
fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources was not sufficient to get the worlds governments to do
what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesnt look like an accident: it looks
like it was a conscious political strategy. Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia
Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best
serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture . New leadership might help, but
everything these two agencies have done will now have to be re-checked by independent and objective sources. The global warming
campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy. They were
never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing
international system. The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international
agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and
substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet. As it happened, the movement
never got to the first step it never got the worlds countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties, transfers and policies that would constitute, at least
on paper, a program for achieving its key goals. Even if that first step had been reached, the second and third would almost surely not have been. The
United States Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements would require before
the midterm elections, much less ratify a treaty. (It takes 67 senate votes to ratify a treaty and only 60 to overcome a filibuster.) After the
midterms, with the Democrats expected to lose seats in both houses, the chance of passage would be even more remote especially as polls show that
global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters priorities. American public opinion supports doing something about global warming, but not
very much; support for specific measures and sacrifices will erode rapidly as commentators from Fox
News and other conservative outlets endlessly hammer away. Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share
of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed
global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart. From Gallup Since the United States was never very likely to accept these
agreements and ratify these treaties, and is even less prepared to do so in a recession with the Democrats in retreat, even success

115
Warming Core
in Copenhagen would not have brought the global warming movement the kind of victory it
sought although it would have created a very sticky and painful political problem for the United States. But even if somehow, miraculously,
the United States and all the other countries involved not only accepted the agreements but ratified them and
wrote domestic legislation to incorporate them into law, it is extremely unlikely that all this
activity would achieve the desired result. Countries would cheat, either because they chose to
do so or because their domestic systems are so weak, so corrupt or so both that they simply
wouldnt be able to comply. Governments in countries like China and India arent going to stop pushing for all the economic growth they
can get by any means that will work and even if central governments decided to move on global warming, state and local authorities have agendas of
their own. The examples of blatant cheating would inevitably affect compliance in other countries;
it would also very likely erode what would in any case be an extremely fragile consensus in rich
countries to keep forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries many of whom would not be in anything like full compliance with
their commitments. For better or worse, the global political system isnt capable of producing the kind of result
the global warming activists want. Its like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can
cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just cant get and at the end of the day, you wont get it. The grieving friends
and relatives arent ready to pull the plug; in a typical, whistling-past-the-graveyard comment, the BBC first acknowledges that even if the current
promises are kept, temperatures will rise above the target level of two degrees Celsius but lets not despair! The BBC quotes one of its own reporters:
BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the accord lacks teeth and does not include any clear targets on cutting emissions. But if most countries
at least signal what they intend to do to cut their emissions, it will mark the first time that the UN has a comprehensive written collection of promised
actions, he says.
Tech strategies insufficient

Revkin 12 (Andrew C., Environment and energy blogger NYT, Can China Follow U.S. Shift from Coal to
Gas?, July 4, 2012)
Fourth, there is growing interest in so-called technology strategies to address climate change. The gas
revolution is a good poster child for the importance of technological innovation. Most of the key advances that make todays gas revolution possiblenot
just fracking but across the production and transmission of gas as well as in the ultra-efficient turbines that are todays best way to make electricity from
gastrace their origins back to publicly funded R&D in tandem with lots of private sector investment. Some people have unwisely taken that
logic to the extreme and suggested
that if the US and other innovating nations just pushed hard on technology
that there wouldnt be much need for emission limits, cap and trade or carbon taxes . Thats too
simplistic. Theres no question that we need a big push on technology and that all nations, collectively,
massively under-invest in energy R&D. But a technology push with no pull from the markets a recipe for waste . I
like the carbon tax like the one Australia introduced this week to create an incentive not just to invent new low-carbon technologies but also to deploy
them. One implication for technology R&D policy is that in a world of cheap gas theres probably a lot
of value in looking carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for use on gas-fired power plants . To date,
most CCS investment has focused on coal on the assumption that coal is cheap and that the
technologies needed for CCS on gas are too expensive . That conventional view could change in a world where the full cost
of burning coal is high and gas is cheap. Some of the technologies for CCS are genericthey work whether the original fuel is coal or gasbut others
(including the costliest parts of CCS systems) must be tailored to the fuel. Ive always thought that CCS was an inelegant way to lick the carbon problem
because it involves burning fuels and then corralling a huge mass of pollution rather than avoiding the pollution in the first placebut if gas is to be a
real bridge to a low emission future rather than a nice-looking dead end then we must seriously explore ways to further cut emissions from gas plants.
[Here's a link to an article by Jesse Ausubel on one such technology.] Fifth, all these surprises are a reminder of how much we dont know about how
technology and markets will unfold. Earlier this year the Energy Information Administration published a rather brave study: a retrospective on how well
its forecasters have done predicting things like demand for energy, the cost of oil and such. One lesson from that study is that a lot of forecasting is done
by looking in the rear view mirrorforecasts typically start with current conditions, and as facts on the ground change radically so do the forecasts.
Another lesson from that study is that the record of forecasting energy pricesgas in particular but also oilis pretty abysmal. Since so much, even CO2,
depends on relative energy prices we should be sober about what we can realistically predict for the future. Sixth, I see the gas revolution
as just one of a large class of strategies for getting serious about climate change in ways that are
politically expedient. In a few countries and jurisdictionssuch as Europe, California, and Vermontpeople will invest lots of their own
money to control emissions in an effort to slow global warming. But most of the world isnt so keen, yet, to spend handsomely
on this global goal. Ive always thought that the way to make progress on climate change, especially in reluctant countries like China and
even the U.S., is to start by focusing on places where climate goals overlap with other national prioritieslike clearing the air or making energy supplies
more reliable. (For another example, focused on the tremendous potential for slowing climate change through action on soot, see the last issue of foreign
affairs for an article co-authored with two colleagues here in La Jolla, V. Ramanathan and C. Kennel.) We probably cant lick global warming with selfinterested actions alone, but at least we can point countries in the right direction and build political support for the deeper and more expensive cuts that
will be essential. As Victor notes, simply moving from coal to gas is hardly a climate solution on its own, and
others challenge the idea that natural gas can serve as a bridge along the road to a post-fossil
energy future. And certainly if Chinas gas push comes with the same wasteful , leaky practices that American
oil and gas companies have only slowly abandoned (and that still abound in Russia and elsewhere), thats not a reasonable bridge at
all. Nothing I, or anyone else writes, will change the reality that the gas age is here for many years to come. But my hope is that progress in avoiding
environmental regrets can come through constructive discussion of ways to cut risks and waste and to sustain a long-term energy quest that extends
beyond fossil fuels even while they remain abundant and cheap. Thats no easy task.

Warming Core
116
XT Irreversible
More evidence- theres too much CO2 in the air even if we stop
Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, 8
(James E. Hanson.. Al Gores science advisor. Introductory chapter for the book State of the Wild. Tipping
point: Perspective of a Scientist. April. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf)
The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks is that additional climate change is
already in the pipeline: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming
will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present status of Earths climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past
12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and
Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene.3 The warming that
has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together
have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate
state includes large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic
ice sheet, and much of Greenlands ice. Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these
feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an environment far
outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within
any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of
coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas
through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a
great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater
source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
Too late
Rahn 11
(Richard W. Rahn, 1/25/2011, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, The Washington Times, Obama's regulatory
reform test, Lexis)
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding up the permitting of
new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it will cause a significant drop in U.S. economic growth and job creation, yet it will have no
measurable benefit. China, India and many other countries are rapidly increasing CO2 emissions,
overwhelming whatever actions the United States may take. Even if all new CO2 emissions were
stopped globally, it would be decades before there would be even a minor effect on global
temperatures. Now, new research is indicating that sunspot activity is much more important than CO2 when
it comes to influencing the earths temperature. The EPA ban is nothing more than national
economic suicide. Let us see if Mr. Obama has the courage to tell the EPA to stop.
Ice melting irreversibly now
FP 11
(Foreign Policy, Beating a retreat, http://www.economist.com/node/21530079, September 24, 2011)
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square
miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record lownot quite. But the
actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from
mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the
fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979 ,
when satellite records began, and
there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any
time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age. That Arctic sea ice is
disappearing has been known for decades. The underlying cause is believed by all but a handful of climatologists
to be global warming brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions . Yet the rate the ice is vanishing confounds these
climatologists' models. These predict that if the level of carbon dioxide, methane and so on in the atmosphere
continues to rise, then the Arctic Ocean will be free of floating summer ice by the end of the
century. At current rates of shrinkage, by contrast, this looks likely to happen some time between 2020 and 2050. The reason
is that Arctic air is warming twice as fast as the atmosphere as a whole . Some of the causes of this are
understood, but some are not. The darkness of land and water compared with the reflectiveness of snow
and ice means that when the latter melt to reveal the former, the area exposed absorbs more

117
Warming Core
heat from the sun and reflects less of it back into space. The result is a feedback loop that
accelerates local warming. Such feedback, though, does not completely explain what is happening. Hence the search for other things that
might assist the ice's rapid disappearance. Forcing the issue One is physical change in the ice itself. Formerly a solid mass that
melted and refroze at its edges, it is now thinner, more fractured, and so more liable to melt. But that is (literally and
figuratively) a marginal effect. Filling the gap between model and reality may need something besides this. The latest candidates are
short-term climate forcings. These are pollutants, particularly ozone and soot, that do not hang around
in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide does, but have to be renewed continually if they are to have a lasting
effect. If they are so renewed, though, their impact may be as big as CO2's. At the moment, most eyes are on soot (or black carbon, as
jargon-loving researchers refer to it). In the Arctic, soot is a double whammy. First, when released into the air as a result of
incomplete combustion (from sources as varied as badly serviced diesel engines and forest fires), soot particles absorb
sunlight, and so warm up the atmosphere. Then, when snow or rain wash them onto an ice floe,
they darken its surface and thus cause it to melt faster. Reducing soot (and also ozone, an industrial pollutant
that acts as a greenhouse gas) would not stop the summer sea ice disappearing , but it might delay the process by a decade or
two. According to a recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme, reducing black carbon and ozone in the lower part of the atmosphere,
especially in the Arctic countries of America, Canada, Russia and Scandinavia, could cut warming in the Arctic by two-thirds over the next three decades.
Indeed, the report suggests, if such measurespreventing crop burning and forest fires, cleaning up diesel engines and wood stoves, and so onwere
adopted everywhere they could halve the wider rate of warming by 2050. Without corresponding measures to cut CO2 emissions, this would be but a
temporary fix. Nonetheless, it is an attractive idea because it would have other benefits (soot is bad for people's lungs) and would not require the
wholesale rejigging of energy production which reducing CO2 emissions implies. Not everyone agrees it would work, though. Gunnar Myhre of the
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, for example, notes that the amount of black carbon in the
Arctic is small and has been falling in recent decades. He does not believe it is the missing
factor in the models. Carbon dioxide, in his view, is the main culprit. Black carbon deposited on the Arctic snow and ice, he says, will have
only a minimal effect on its reflectivity. The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice , then, illuminates the difficulty of
modelling the climatebut not in a way that brings much comfort to those who hope that fears about the future climate might prove
exaggerated. When reality is changing faster than theory suggests it should, a certain amount of
nervousness is a reasonable response . It's an ill wind The direct consequences of changes in the Arctic are mixed. They should
not bring much rise in the sea level, since floating ice obeys Archimedes's principle and displaces its own mass of water. A darkerand so more
heat-absorbentArctic, though, will surely accelerate global warming and may thus encourage melting of the
land-bound Greenland ice sheet. That certainly would raise sea levels (though not as quickly as News
Corporation's cartographers suggest in the latest edition of the best-selling Times Atlas, which claims that 15% of the Greenland sheet has melted in the
past 12 years; the true figure is more like 0.05%). Wildlife will also suffer . Polar bears, which hunt for seals along the ice's edge, and
walruses, which fish there, will both be hard-hit.
All their impacts are inevitable

Sterlicchi 9
(John Sterlicchi, BusinessGreen, US report says rising sea levels inevitable,
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1805554/us-report-rising-sea-levels-inevitable, January 29, 2009)
Some of the effects of global warming will be irreversible and others may last for at least 1,000 years, according to a new US
government-sponsored report. The study, led by researchers at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and paid for by the
Department of Energy, paints a depressing picture of the future caused by increased CO2 emissions. If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600
parts per million, said the report, the
result will be less dry-season rainfall that will be reminiscent of the

1930s Dust Bowl era in the US. There will be decreases in drinking water supplies, increased fire
frequency and an end to dry-season farming of wheat and maize . Regions that will be affected are southern
Europe, northern and southern Africa, southwestern US, and western Australia. Also, if CO2 peaks at 600ppm, global water levels will
rise by as much as one metre. If it peaks at 1,000ppm, the rise will double. Rising sea levels would cause
"irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal
and island features would ultimately become submerged ," the report said. Those grim predictions of
rising sea levels also did not take into account the melting of ice at both poles, as the result of
that was unpredictable. "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the
climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that is not true ," the head of the research team,
Susan Solomon, said in a teleconference. This is because of the role played by the world's oceans. Currently the
oceans are absorbing the CO2 and keeping the planet cool but in the future they will become
saturated.

Warming Core
118
XT No Impact
Consensus of experts agree that there is no impact to warming
Hsu 10
(Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinctiondoomsday-100719.html)
His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans.
Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity,
catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the
technological tools to begin tackling climate change , if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added
that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term,
high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action ," Pielke
explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive ."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon
capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise
of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. " The rise in CO2
isn't going to kill people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet,
melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains
uncertain."
No impact to warming history and scientific study prove

Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in
Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 08
(Professor Zbigniew, Fear Propaganda,http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap3.htm, js)
Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle
Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive atolls nor the
Pacific archipelagos were flooded. Global oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or
thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not clear). In the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20 cm, (24) but
it does not seem to be accelerated by the 20th Century warming . It turns out that in warmer climates,
there is more water that evaporates from the ocean (and subsequently falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice
caps) than there is water that flows to the seas from melting glaciers . (17) Since the 1970s, the glaciers of the
Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic have ceased to retreat, and have started to grow . On January 18, 2002, the journal
Science published the results of satellite-borne radar and ice core studies performed by scientists from CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the
University of California at Santa Cruz. These results indicate that the Antarctic ice flow has been slowed, and sometimes even stopped, and that this has
resulted in the thickening of the continental glacier at a rate of 26.8 billion tons a year. (25) In 1999, a Polish Academy of Sciences
paper
implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23% in Poland, which was presumed to be
caused by global warming, would be detrimental . (Imagine stating this in a country where 38% of the area suffers from
permanent surface water deficit!) The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster. Truly, a
possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes
for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper. Newspapers continuously write about
the increasing frequency and power of the storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only
some few data from Poland, but there are plenty of data from all over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995, the number of storms with
hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms
decreased. (26) In 1813 to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River in Cracow not only did not increase but, since 1940, have
paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The
significantly decreased. (27) Also, measurements in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number of gales has not increased between 1901 a

Warming Core
119
AT: Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is junk sciencemodels empirically fail
Gupta 12 (Alexander Sen, Climate Change Research Centre @ University of New South Wales, et al., Climate
Drift in the CMIP3 Models, Journal of Climate Vol. 25, Issue 13, p. 4621-4640, 2012)
As discussed above, drift in temperature and salinity dominates 20C3M trends throughout most of
the subsurface ocean. In the calculation of steric sea-level rise, a given temperature or salinity change
will generally have less effect at depth than near the surface. As the amount of expansion for a
given change in temperature or salinity is itself a function of temperature, salinity and pressure
(in particular warmer water expands more than colder water for the same increase in heat
content), the changes in temperature near the warm surface ocean have a proportionally larger
influence on steric sea-level rise than temperature changes in the cold deeper ocean (at least
away from the well mixed high latitude regions). Nevertheless, given that the global warming
signal over the 20th century is predominantly limited to the top few hundred meters, in most
regions, while ocean drift extends through the entire water column, drift still introduces
considerable bias into both regional and global sea-level rise. The CMIP3 models show a broad
range of estimates for steric sea-level rise over 1950-2000 (Fig. 10a). The spread in the raw 20C3M
estimates is considerable (standard deviation ~0.76mm/yr with a multi-model mean of 0.45mm/yr). In
addition a number of the models indicate a lowering of sea- level over the period. For the driftcorrected sea-level rise (i.e. by using drift corrected temperature and salinity) values become considerably more
consistent (standard deviation ~0.36mm/yr) and all models now indicate a rise in sea-level. While considerable
inter-model variability still exists the drift-corrected multi-model mean (~0.59mm/yr) is consistent with the
Domingues et al (2008) observational estimate (0.52 0.08 mm/yr, for 0-700m, 1950-2003). Figure 10a shows
raw 20C3M trends and drift corrected estimates of forced trend for steric sea-level rise, including multiple
ensemble members where available; ensemble members for a given model are generally initialised from the
same PICNTRL experiment but from different points in time, usually separated by multiple years (Table. 1).
Nevertheless the drift, which is derived from different time periods from a single PICNTRL
simulation, is very similar across ensemble members, suggesting that the linear drift
approximation is valid and that natural variability is not having a major effect on the drift
estimates. Figure 10b shows a scatter of the raw 20C3M trend magnitudes versus drift magnitudes. The drift
related error varies considerably across the models from less than 10% to over 200% for the
ECHAM4 model (but see previous discussion of this model). As with surface drift, subsurface drift in
temperature and salinity is spatially heterogeneous and so can result in a larger bias on
regional scales. This is particularly important for assessing 20th century regional changes, where the steric
component of sea-level rise is a major component of the total (e.g. Domingues et al. 2008). Figure 11 shows
both the raw 20C3M and drift-corrected 1950- 2000 trends for three models (calculated from the surface to the
bottom). A few models (e.g. MRI) have a well equilibrated pre-industrial control throughout the ocean and so
are essentially untroubled by drift. However, most models are significantly affected in certain regions.
In fact for many models and regions the sign of the sea-level trend is changed by the spurious
drift. For instance in the CSIRO_mk3.0 model the steric sea-level anomaly over much of the tropics and midlatitudes, estimated from the raw 20C3M temperature and salinity, changes sign once the drift is taken into
account.

Warming Core
120
AT: Arctic War

Cooperation Between The U.S. and Russia
Ackerman, DC Defense Agent, 2011,
[Spencer, 6-8-11, War For The Arctic: Never Mind, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/war-for-thearctic-never-mind/]
It wasnt long ago that the press was running wild with hyperbolic claims of the U.S. losing out in an impending
Arctic conflict. After all, global warming is freeing up access to large deposits of oil, gas and minerals right in
the backyard of the Russians. But the press forgot to tell other polar nations to freak out. Indeed, at a forum
convened on Wednesday by the Center for Strategic and International Security, ambassadors from four polar
nations, including some traditionally menaced by Russia, were sanguine about the future of polar exploration.
We actually think we handled these areas for decades during the Cold War rather well, said
Wegger Strommen, Norways man in Washington. The U.S Geological Survey assesses that the North
Pole holds about 13 percent of the worlds untapped oil supplies. Companies and nations are
champing at the bit to expand exploration as the ice caps melt. The Russians have an advantage:
a fleet of six nuclear powered icebreakers on its northern shore. By contrast, the U.S. Coast
Guard has just one, the cutter Healy. But no ones sweating it. Should there actually be an arctic sea
conflict, the U.S. submarine fleet is second to none, as my colleague David Axe has pointed out. And a massive
Arctic oil rush is years off, Strommen added, since the climate is harsh, the conditions are difficult and its
incredibly expensive. Beyond that, the Russians are warm in the Arctic. Russia finalized a maritime border
with Norway on Tuesday that took 30 years to negotiate. Strommens colleagues from Greenland, Canada and
Sweden gave high marks to a meeting last month of the Arctic Council, the diplomatic contact group of
arctic nations, in which Russia signed onto an accord for search and rescue missions in the cold
waters. Think of it as a diplomatic thaw.
Russia Will Cooperate With The U.S. In The Arctic
Shuster, Time Reporter, 10
[Simon, 9-27- 2010, The Race for Arctic Oil: Is Russia Ready to Share?
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2021644,00.html#ixzz1x4fGS8Fk],
Russia's leaders have never been coy about their designs on the Arctic. In recent years, their message has been
clear: We want a a big, fat slice of it, including the seas of oil and gas underneath, and we are ready to defend
our claim. The country expressed its intentions blatantly in August 2007, when a Russian lawmaker planted a
flag on the seabed at the top of the world, and a year later, when President Dmitri Medvedev told his top
generals at a meeting that defending Russia's interests in the Arctic was nothing less than "their direct duty to
posterity." Which is why so many of the world's Arctic decisionmakers were amazed last week when they were
called to a forum in Moscow to hear a very different message. Russia wants the Arctic to be "a zone of
peace and cooperation," Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told them. But could he possibly be serious? Many
observers, including a large portion of the guests at the Sept. 23 forum, say the rhetoric is welcome, but the
world will have to wait and see. For now, no one is rushing to dismantle the huge military capacities
all of the Arctic countries the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway (all members of NATO) and Russia
have been building north of the Arctic Circle. Ebbing and swelling over the past half-century, the intensity of
this militarization has largely depended on Russia's assertiveness over the years. (See pictures of the Arctic.) It
began, of course, at the height of the Cold War, when the Arctic was studded with more nuclear weapons
than virtually any other part of the world. Then, in the late 1980s, as the Soviet Empire approached its collapse,
the military build-up tapered off and began to decline after Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made his famous
Murmansk speech in October 1987 in which he said the Arctic should become "a zone of peace and fruitful
cooperation." When Gorbachev used that phrase, it meant something very different from how Putin used it last
week. By the end of the 1980s, Russia was financially incapable of waging an arms race in the polar regions.
With no more threat from the Russians, the four other Arctic powers began to let their northern militaries
lapse. Attitudes changed after 2001, when soaring oil prices put jets beneath the Russian economy and Putin's
government began allocating billions to its Arctic infrastructure. Canada and other Arctic states responded with
a greater focus on military spending in the north. At the same time, it became obvious to everyone that the

121
Warming Core
polar ice caps were melting fast and the potential for drilling for and shipping oil and gas in the Arctic would
soon be considerable. The northern powers were suddenly facing the last great energy frontier, with a quarter
of the world's untapped reserves in the Arctic more than 400 billion bbl. of oil and oil-equivalent natural gas
and the scramble to claim it began. (See pictures of the rise and fall of Gorbachev.) By the end of 2014,
the U.N. will receive competing claims for parts of the Arctic from Canada, Denmark and
Russia, which are using seabed samples to try to prove that the oil-rich regions are extensions of their
continental shelves and therefore belong to them. But even though the U.N. will rule on whether the
science behind these claims is accurate (it already rejected a Russian claim in 2001 based on poor
evidence), it is not the job of the U.N. to delineate borders. That will be up to the countries themselves,
and that is where things might get sticky. A hopeful sign on this front came on Sept. 15, when Russia and
Norway settled an Arctic border dispute that had been festering for four decades. The agreement
came in the lead-up to last week's forum in Moscow, "The Arctic Territory of Dialogue," and was seen as part
of Russia's push to shed its image as the Arctic aggressor. "We're at a transition," says Paul Berkman,
professor of Arctic Ocean geopolitics at the University of Cambridge. "Russia, from the perspective of the
West, had been the difficult entity and is now inviting the international community to
participate." The reasoning behind Russia's change of tune is both pragmatic and political. A gentler
approach to Arctic policy is in line with Medvedev's broader effort to win over the West, as symbolized by his
budding friendship with President Obama. (Remember the french fries they shared at Ray's Hell Burger in
June?) And as Russia realizes, exploiting the energy wealth of the Arctic will be much harder if
the region gets mired in conflict. "In the absence of stability, none of the energy opportunities are
possible," says Berkman.

Warming Core
122
AT: Biodiversity
Extinction Is Not Cause By Climate Change
Idso, Founder of and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Craig, Sherwood, and Keith, 11-23-11, CO2 Science, Thoughts on Species' Abilities to Survive Rapid Climate
Change, http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N47/EDIT.php]
In an Opinion article published in Global Change Biology, Hof et al. (2011) note that recent and projected
climate change is assumed to be exceptional because of its supposedly unprecedented velocity; and they
say that this view has fuelled the prediction that CO2-induced global warming "will have
unprecedented effects on earth's biodiversity," primarily by driving many species to extinction,
because of the widespread belief that earth's plants and animals are unable to migrate poleward in latitude or
upward in altitude fast enough to avoid that deadly consequence, as well as the assumption that current climate
change simply outpaces evolutionary adaptation. But are these assumptions correct? The four
biological researchers address this important question in stages. First, they present evidence
demonstrating that "recent geophysical studies challenge the view that the speed of current and
projected climate change is unprecedented." In one such study, for example, they report that Steffensen
et al. (2008) showed that temperatures in Greenland warmed by up to 4C/year near the end of the last glacial
period. And they state that this change and other rapid climate changes during the Quaternary (the last 2.5
million years) did not cause a noticeable level of broad-scale, continent-wide extinctions of species. Instead,
they state that these rapid changes appeared to "primarily affect a few specific groups, mainly large mammals
(Koch and Barnosky, 2006) and European trees (Svenning, 2003)," with the result that "few taxa became
extinct during the Quaternary (Botkin et al., 2007)." So how were the bulk of earth's species able to survive
what many today believe to be unsurvivable? Hof et al. speculate that "species may have used strategies other
than shifting their geographical distributions or changing their genetic make-up." They note, for example, that
"intraspecific variation in physiological, phenological, behavioral or morphological traits may have allowed
species to cope with rapid climatic changes within their ranges (Davis and Shaw, 2001; Nussey et al., 2005;
Skelly et al., 2007)," based on "preexisting genetic variation within and among different populations, which is
an important prerequisite for adaptive responses," noting that "both intraspecific phenotypic variability and
individual phenotypic plasticity may allow for rapid adaptation without actual microevolutionary changes." So
do these observations imply that all is well with the planet's many and varied life forms? Not necessarily,
because, as Hof et al. continue, "habitat destruction and fragmentation, not climate change per se,
are usually identified as the most severe threat to biodiversity (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Stuart et al.,
2004; Schipper et al., 2008)." And since Hof et al. conclude that "species are probably more resilient to
climatic changes than anticipated in most model assessments of the effect of contemporary climate change on
biodiversity," these several observations suggest to us that addressing habitat destruction and
fragmentation, rather than climate change, should take center stage when it comes to striving
to protect earth's biosphere, since the former more direct and obvious effects of mankind are
more destructive, more imminent and more easily addressed than are the less direct, less
obvious, less destructive, less imminent, and less easily addressed effects of the burning of
fossil fuels.
Adaption Forces Warming To Increase Biodiversity
Singer, Research Professor at George Mason and Dennis, Director Of The Center For Global
Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, 2006
[Fred, 28-10-06, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,]
We know that species can adapt to abrupt global warming because the climate shifts in the 1,500year cycle have often been abrupt. Moreover, the world's species have already survived at least six
hundred such warmings and coolings in the past million years. The major effect of global
warming will be more biodiversity in our forests, as most trees, plants, birds, and animals extend their
ranges. This is already happening. Some biologists claim that a further warming of 0.8 degrees

123
Warming Core
Celsius will destroy thousands of species. However, the Earth warmed much more than that
during the Holocene Climate Optimum, which occurred 8,000 to 5,000 years ago, and no known
species were driven extinct by the temperature increase.

Warming Core
124
AT: Disease
Warming doesnt cause diseases scientists admit
Donnelly 7 (John, 12-5, Staff, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/05/a_tussle_over_link_of_warming_disease/)
Donald S. Burke,
dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, noted that the 2001 study found that
weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence the spread of infectious disease. But he also noted that such conclusions
should be interpreted with caution. "There are no apocalyptic pronouncements," Burke said. "There's an awful lot
we don't know." Burke said he is not convinced that climate change can be proven to cause the spread of many
diseases, specifically naming dengue fever, influenza, and West Nile virus.
Warming definitively does not cause disease their authors distort science and ignore bigger
alt causes
Reiter 98 (Paul, prof of entomology @ the Pasteur Inst., fellow of Royal Entomological Society, The Lancet, Vol. 351, Issue 9105,
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)78979-0/fulltext)
In your news item on the Kyoto Summit (Dec 20/27, p 1825) Justin McCurry reports on warnings that man-made climate change may unleash a publichealth disaster. Specifically he mentions adamant claims by Paul Epstein and Andrew Haines that global warming has already caused
malaria, dengue, and yellow fever to invade higher latitudes in the temperate regions and higher altitudes in the tropics. Such claims, oft
repeated, plainly ignore the past. Until the 20th century, malaria was a common disease throughout much of the USA,
and it remained endemic until the 1950s. Yellow fever played a major part in US history. Widespread epidemics of dengue were also
common, and continued until the 1940s. In Europe, malaria was probably present in neolithic times. In ancient Greece, Hippocrates clearly
distinguished between the symptoms of vivax and falciparum malaria. Throughout history, nearly all countries of that continent were
affected. Even in the present century, devastating epidemics occurred as far north as Archangel on the Arctic Circle, and the disease remained
endemic in such un-tropical countries as Holland, Poland, and Finland until after World War II. Yellow fever also killed tens of thousands
in many European countries until the end of the 19th century, and a devastating epidemic of dengue, with an estimated 1 million
cases and 1000 deaths, occurred in Greece in 192728. Claims that malaria and dengue have recently climbed to higher
altitudes are equally uninformed. Highland malaria was widespread throughout the world until the era of DDT and cheap
malaria prophylaxis. The figure shows the maximum altitude of autochthonous cases in 11 countries in the early half of this century. Transmission
occurred to 2600 m in Kenya, and 2450 m in Ethopia. In the Himalayas, the disease was present to 2500 m in India and 1830 m in
China. In the Andes, epidemics were recorded to 2180 m in Argentina and 2600 m in Bolivia. In the latter country, cases actually
occurred to 2773 m, transmitted by mosquitoes breeding at 35C in thermal springs. Recent epidemics of malaria in the highlands of Madagascar
have been attributed to global warming, although they occurred well below the maximum altitude for transmission (figure) and
were clearly a sequel to a breakdown of control infrastructure. Moreover, similar epidemics had taken place in the
same areas in 1878 and 1895, and local records show no great change in temperature. Similarly, recent dengue transmission at 1250 m
in Costa Rica followed the reappearance of the vector Aedes aegypti (Linn) after a successful period of control, and there is no evidence to
support the suggestion that transmission was due to putative climate change . Lastly, repeated claims that the disease has
ascended to new altitudes in Colombia consistently cite a publication by Nelson et al but ignore its content, for although the vector was present to 2200
m, the investigators clearly stated there were no cases at high altitude, and none have been reported since that study. The distortion of science
to make predictions of unlikely public-health disasters diverts attention from the true reasons for the
recrudescence of vector-borne diseases. These include the large-scale resettlement of people (often associated
with major ecological change), rampant urbanisation without adequate infrastructure, high mobility through
air travel, resistance to antimalarial drugs, insecticide resistance, and the deterioration of vector-control
operations and other public-health practices.

Warming Core
125
AT: Drought
Climate Change Didnt Bring Upon Droughts
Bastasch, 2013
[Michael, 4-12-2013, Government report: Historic drought not caused by global warming, The DC,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/government-report-historic-drought-not-caused-by-global-warming/]
Despite claims made by environmentalists and the Obama administration, a study released Thursday suggests
the record-high drought that ravaged agricultural production across the Great Plains region
last year was not caused by manmade global warming. The Central Great Plains drought during MayAugust of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather, read a report by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administrations drought unit. Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors
that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits
over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains. According to the report, the jet stream, that
typically pushes moist air from the Gulf region northward, was stuck too far north in Canada and did not bring
spring rains. The lack of thunderstorms and rainfall in July and August made last summer the
driest and hottest on record, creating drought conditions across two-thirds of the U.S. which
were even hotter and drier than the infamous dust bowl of the Great Depression era. The
report stated that a sequence of unfortunate events occurred suddenly, making the drought unpredictable.
This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years, Martin Hoerling, a NOAA
research meteorologist and lead author of the report, told the Associated Press. Climate change was not a
significant part, if any, of the event. Hoerling factored climate change into computer simulations of the
the drought, but found it was not a factor in this particular drought. Hoerling previously used the same method
to determine that climate change had been a factor in a 2011 drought in Texas. Environmentalists and the
Obama administration have held up extreme weather events, including the severe drought, to highlight the
need to immediately address climate change. Yes, its true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is,
the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15, Obama said in his State of the Union address. Heat
waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe
that superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever
seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science
and act before its too late. Other scientists have challenged the NOAA study. Climate scientists Kevin
Trenberth with the National Centre for Atmospheric Research said the study failed to take into account the lack
of snowpack in the Rockies or how climate change could have kept the jet stream away.
Warming Wont Cause Massive and Severe Droughts
Idso, PH.D and Founder of and Current Chairman of the Board of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2011
[Sherwood, Keith, and Craig, 10-12-2011, Droughts of Southwestern North America: Past and Present, CO2
Science, http://co2science.org/articles/V14/N41/EDIT.php]
The world's climate alarmists claim that rising temperatures will bring ever worse droughts to
precipitation-deficient regions of the earth. One such region is Southwest North America, for which
Woodhouse et al. (2010) developed a 1200-year history of drought that allowed them to compare recent
droughts with those of prior centuries; and in spite of the fact that the warmth of the last few decades
is said by alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past millennium or more, the review
and analysis presented by the five U.S. researchers demonstrates that major 20th century
droughts "pale in comparison to droughts documented in paleoclimatic records over the past
two millennia (Cook et al., 2009)," which suggests that recent temperatures have not been unprecedented.
Presenting a little more detail, Woodhouse et al. report that "the medieval period, ~AD 900-1300," was "a
period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America," with paleoclimatic evidence suggesting
that drought in the mid-12th century (AD 1146-1155) "far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of
subsequent droughts," including the 21st century drought of 2000-2009; and they also state that the AD 11461155 period was "anomalously warm," which would seem to confirm the climate-alarmist contention that
greater warmth leads to greater droughts. However, the five scientists contend that temperature was

126
Warming Core
"almost certainly higher during the 21st century drought," which again contradicts the climatealarmist claim that greater warmth translates into greater drought in precipitation-deficient
regions of the earth. These observations do little to advance the climate-alarmist cause; for in order for their
claim that rising temperatures promote more severe and expansive droughts to be correct, the peak warmth of
the Medieval Warm Period would have had to have been greater than the Current Warm Period has been to
date; but that situation is in conflict with their even more basic claim that recent temperatures have been
unprecedented compared to those of the prior millennium or two.

Warming Core
127
AT: Extinction
Consensus of experts agree that there is no impact to warming
Hsu 10
(Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinctiondoomsday-100719.html)
His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans.
Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity,
catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the
technological tools to begin tackling climate change , if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added
that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term,
high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action ," Pielke
explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive ."
Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon
capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise
of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. " The rise in CO2
isn't going to kill people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet,
melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains
uncertain."
No impact to warming history and scientific study prove

Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in
Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 08
(Professor Zbigniew, Fear Propaganda,http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap3.htm, js)
Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle
Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive atolls nor the
Pacific archipelagos were flooded. Global oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or
thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not clear). In the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20 cm, (24) but
it does not seem to be accelerated by the 20th Century warming . It turns out that in warmer climates,
there is more water that evaporates from the ocean (and subsequently falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice
caps) than there is water that flows to the seas from melting glaciers . (17) Since the 1970s, the glaciers of the
Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic have ceased to retreat, and have started to grow . On January 18, 2002, the journal
Science published the results of satellite-borne radar and ice core studies performed by scientists from CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the
University of California at Santa Cruz. These results indicate that the Antarctic ice flow has been slowed, and sometimes even stopped, and that this has
resulted in the thickening of the continental glacier at a rate of 26.8 billion tons a year. (25) In 1999, a Polish Academy of Sciences
paper
implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23% in Poland, which was presumed to be
caused by global warming, would be detrimental . (Imagine stating this in a country where 38% of the area suffers from
permanent surface water deficit!) The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster. Truly, a
possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes
for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper. Newspapers continuously write about
the increasing frequency and power of the storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only
some few data from Poland, but there are plenty of data from all over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995, the number of storms with
hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms
decreased. (26) In 1813 to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River in Cracow not only did not increase but, since 1940, have
paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The
significantly decreased. (27) Also, measurements in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number of gales has not increased between 1901 a
Extinction Isnt Caused By Warming- Empirically Proven

Idso, Founder and current chairman of The Board of the Center for The Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, 2012

128
Warming Core
[Craig, Sherwood, Keith, 6-12-2012, Plant Response to Significant and Rapid Global Warming., CO2 Science,
In an impressive and enlightening review of the subject, Willis and MacDonald (2011) begin by noting that key
research efforts have focused on extinction scenarios derived from "a suite of predictive species distribution
models (e.g., Guisan and Thuiller, 2005)" - which are most often referred to as bioclimatic envelope models that "predict current and future range shifts and estimate the distances and rates of movement required for
species to track the changes in climate and move into suitable new climate space." And they write that one of
the most-cited studies of this type - that of Thomas et al. (2004) - "predicts that, on the basis of mid-range
climatic warming scenarios for 2050, up to 37% of plant species globally will be committed to extinction owing
to lack of suitable climate space." In contrast, the two researchers say that "biotic adaptation to climate
change has been considered much less frequently." This phenomenon - which is sometimes
referred to as evolutionary resilience - they describe as "the ability of populations to persist in
their current location and to undergo evolutionary adaptation in response to changing
environmental conditions (Sgro et al., 2010)." And they note that this approach to the subject "recognizes
that ongoing change is the norm in nature and one of the dynamic processes that generates and maintains
biodiversity patterns and processes," citing MacDonald et al. (2008) and Willis et al. (2009). The aim of Willis
and MacDonald's review, therefore, was to examine the effects of significant and rapid warming on earth's
plants during several previous intervals of the planet's climatic history that were as warm as, or even warmer
than, what climate alarmists typically predict for the next century. These intervals included the PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum, the Eocene climatic optimum, the mid-Pliocene warm interval, the Eemian
interglacial, and the Holocene. And it is important to note that this approach, in contrast to the
approach typically used by climate alarmists, relies on empirical (as opposed to theoretical)
data-based (as opposed to model-based), reconstructions (as opposed to projections) of the
past (as opposed to the future). And what were the primary findings of the two researchers? As they
describe them, in their own words, "persistence and range shifts (migrations) seem to have been the
predominant terrestrial biotic response (mainly of plants) to warmer intervals in Earth's
history," while "the same responses also appear to have occurred during intervals of rapid
climate change." In addition, they make a strong point of noting that "evidence for global
extinctions or extinctions resulting from reduction of population sizes on the scale predicted
for the next century owing to loss of suitable climate space (Thomas et al., 2004) is not
apparent." In fact, they state that sometimes an actual increase in local biodiversity is observed,
the case for which we lay out in Section II (Physiological Reasons for Rejecting the CO2-Induced Global
Warming Extinction Hypothesis) of our Major Report
Global Warming Doesnt Kill, It Saves
Lomborg, former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute, 2009
[Bjorn, 3-12-2009, The Telegraph, Global Warming Will Save Millions of Lives,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4981028/Global-warming-will-save-millions-oflives.html]
But low temperatures also kill. The old, infirm, homeless and very young are at the highest risk
of hypothermia, heart attacks, strokes and illnesses caused or exacerbated by the cold. Winter
regularly takes many more lives than any heatwave: 25,000 to 50,000 people each year die in
Britain from excess cold. Across Europe, there are six times more cold-related deaths than heatrelated deaths. We know this from the world's biggest cross-national, peer-reviewed studies under the aegis
of Professor William Keatinge of the University of London. Global warming will mean more frequent
heatwaves, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by 2100, every three years instead
of every 20 years. But bitterly cold spells will decrease as quickly, coming once every two decades,
rather than every three years. For the UK, the Keatinge studies show heat-related deaths
caused by global warming will increase by 2,000. But cold-related deaths will decrease by
20,000. The only global study suggests that this is true internationally: by 2050, there will be
almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths a year, and almost 1.8 million fewer cold-related
deaths. Warmer temperatures will save 1.4 million lives each year. The number of saved lives will
outweigh the increase in heat-related deaths until at least 2200. This is not an argument to do nothing in the
face of global warming. But focusing only on the negative lays the groundwork for extremely poor policies.

129
Warming Core
Hunt's research was presented at a Copenhagen summit that had key speakers with views more negative than
consensus expectations, in the hope of convincing politicians to commit to drastic carbon cuts. This is the
wrong response: even if the Kyoto Protocol's promised carbon emission reductions had been fully implemented
across this century, temperatures would only be reduced by an insignificant 0.2C, at a cost of $180 billion a
year. If we want to cut temperatures faster and identify new technology that can cool houses in summer and
save lives we need cheap alternative energy technology within 20 to 40 years. If every country committed to
spending 0.05 per cent of GDP on researching non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, that would cost $25
billion a year, and it would do a lot more than massive carbon cuts to fight warming and save lives. To
prepare adequately for the challenge of global warming, we must acknowledge both the good
and the bad that it will bring. If our starting point is to prove that Armageddon is on its way, we
will not consider all of the evidence, and will not identify the smartest policy choices.
Warming doesn't cause extinction- their authors are hacks
Lomborg 8 (Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
Business School, Bjorn, Warming warnings get overheated, The Guardian, 8/15,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange)
These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities, if it
weren't for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a
global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a
"catastrophe" and the beginning of the "extinction" of the human race. This is simply silly. His
evidence? That 4C would mean that all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term
sea level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear, seeing billions of people die. Clearly,
Tickell has maxed out the campaigners' scare potential (because there is no more ice to melt,
this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let us just remember that the UN
climate panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the century between 1.8 and
6.0C. Within this range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise 1859 centimetres Tickell is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly
claim that he was talking about what could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous.
First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a century scale this is what we talk about and can plan for.
Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries to come, the models
unanimously show that Greenland's ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase
even more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for the next three centuries. What
will happen beyond that clearly depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that
CO2 stays in the atmosphere about a century, what happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now
mainly depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it seems unlikely non-carbon emitting technology
such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive). Third, Tickell tells us how the 80m
sea-level rise would wipe out all the world's coastal infrastructure and much of the world's
farmland "undoubtedly" causing billions to die. But to cause billions to die, it would require
the surge to occur within a single human lifespan. This sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong
and misleading, mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims the earth is coming to an end and
we need to repent. While it is probably true that the sun will burn up the earth in 4-5bn years' time, it does
give a slightly different perspective on the need for immediate repenting. Tickell's claim that 4C will be the
beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond wrong and misleading, and, of course,
made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such a 4C
temperature rise. For the Copenhagen Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary
Yohe, did a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a temperature rise
over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as
temperatures rise, more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold; agricultural yields will
decline in the tropics, but increase in the temperate zones, etc. The model evaluates the impacts on
agriculture, forestry, energy, water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease.

130
Warming Core
The bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is
about 0.25% of global GDP). Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070,
when the damages will begin to outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent
to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is simply not the end of humanity. If anything, global
warming is a net benefit now; and even in three centuries, it will not be a challenge to our
civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to be 1,700% richer by the
end of this century.

Warming Core
131
AT: Extinction [Chalko]

Chalkos claims are wrong and hes an idiot
Hube 8 (D.S., Member of the National Association of Scholars and Former Chair of the Delaware Textbook
Assessment Committee, CBS, MSNBC Websites Promote Earthquakes' Tie to Global Warming, NewsBuster,
June 19th, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008/06/19/cbs-msnbc-websites-promote-earthquakestie-global-warming,)
An article at CBSNews.com and MSNBC.com utilizes the claims of a scientist with some very
questionable ideas and theories. In this case it's "seismic activity is five times more energetic
than 20 years ago" and the reason is due to -- you guessed it -- global warming. The research
proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this
trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and
urgently addressed. The analysis of more than 386,000 earthquakes between 1973 and 2007 recorded on
the US Geological Survey database proved that the global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began
increasing very fast since 1990. Dr. [Tom] Chalko said that global seismic activity was increasing
faster than any other global warming indicator on Earth and that this increase is extremely
alarming. Who exactly is this Dr. Tom Chalko? And how precisely are earthquakes related to
global warming? The blog SansPretense has done a pretty thorough job dissecting Chalko's claims, as well as
investigating some of Chalko's other "research." For example, Chalko contributes to a "scientific"
journal that's ... not what many would consider scientific. It's called the NU Journal of
Discovery -- the "NU" standing for Natural University. There's just one problem: There is no
Natural University. Take a look at the "university's" website to see what I mean: NU is a
University in which there are no professors, only Autonomous Individual Intellects that respect
each other's Freedom of Choice. NU is a University in which everyone is a perpetual STUDENT
and everyone learns from everyone else. NU is a University in which there are no secrets, no
project is ever banned and information is always open for discussion for those who can
comprehend it. NU is a University that accepts anyone who has enough motivation to develop
his/her individual intellect, regardless of age, gender, nationality, belief system and social
status. NU is a University in which the study of the limitations of the material reality will be
only a part of exploring the Universal Law and the Purpose of Existence. NU is a University in
which there is nothing to steal, simply because knowledge is given away free to start with. NU
is a University that is nowhere in particular and yet everywhere on Earth. NU is a University
that will never be referred to as a building or a business. NU is a University that will be
impossible to close down. NU is a University in which the distribution of information will
resemble the fractal distribution of the information in the entire Universe, so by studying any
fragment in sufficient detail you can eventually learn the lot NU is a University whose Purpose
precisely coincides with The Purpose of the entire Universe - maximizing the satisfaction from
conscious existence. So, Chalko is a professor, er, um, "facilitator of knowledge" (since Natural
University has no professors) at a university that doesn't exist/yet exists everywhere. Right. Got it. Some
of Chalko's other "scientific" interests/workshops are the study of "auras" which includes "How to see your own
Aura," "Meaning of the Aura and its colours," "Amplifying your Aura vibration," and "Matching your Aura with
the environment." Then there's "Healing and Consciousness" which includes the "Role of Aura, bio-energy and
chakras," the use of "colour to enhance your well-being," and "Choosing garments, decorating home and
office." MSNBC's version of the article lists [another of] Chalko's "credentials" at bottom -- he is
"Head of Geophysics Division at Scientific Engineering Research, Mt Best, Australia." If you
visit the site, it appears to be nothing more than Chalko's own webpage (or one of his
webpages). There are no other individuals listed at the Division that I could find; in other words,
Scientific Engineering Research is Tom Chalko, and Tom Chalko is Scientific Engineering Research. But
Chalko's claims in the CBS/MSNBC articles are tame compared to the assertions in one of his papers linked to
at the SER: The Earth could explode as a result of global warming! I kid you not. Funny how, as the blog
SansPretense points out, the planet didn't explode long ago when the planet was much hotter than it is now. In
addition, SansPretense provides links to two articles that refute Chalko's overall thesis about earthquakes.

Warming Core
132
AT: Extinction [Tickell]

Warming doesn't cause extinction- their authors are hacks
Lomborg 8 (Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
Business School, Bjorn, Warming warnings get overheated, The Guardian, 8/15,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange)
These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities, if it
weren't for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a
global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a
"catastrophe" and the beginning of the "extinction" of the human race. This is simply silly. His
evidence? That 4C would mean that all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term
sea level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear, seeing billions of people die. Clearly,
Tickell has maxed out the campaigners' scare potential (because there is no more ice to melt,
this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let us just remember that the UN
climate panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the century between 1.8 and
6.0C. Within this range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise 1859 centimetres Tickell is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly
claim that he was talking about what could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous.
First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a century scale this is what we talk about and can plan for.
Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries to come, the models
unanimously show that Greenland's ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase
even more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for the next three centuries. What
will happen beyond that clearly depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that
CO2 stays in the atmosphere about a century, what happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now
mainly depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it seems unlikely non-carbon emitting technology
such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive). Third, Tickell tells us how the 80m
sea-level rise would wipe out all the world's coastal infrastructure and much of the world's
farmland "undoubtedly" causing billions to die. But to cause billions to die, it would require
the surge to occur within a single human lifespan. This sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong
and misleading, mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims the earth is coming to an end and
we need to repent. While it is probably true that the sun will burn up the earth in 4-5bn years' time, it does
give a slightly different perspective on the need for immediate repenting. Tickell's claim that 4C will be the
beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond wrong and misleading, and, of course,
made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such a 4C
temperature rise. For the Copenhagen Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary
Yohe, did a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a temperature rise
over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as
temperatures rise, more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold; agricultural yields will
decline in the tropics, but increase in the temperate zones, etc. The model evaluates the impacts on
agriculture, forestry, energy, water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease.
The bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is
about 0.25% of global GDP). Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070,
when the damages will begin to outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent
to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is simply not the end of humanity. If anything, global
warming is a net benefit now; and even in three centuries, it will not be a challenge to our
civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to be 1,700% richer by the
end of this century.

Warming Core
133
AT: Flooding
Climate Change Doesnt Cause Flooding
[Craig, Keith, Sherwood, Climate Change Reconsidered Interlim Report,
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf]
The IPCC claims flooding has become more frequent and severe in response to twentieth century
global warming. But it is important to establish whether floods are truly becoming more frequent
or severe, and whether other factors might be behind such trends if they in fact exist. In this
section we highlight studies addressing both questions. To test for long-term changes in flood magnitudes and
frequencies in the Mississippi River system of the United States, Pinter et al. (2008) constructed a hydrologic
database consisting of data from 26 rated stations (with both stage and discharge measurements) and 40 stageonly stations. Then, to help quantify changes in flood levels at each station in response to construction of
wing dikes, bendway weirs, meander cutoffs, navigational dams, bridges, and other modifications, they put
together a geospatial database consisting of the locations, emplacement dates, and physical characteristics of
over 15,000 structural features constructed along the study rivers over the past 100150 years. As a result of
these operations, Pinter et al. write, significant climate- and/or land use-driven increases in flow
were detected, but they indicate the largest and most pervasive contributors to increased
flooding on the Mississippi River system were wing dikes and related navigational structures,
followed by progressive levee construction. In discussing the implications of their findings, Pinter et al. write,
the navigable rivers of the Mississippi system have been intensively engineered, and some of these
modifications are associated with large decreases in the rivers capacity to convey flood flows. Hence, it
would appear man has indeed been responsible for the majority of the increased flooding of the
rivers of the Mississippi system over the past century or so, but not in the way suggested by the IPCC.
The question that needs addressing by the regions inhabitants has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to
do with how to balance the local benefits of river engineering against the potential for large-scale flood
magnification. In a study designed to determine the environmental origins of extreme flooding events
throughout the southwestern United States, Ely (1997) wrote, paleoflood records from nineteen rivers in
Arizona and southern Utah, including over 150 radiocarbon dates and evidence of over 250 flood deposits,
were combined to identify regional variations in the frequency of extreme floods, and that information was
then compared with paleoclimatic data to determine how the temporal and spatial patterns in the occurrence of
floods reflect the prevailing climate. The results of this comparison indicated long-term variations in
the frequency of extreme floods over the Holocene are related to changes in the climate and
prevailing large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns that affect the conditions conducive to
extreme flood-generating storms in each region. These changes, in Elys view, are very plausibly
related to global-scale changes in the climate system. With respect to the Colorado River watershed, which
integrates a large portion of the interior western United States, she writes, the largest floods tend to be from
spring snowmelt after winters of heavy snow accumulation in the mountains of Utah, western Colorado, and
northern New Mexico, such as occurred with the cluster of floods from 5 to 3.6 ka, which occurred in
conjunction with glacial advances in mountain ranges throughout the western United States during the
cool, wet period immediately following the warm mid-Holocene. The frequency of extreme floods also
increased during the early and middle portions of the first millennium AD, many of which coincided with
glacial advances and cool, moist conditions both in the western U.S. and globally. Then came a sharp drop
in the frequency of large floods in the southwest from AD 1100-1300, which corresponded, in her words, to
the widespread Medieval Warm Period, which was first noted in European historical records. With the advent
of the Little Ice Age, however, there was another substantial jump in the number of floods in the
southwestern U.S., which was associated with a switch to glacial advances, high lake levels, and cooler,
wetter conditions. Distilling her findings down to a single succinct statement and speaking specifically of the
southwestern United States, Ely writes, global warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period,
are times of dramatic decreases in the number of high-magnitude floods in this region
[emphasis added].

Warming Core
134
Warmer Climates Reduces Floods

Stewart, Institute of Geography and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, 2011
[Monique, 11-15-2011, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, SciVerse,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018211004597]
Insight into the relationship between floods and climate, under a wide range of climate variability in Central
Europe from ca. 1450 BC to AD 420, can be found in the sediments of Lake Silvaplana (Upper Engadine,
Switzerland). The frequency of local paleofloods can be reconstructed from turbidite frequency.
Long-term cool and/or wet and warm and/or dry climate phases can be reconstructed from
anomalies in low-frequency Mass Accumulation Rates (MAR). This is because low-frequency MAR
reflects glacier length changes in the Swiss Alps and glacier lengths are a response to long-term climate
conditions. Transitions between cool and/or wet and warm and/or dry climate phases can be
inferred from centennial trends in low-frequency MAR. Furthermore, quantitative absolute JuneJulyAugust (JJA) temperatures reconstructed from Biogenic Silica (BSi) flux and chironomids in the
sediments of Lake Silvaplana are available from ca. 570 BC to AD 120 (Stewart et al., 2011). Comparison of
turbidite frequency to MAR-inferred climate phases (ca. 1450 BCAD 420) and JJA temperatures (ca. 570 BC
AD 120) suggests an increase in the frequency of paleofloods during cool and/or wet climates and windows of
cooler JJA temperatures. Specifically, the frequency of turbidites was reduced during warm and/or
dry climates of ca. 1450 BC to AD 420. Following the transition to cool and/or wet climates, the
frequency of turbidites increased. However, no discernable relationship between the rate of transition
from warm and/or dry to cool and/or wet climate and turbidite could be found.
CO2 does not link to increased rainfall.
Idso, Founder for Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Carter, Marine Geologist, and
Singer, Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2011 (Craig D., Robert, and S. Fred, 2011,
NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered, 2011 Interim Report, Chapter 7,
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html, accessed 7/5/13, AK)
As noted in the previous chapter (see Section 4.3.1), Chu et al. (2010) found the precipitation predictions of the
IPCC had not been realized throughout the part of the Pacific that is home to the Hawaiian Islands, and in fact
just the opposite had occurred there: The three scientists determined, since the 1980s, there has been a
change in the types of precipitation intensity, resulting in more frequent light precipitation and
less frequent moderate and heavy precipitation Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report
124 intensity, as well as a shorter annual number of days with intense precipitation and smaller consecutive
5-day precipitation amounts and smaller fraction of annual precipitation due to events exceeding the 1961
1990 95th percentile in the recent epoch [19802007] relative to the first epoch [1950 1979]. Similarly, in
that chapter we noted Stankoviansky (2003) found extreme and destructive rainfall events were
much more common throughout the Myjava Hill Land of Slovakia during the Little Ice Age than
they have been subsequently, and this, in his words (and in harmony with the many references he cites), is
often regarded as generally valid for Central Europe. This conclusion runs counter to that of the IPCC,
which equates destructive precipitation events and the flooding they cause with global
warming. In a model-based study of precipitation,Schliep et al. (2010) compared estimates of
local extreme precipitation events using six regional climate models (RCMs), which run at a
higher spatial resolution than global climate models (GCMs). The six RCMs were forced with a
common set of reanalysis data, created by running a climate model that was fed real-world data for a 20-year
simulation period. The area analyzed was North America, where winter precipitation was the response variable
and the onehundred-yearextremum of daily winter precipitation was the test statistic, extreme values of which
were estimated by fitting a tailed distribution to the data, taking into account their spatial aspects. The six
RCMs showed similar general spatial patterns of extremes across North America, with the highest
extremes in the Southeast and along the West Coast. However, when comparing absolute levels, which
are most relevant to risk forecasts, the models exhibited strong disagreement. The lowestpredicting model was low almost everywhere in North America compared to the mean of the six models and,
similarly, the highest-predicting model was above the mean almost everywhere. The difference between
the two models was almost 60mm of daily precipitation (for the one-hundred-year extreme event)
over much of the United States. The other four models showed greatly differing spatial patterns

135
Warming Core
of extremes from each other, and those differences were found to be statistically significant by F test. The
researchers speculate that when driven by multiple GCMs rather than reanalysis data, the range of
extreme outcomes would only increase. As a result, extreme rainfall event predictions may vary
considerably among models and extend well beyond the realm of reality. The lesson we take
from Schliep et al. is that model-based claims of a CO2-induced increase in extreme precipitation
events should be treated with considerable skepticism.
Floods do not have an impact- plants continue to grow underwater due to more CO2.
Idso, Founder for Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Carter, Marine
Geologist, and Singer, Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2011 (Craig D.,
Robert, and S. Fred, 2011, NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered, 2011 Interim Report, Chapter 7,
At the other end of the moisture spectrum, we confront the problem of an over-sufficiency of
water, which we equate with complete submergence in water. This phenomenon was recently studied
by Pedersen et al. (2010), who write, with respect to terrestrial plants in general, that complete
submergence in water impedes exchange of O2 and CO2 with shoots (Voesenek et al., 2006),
and that underwater photosynthesis is limited by CO2 availability owing to slow diffusion in
water, and stomatal closure (Mommer and Visser, 2005). These submergence-induced phenomenaif
long sustainedtypically lead to plant death. To learn how the wetland
plant Hordeum marinum Huds. would respond when fully submerged in water, Pedersen et al.
grew several 28-day-old plants consisting of three Nordic Gene Bank accessions (H21, H90, and
H546) for seven additional days while exposing them to four different treatments: aerated
root zone controls with shoots in air; stagnant root zone with shoots in air; stagnant root zone
with shoots also completely submerged with 18 M CO2 (air equilibrium); stagnant root zone
with shoots also completely submerged with 200 M CO2 (simulating CO2 enrichment in many
natural flood waters), while measuring numerous plant responses. This revealed, as they
describe it, that plants submerged for 7 days in water at air equilibrium (18 M CO2) suffered
loss of biomass, whereas those with 200 M CO2 continued to grow. In addition, higher
underwater net photosynthesis at 200 M CO2 increased by 2.7- to 3.2-fold sugar concentrations in roots of
submerged plants, compared with at air equilibrium CO2. They state this phenomenon is likely to
have contributed to the greater root growth in submerged plants with the higher CO2 supply.
Finally, they note the latter CO2-enriched plants tillered similarly to plants with shoots in air.
Pedersen et al. further report that CO2 enrichment of submerging water to ~290 M enhanced
by twofold the growth of two cultivars of rice, compared to plants submerged with water in
equilibrium with normal ambient air (Setter et al., 1989), and they state such elevated CO2
concentrations have been reported at various field sites, citing Setter et al. (1987) and Ram et
al. (1999). Thus, they indicate plants experiencing total submergence during floods typically lose
mass and die under normal conditions, but when the water is supersaturated with CO2, they
can not only survive, they actually continue to grow.

Warming Core
136
AT: Ocean Acidification

Oceans Acidification Is Solved Via Adaption
[Sherwood, Keith, and Craig, 6-11-2012 The Potential for Adaptive Evolution to Enable the World's Most
Important Calcifying Organism to Cope with Ocean Acidification,
Our present understanding of the sensitivity of marine life to ocean acidification is based
primarily on short-term experiments," which often depict negative effects. However, they go on to say
that phytoplanktonic species with short generation times "may be able to respond to
environmental alterations through adaptive evolution." And with this tantalizing possibility in mind,
they studied, as they describe it, "the ability of the world's single most important calcifying organism, the
coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, to evolve in response to ocean acidification in two 500-generation selection
experiments." Working with freshly isolated genotypes from Bergen, Norway, the three German researchers
grew them in batch cultures over some 500 asexual generations at three different atmospheric CO2
concentrations - ambient (400 ppm), medium (1100 ppm) and high (2200 ppm) - where the medium CO2
treatment was chosen to represent the atmospheric CO2 level projected for the beginning of the next century.
This they did in a multi-clone experiment designed to provide existing genetic variation that they said "would
be readily available to genotypic selection," as well as in a single-clone experiment that was initiated with one
"haphazardly chosen genotype," where evolutionary adaptation would obviously require new mutations. So
what did they learn? Compared with populations kept at ambient CO2 partial pressure, Lohbeck et
al. found that those selected at increased CO2 levels "exhibited higher growth rates, in both the
single- and multi-clone experiment, when tested under ocean acidification conditions."
Calcification rates, on the other hand, were somewhat lower under CO2-enriched conditions in
all cultures; but the research team reports that they were "up to 50% higher in adapted [medium
and high CO2] compared with non-adapted cultures." And when all was said and done, they concluded that
"contemporary evolution could help to maintain the functionality of microbial processes at the
base of marine food webs in the face of global change [our italics]." In other ruminations on their
findings, the marine biologists indicate that what they call the swift adaptation processes they observed may
"have the potential to affect food-web dynamics and biogeochemical cycles on timescales of a few years, thus
surpassing predicted rates of ongoing global change including ocean acidification." And they also note, in this
regard, that "a recent study reports surprisingly high coccolith mass in an E. huxleyi population off Chile in
high-CO2 waters (Beaufort et al., 2011)," which observation is said by them to be indicative of "acrosspopulation variation in calcification, in line with findings of rapid microevolution identified here."
Ocean Acidification Is Good, Beneficial to Organisms
Idso, PH.D and Founder of and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of
[Sherwood, Keith, Craig, 5-19-12, The Unsettled Science of Ocean Warming and Acidification ,
The world's climate alarmists would have us believe that they know all they need to know about earth's climate
system and its biological ramifications to justify an unbelievably expensive and radical restructuring of the way
the industrialized world both obtains and utilizes energy. But is this really so? In an eye-opening "perspective"
article published a couple of years ago in the 9 December 2009 issue of the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, three researchers from the Marine Biogeochemistry
Section of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, describe their assessment of various
possible responses of the global ocean's seawater carbonate system, plus its physical and biological carbon
pumps, to ocean warming and associated changes in vertical mixing and overturning circulation, as well as the
closely-allied phenomena of ocean acidification and carbonation. All of these phenomena, many of which are
nonlinear and extremely complicated, are interlinked; and Riebesell and his colleagues thus conclude, from
their objective review of the pertinent scientific literature, that the magnitude and even the sign of the global

137
Warming Core
ocean's carbon cycle feedback to climate change are, in their words, "yet unknown." They note, for example,
that "our understanding of biological responses to ocean change is still in its infancy." With respect to ocean
acidification, in particular, they write that the impact it will have on marine life "is still
uncertain," and that the phenomenon itself is but "one side of the story," the other side being
what they call "ocean carbonation," which, as they describe it, "will likely be beneficial to some
groups of photosynthetic organisms." Thus, they write that "our present understanding of
biologically driven feedback mechanisms is still rudimentary," and that with respect to many of
their magnitudes, "our understanding is too immature to even make a guess." What is more,
they imply that even what we do think we know could well be wrong, because, as they elucidate,
"our present knowledge of pH/CO2 sensitivities of marine organisms is based almost entirely
on short-term perturbation experiments, neglecting the possibility of evolutionary adaptation."
Ocean acidification will be slow and stable, proven by 1000 studies- it improves ocean
resiliency
Codling 11 [Jo, received a Bachelor of Science first class and won the FH Faulding and the Swan Brewery
prizes at the University of Western Australia. Her major was microbiology, molecular biology. Nova received a
Graduate Certificate in Scientific Communication from the Australian National University in 1989,[4] and she
did honours research in 1990, prize-winning science graduate, Jo has has done over 200 radio interviews,
many on the Australian ABC. She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU
and is based in Perth, Western Australia, , Ocean Acidification a little bit less alkalinity could be a good
thing, Sept. 11, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ocean-acidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-agood-thing/]
Studies of how marine life copes with less alkaline conditions include many experiments with
water at pH values in a range beyond anything that is likely on planet Earth they go beyond
the bounds of whats possible. There are estimates that the pH of the ocean has shifted about
0.1 pH unit in the last 200 years, yet some studies consider the effects of water that is shifted by
2 or even 4 entire pH units. Four pH units means 10,000 fold change in the concentration of
hydrogen ions). Thats a shift so large, its not going to occur in the next few thousand years,
even under the worst of the worst case scenarios by the most sadistic models. Indeed, its
virtually impossible for CO2 levels to rise high enough to effect that kind of change, even if we
burned every last fossil, every tree, plant microbe, and vaporized life on earth. (Yet still someone
thought it was worth studying what would happen if, hypothetically, that happened. Hmm.) CO2 science has
an extraordinary data base of 1103 studies of the effects of acidification on marine life. They
reason that any change beyond 0.5 pH units is far far beyond the realms of reality even if you
are concerned about coral reefs in the year 2300 (see Tans 2009). Even the IPCCs highest end scenario
A2 estimate predicts a peak change in the range of 0.6 units by 2300. Many of the headlines
forecasting Death to Reefs come from studies of ocean water at extreme pHs that will never
occur globally, and that are beyond even what the IPCC is forecasting. Some headlines come
from studies of hydrothermal vents where CO2 bubbles up from the ocean floor. Not
surprisingly they find changes to marine life near the vents, but then, the pH of these areas
ranges right down to 2.8. They are an extreme environment, nothing like what we might expect
to convert the worlds oceans too. Studies of growth, calcification, metabolism, fertility and survival show
that, actually, if things were a little less alkaline, on average, marine life would benefit. There will
be winners and losers, but on the whole, using those five measures of health, the reefs are more likely to
have more life on and around them, than they are to shrink. First, marine life evolved under
conditions were most of the time the world was warmer and had more CO2 in the atmosphere
than it does today. Second, like life above the water, life-below-water is based on carbon, and
putting more carbon into the water is not necessarily a bad thing. That said, the dots in the graph
above represent study results, and the ones below zero tell us there will be some losers, even though there will
be more winners (above zer0). Thirdly, watch out for some of the more devastating headlines which also come
from studies where researchers changed the pH by tossing hydrochloric acid into the tank. Chlorine, as they
say, is not the same as the gas nature breathes CO2. (The strange thing about the studies with hydrochloric

138
Warming Core
acid, is that it doesnt seem to be bad as we might have expected nonetheless, it seems like a dubious practice
to use in studying the health of corals.) Yes, we should watch and monitor the oceans careful. No, there is no
chance the Great Barrier Reef will be gone in the next 100 years: 1103 studies show that if the
worlds oceans were slightly less basic then marine life as a whole will be slightly more likely to
grow, survive, and be fertile.
Climate change proves Oceans and marine bioD are resilient alarmist predictions empirically
denied
Taylor 10 (James M. Taylor is a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment
& Climate News., Ocean Acidification Scare Pushed at Copenhagen, Feb 10
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment
%20climate/article/26815/Ocean_Acidification_Scare_Pushed_at_Copenhagen.html)
With global temperatures continuing their decade-long decline and United Nations-sponsored
global warming talks falling apart in Copenhagen, alarmists at the U.N. talks spent
considerable time claiming carbon dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic ocean
acidification, regardless of whether temperatures rise. The latest scientific data, however, show
no such catastrophe is likely to occur. The United Kingdoms environment secretary, Hilary Benn,
initiated the Copenhagen ocean scare with a high-profile speech and numerous media interviews claiming
ocean acidification threatens the worlds food supply. The fact is our seas absorb CO2. They absorb about a
quarter of the total that we produce, but it is making our seas more acidic, said Benn in his speech. If this
continues as a problem, then it can affect the one billion people who depend on fish as their principle source of
protein, and we have to feed another 2 to 3 billion people over the next 40 to 50 years. Benns claim of
oceans becoming more acidic is misleading, however. Water with a pH of 7.0 is considered neutral.
pH values lower than 7.0 are considered acidic, while those higher than 7.0 are considered alkaline. The
worlds oceans have a pH of 8.1, making them alkaline, not acidic. Increasing carbon dioxide
concentrations would make the oceans less alkaline but not acidic. Since human industrial
activity first began emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a little more than 200 years
ago, the pH of the oceans has fallen merely 0.1, from 8.2 to 8.1. Following Benns December 14
speech and public relations efforts, most of the worlds major media outlets produced stories claiming ocean
acidification is threatening the worlds marine life. An Associated Press headline, for example, went so far as to
call ocean acidification the evil twin of climate change. Numerous recent scientific studies show
higher carbon dioxide levels in the worlds oceans have the same beneficial effect on marine life
as higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have on terrestrial plant life. In a 2005 study
published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists examined trends in chlorophyll concentrations,
critical building blocks in the oceanic food chain. The French and American scientists reported an overall
increase of the world ocean average chlorophyll concentration by about 22 percent during the prior two
decades of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. In a 2006 study published in Global Change Biology,
scientists observed higher CO2 levels are correlated with better growth conditions for oceanic
life. The highest CO2 concentrations produced higher growth rates and biomass yields than
the lower CO2 conditions. Higher CO2 levels may well fuel subsequent primary production,
phytoplankton blooms, and sustaining oceanic food-webs, the study concluded. In a 2008 study
published in Biogeosciences, scientists subjected marine organisms to varying concentrations of CO2,
including abrupt changes of CO2 concentration. The ecosystems were surprisingly resilient to
changes in atmospheric CO2, and the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton
abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were
not significantly affected by CO2-induced effects. In a 2009 study published in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, scientists reported, Sea star growth and feeding rates increased with water
temperature from 5C to 21C. A doubling of current [CO2] also increased growth rates both with
and without a concurrent temperature increase from 12C to 15C. Far too many predictions of
CO2-induced catastrophes are treated by alarmists as sure to occur, when real-world
observations show these doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual
impossibilities, said Craig Idso, Ph.D., author of the 2009 book CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs.
The phenomenon of CO2-induced ocean acidification appears to be no different.

Warming Core
139

Warming Core
140
AT: Natural Disasters

Climate Change Doesnt Cause Tornadoes
Kunzig, Scientific Journalist, 2013
[Robert, 5-22-2013, National Geographic. It Sounds Intuitive: Of Course Global Warming Should Lead to
More and More Powerful Tornadoes, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130522-tornadoclimate-change-oklahoma-science-global-warming/]
We're adding energy to the atmosphere by trapping heat with greenhouse gases, and tornadoes
are the very picture of terrifying atmospheric energy. Linking any particular weather event to
climate change is always tricky, because weather is inherently random. But weather patterns can
speak to a warming planet. Scientists can detect that extreme rain events, for instance, are already happening
more often than they used to, and that a warmer atmosphere with more water vapor in it is making such events
more likely. Tornadoes are different. Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or
intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress themthe science just isn't clear
yet. Neither is the historical record. There is no real evidence that tornadoes are happening more often. A lot
more are being recorded now than in 1950, but a closer look at the data shows the increase is only in the
weakest category, EF0. There's been no increase in stronger twisters, and maybe even a slight
decrease in EF4s and EF5s. That suggests we're just spotting more of the weak and short-lived tornadoes
than we did back when the country was emptier (the U.S. population in 1950 was less than half what it is now),
we didn't have Doppler radar, and Oklahoma highways weren't jammed with storm-chasers. There is also no
evidence that tornadoes have gotten more damaging, according to a study by Roger Pielke, Jr., of the
University of Colorado and his colleagues. Even so, when you allow for inflation and increases in population
and wealth in the United States, 2011 becomes the third worst year for tornado damage, after 1953 and 1965.
When National Geographic magazine asked "What's Up With the Weather" in acover story last September, we
put a tornado photo on the cover and six pages of twister pictures insideincluding a large shot of the swath of
destruction that an EF4 tornado cut through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in 2011, killing 64 people there and in
Birmingham. But as writer Peter Miller made clear in that story, intuition is not a reliable guide to tornadoes.
Tornadoes Arent Becoming More Frequent Because Of Climate Change
Sheffield, President of Dialog New Media, 2013
[Matthew, 5-25-2013, News Busters, Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: Climate Change Not Causing More
Tornadoes, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/05/25/scientist-corrects-gullible-reporterwe-are-not-having-more-extre]
Occasionally, we hear from people who believe that liberal media bias isnt really that big of an issue because
most people dont really trust reporters to tell the truth. While public trust in the media is at an all-time low,
that hardly means they lack the power to shape opinion. A perfect case in point is the notion popularized
by environmental alarmist Al Gore that the Earth is experiencing more severe weather events
supposedly caused by climate change. Like his earlier debunked claims that global temperatures were
increasing, this statement is also false. But many people are simply unaware of the facts.That is
understandable given that most people are not interested in keeping tallies of the number of
hurricanes and tornadoes. Being uninformed about the facts, they are easily susceptible to
having their opinion influenced by the medias love of disaster coverage and also of extremists like Gore
making false claims about severe weather phenomena. One such person who appears to have been influenced
in this way is Los Angeles Times reporter Stacey Lessca. Fortunately for her, yesterday she received some
much-needed education during an interview with a scientist working for the National Severe Storms
Laboratory. After discussing some of the particulars of the recent tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, Lessca
shifted her questioning toward environmental orthodoxy (to watch, fast-forward to the 11:20 mark), asking
research scientist Robin Tanamachi if there really were more tornadoes happening thanks to climate
change: It seems like theres been more severe weather, it seems, it just feels like hurricanes are getting
worse. Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast. This tornado now has killed 24 people in the town of Moore.
Do you think that more severe storms are becoming the norm, and do you think that they are directly related to
climate change? Tanamachi answered that this was not the case whatsoever and that people who thought

141
Warming Core
otherwise were likely being influenced by the medias continual reporting on weather events: Well the
statistics dont bear that assertion out. What were finding is that peoples perception is that severe weather has
increased. That perception is largely based on media presentation and that an event like the Moore tornado is
now broadcast worldwide within moments of its occurence. And so it can seem more local to people than it is.
But as far as the number of tornadoes, we havent been able to discern an increasing trend. As far
as the number of hurricanes, we havent been able to discern a really solid increasing trend with that. So its
just a matter of people being aware of those events when they occur and being aware of them almost
immediately after they happen. This is not the only issue where the media have influenced the public into
believing something that is false. As Geoffrey Dickens noted earlier this month, a poll conducted by the Pew
Research Center found that only 12 percent of Americans were aware that gun violence has decreased even
though the drop has been quite significant. By contrast, a majority, 56 percent, believed incorrectly that gun
violence had increased. This misperception was almost certainly created by the press which has been feverish
in its coverage of mass shootings and in its advocacy for anti-gun laws. Side note: The idea that human
wickedness has some sort of effect on climate has long been a staple of some religious thought and it is yet
another way in which modern environmentalism is actually similar to a religion. Both Al Gore and your
garden-variety End Times lunatic believe that humans are being punished for their sins with more extreme
weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. It is sad reflection on modern society that the former is on his
way to becoming a billionaire while only the latter is dismissed as a crank.

Warming Core
142
AT: Wars
Warming Is Empirically Proven To Not Cause Wars
Schiemeier, Statistic and Geographer, 2010
[Quirin, 9-6-2010 Climate Change Not Link To African War ,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100906/full/news.2010.451.html]
Halvard Buhaug, a political scientist with the Peace Research Institute Oslo in Norway. In research
published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1, he finds virtually no
correlation between climate-change indicators such as temperature and rainfall variability and
the frequency of civil wars over the past 50 years in sub-Saharan Africa arguably the part of the world
that is socially and environmentally most vulnerable to climate change. "The primary causes of civil war
are political, not environmental," says Buhaug. The analysis challenges a study published last year that
claimed to have found a causal connection between climate warming and civil violence in Africa. Marshall
Burke, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues, reported a strong historical
relationship between temperature and the incidence of civil war. They found that the likelihood of armed
conflict across the continent rose by around 50% in unusually warm years during 1981-20022. Projected future
warming threatens to offset the positive effects of democratization and eradicating poverty in Africa, they
warned. Data-set discord The two rival groups are now disputing the validity of each other's findings. Buhaug
says that Burke's study may have been skewed by the choice of climate data sets, and by their narrow definition
of 'civil war' as any year that saw more than 1,000 fatalities from intra-national conflict. The definition is at
odds with conventional measures of civil war in the academic literature, says Buhaug: "If a conflict lasts for 10
years, but in only 3 of them the death toll exceeds 1,000, [Burke et al] may code it as three different wars."
"You'd really like to apply as many complementary definitions as possible before proclaiming a robust
correlation with climate change," Buhaug adds. Burke maintains that his findings are robust, and counters that
Buhaug has cherry-picked his data sets to support his hypothesis. "Although we have enjoyed discussing it with
him, we definitely do not agree with Halvard on this," says Burke. "There are legitimate disagreements about
which data to use, [but] basically we think he's made some serious econometric mistakes that undermine his
results. He does not do a credible job of controlling for other things beyond climate that might be going on."
Buhaug disagrees vigorously. "If they accuse me of highlighting data sets in favour of my hypothesis, then this
applies tenfold more to their own paper." The debate has much wider implications for policy-makers.
The link between climate and civil war has been mooted several times before for example, in a
2003 report for the Pentagon on the national-security implications of climate change; in the Stern Review on
the Economics of Climate Change, prepared for the UK government in 2006; and in the United Nations' postconflict environmental assessment of Sudan in 2007, which suggested that climate change was an aggravating
factor in the Darfur conflict. Given the many causes of unrest, it is not surprising that a meaningful correlation
with climate is hard to pin down, says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research in Germany. "Even if the data and methods were up to the task which they aren't
the 'causal noise' would be too loud to discern the currently still weak climate signals in civil wars." It is
extremely difficult to identify simple, robust cause-and-effect relationships between changes in
climate and societal outcomes, agrees Roger Pielke, a political scientist and climate policy expert at the
University of Colorado in Boulder. "The climate signals are small in the context of the broader social
factors," Pielke says. "This does not at all diminish the importance of responding to climate
change, but it does offer a stark warning about trying to use overly simplistic notions of cause
and effect to advocate for such actions.
Climate Change Doesnt Cause War- Model Proves
Koubi, PH.D, 2012
[Vally, Center for Comparative and International Studies, Climate variability, economic growth, and civil
conflict, http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/113.full]
Whether increasing local or regional climate variability due to large-scale, human-induced changes in the
global atmosphere is associated with an increased risk of violent conflict remains contested,

143
Warming Core
both among policymakers and in academic circles. In this article we contribute in two ways to the existing
literature on the climate changeconflict nexus. First, we conceptualize this nexus in terms of a two-stage
process in which climatic variability affects the probability of violent intrastate conflict via climate effects on
economic growth, and where these effects may be contingent on political system characteristics. Second, we
employ a measure of climatic variability that has advantages over those used in the existing
literature, primarily because it takes into account the adaptation of economic activity to
persistent climatic changes. Our results suggest that climate variability, measured as deviations
in temperature and precipitation from their past, long-run levels (a 30-year moving average),
does not affect violent intrastate conflict through economic growth. This finding is important
because the causal pathway leading from climate variability via (deteriorating) economic
growth to conflict is a key part of most theoretical models of the climateconflict nexus. While
our empirical results provide no support for the climate changeeconomic growthconflict pathway, further
research is required before we can move towards closure of the debate. In particular, it would be very useful to
improve on existing indicators of climatic variability, adaptation to climate variability, and relevant (from the
viewpoint of violent conflict) economic performance. For instance, in the absence of appropriate indicators for
adaptation it remains difficult to estimate the effect of climatic variability on economic performance and hence
on the probability of violent conflict.
Resource Wars Are Far From Inevitable
Bier, 2011
[David, 28-11-2011, Steven Pinker: Resource Scarcity Doesnt Cause Wars,
http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/28/steven-pinker-resource-scarcity-doesnt-cause-wars/]
A 2007 New York Times op-ed warned, Climate stress may well represent a challenge to international security
just as dangerousand more intractablethan the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union
during the Cold War or the proliferation of nuclear weapons among rogue states today. That same year Al
Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their call to
action against global warming because, according to the citation, climate change is a threat to international
security. A rising fear lifts all the boats. Calling global warming a force multiplier for instability, a group of
military officers wrote that climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.
Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is maybe, but maybe not. Though climate change
can cause plenty of misery it will not necessarily lead to armed conflict. The political
scientists who track war and peace, such as Halvard Buhaug, Idean Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils
Gleditsch, are skeptical of the popular idea that people fight wars over scarce resources. Hunger
and resource shortages are tragically common in sub-Saharan countries such as Malawi, Zambia,
and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tsunamis (such as the
disastrous one in the Indian Ocean in 2004) do not generally lead to conflict. The American dust bowl in
the 1930s, to take another example, caused plenty of deprivation but no civil war. And while
temperatures have been rising steadily in Africa during the past fifteen years, civil wars and
war deaths have been falling. Pressures on access to land and water can certainly cause local skirmishes,
but a genuine war requires that hostile forces be organized and armed, and that depends more
on the influence of bad governments, closed economies, and militant ideologies than on the
sheer availability of land and water. Certainly any connection to terrorism is in the imagination of the
terror warriors: terrorists tend to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not subsistence farmers. As for
genocide, the Sudanese government finds it convenient to blame violence in Darfur on desertification,
distracting the world from its own role in tolerating or encouraging the ethnic cleansing. In a regression
analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen found that conflict was more likely if a country was
poor, populous, politically unstable, and abundant in oil, but not if it had suffered from droughts, water
shortages, or mild land degradation. (Severe land degradation did have a small effect.) Reviewing analyses that
examined a large number (N) of countries rather than cherry-picking one or toe, he concluded, Those who
foresee doom, because of the relationship between resource scarcity and violent internal
conflict, have very little support from the large-N literature. Salehyan adds that relatively
inexpensive advances in water use and agricultural practices in the developing world can yield
massive increases in productivity with a constant or even shrinking amount of land, and that better
governance can mitigate the human costs of environmental damage, as it does in developed democracies. Since

144
Warming Core
the state of the environment is at most one ingredient in a mixture that depends far more on political and social
organization, resource wars are far from inevitable, even in a climate-changed world.
Resource Scarcity Solves Relations and Conflict
Dinar, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida
International University, 2011
[Shlomi, 8-21-2011, Beyond Resource Wars, http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/beyond-resource-wars]
This volume asserts that while resource scarcity and environmental degradation may well constitute sources
of conflict, political dispute, and mismanagement between states, they may also be the impetus for cooperation, coordination, and negotiation between them. While the volume recognizes both sides of the
resource scarcity and environmental degradation coin, the cooperative relationship is of particular interest
and scrutiny. Indeed, conflict frequently motivates cooperation, and resource scarcity and
environmental degradation are important elements of this relationship. Generally, the authors in
this volume maintain that increasing scarcity and degradation induce cooperation across states. To
that Solve Extent, we provide a different perspective than that of the resource wars argument made with regard
to particular natural resources such as oil, freshwater, minerals, and fisheries. Yet beyond this claim, the
volume systematically explores the intricacies and nuances of this scarcity and degradation contention across a
set of additional resources and environmental problems, which may merely motivate political conflicts such
as climate change, ozone depletion, oceans pollution, transboundary air pollution, and biodiversity
conservation. In particular, and in line with the collective action school, the volume investigates the notion
that as scarcity and degradation worsen, interstate cooperation becomes difficult to achieve since it may be too
costly to manage the degradation or there is simply too little of the resource to share (Ostrom 2001). Similarly,
low levels of scarcity may depress cooperation as there is less urgency to organize and
coordinate. Scarcity and degradation levels, in other words, should matter in explaining the
intensity of cooperation.

Warming Core
***Warming Good DAs***
145

Warming Core
146
***Ice Age***

Warming Core
147
1NC Ice Age DA

An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- only maintaining emissions can solve
Kenny 2
(Andrew, 7/14/02, The Sunday Mail, The Ice Age Cometh, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us
believe in global warming. THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for
mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in
the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies. The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into
past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as
a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International
Wildlife, July 1975) The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations ... If it continues, and no
strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world
war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976) As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters
environmental, Time magazine, wrote: The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The
last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one for there will be a next one could start
tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started . The scare
about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest
weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an
icy apocalypse. But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the
coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt
Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry. Even the White House is making
cautionary sounds about warming. What facts have emerged to make this dramatic reversal? Well, none really. The most reliable measurements show
no change whatsoever in global temperatures in the past 20 years. What has changed is the perception that global warming makes a better scare than the
coming ice age. A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the
second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. It is not the destruction itself of Sodom and Gomorrah that makes the story so
appealing but the fact that they were destroyed because they were so sinful. One of the real threats to mankind is the danger of collision with a large
asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings,
protests and newspaper headlines about asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you could persuade
people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise
awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous editorials in all the papers. Global warming has the perfect culprit: naughty, industrialised,
advanced, consuming, Western society, which has made itself very rich by burning a lot of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). This, so the scare goes, is
releasing a lot of carbon dioxide, which is dangerously heating up the world. THERE are two facts in the scare. First, it is true that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas one which traps heat on Earth. (Without it, the Earth would be 'too cold for' life.) Second, it is true that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. The rest is guesswork. The global warmers said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air
temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever. Surface
temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The
curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years. (The curve,
incidentally, is a bad match against rising carbon dioxide but a good one against solar activity, which suggests the sun might be the reason for the
warming.) However, there are accurate methods of measuring sea temperatures going back much further. Past temperatures for the Atlantic Ocean have
been found by looking at dead marine life. The isotope ratio of carbon-14 in their skeletons tells you when they lived. The ratio of other isotopes tells you
the temperature then. Thus we are able to know temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years. They make nonsense
of the global warming scare. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the "Holocene Maximum" of about 5000 years ago
when it was about l.5C higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in the years 600 to 1100, when
temperatures. were about 1C higher than now. This was a golden age for northern European agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation.
Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England. Then temperatures dropped to
"The Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1000
years ago. We are now in a rather cool period. What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a fact of
nature, and we have no idea if the claimed 0.3C heating over the past 100 years is caused by man's activities or part of a natural cycle. What we can say,
though, is that if Europe heats up by 1C it would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon
dioxide makes plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests. The Earth's climate is immensely complicated, far beyond our present powers
of understanding and the calculating powers of modern computers. Changes in phase from ice to water to vapour; cloud formation; convection; ocean
currents; winds; changes in the sun: the complicated shapes of the land masses; the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide all of these and a
thousand other factors operating with small differences over vast masses and distances make it practically impossible for us to make predictions about
long-term climate patterns, and perhaps make such predictions inherently impossible. The computer models that the global warmers now use are
ludicrously oversimplified, and it is no surprise they have made one wrong prediction after another. If the global warming scare has little foundation in
fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular
cycle of ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due. We do
not know what causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf Stream, but we do not
know. However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity. It may be that increased
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the ice age. In this case, we
should give tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they
release.

Warming Core
148
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- need to keep up emissions to survive
Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, 8
(Phil, April 23th 2008, The Australian, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and
Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that
there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming , the average
temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite
the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global
temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley
Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York,
the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California )
report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007 . This is the fastest temperature change in the
instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first
time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James
Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally
dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of
somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after
that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and
lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another
little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is
that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The
previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold
period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand
Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline
in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it
is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are
moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice
age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything
warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US
and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it
(such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote
but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has
almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of
ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have
enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur
quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is
inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even
faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be
14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing
under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees.
Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
The coming Ice Age outweighs any impacts of Warming
Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food
Issues at the Hudson Institute, 7
(Fred, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Page 13, JA
The climate event that deserves real concern is the next Big Ice Age . That is inevitably
approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may plummet 15
degrees Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder . Humanity and food
production will be forced closer to the equator, as huge ice sheets expand in Canada. Scandinavia. Russia, and
Argentina. Even Ohio and Indiana may gradually be encased in mile-thick ice, while California and the Great Plains could suffer

149
Warming Core
century-long drought. Keeping warm will become the critical issue, both night and day. Getting
enough food for eight or nine billion people from the relatively small amount of arable land left
unfrozen will be a potentially desperate effort . The broad, fertile plains of Alberta and the Ukraine will become subArctic wastes. Wildlife species will be extremely challenged, even though they've survived such cold
before-because this time there will be more humans competing for the ice-free land . That's when
human knowledge and high-tech farming will be truly needed. In contrast, none of the scary scenarios posited by today's global
warming advocates took place during the Earth's past warm periods

Warming Core
150
2NC UQ Ice Age Coming

An ice age is coming
National Post 8 (February 25th 2008, the National Post, Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice
Age. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab721adbdbb1d0d0, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any
time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and
towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the
average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is
surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for
so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines
had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario
and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed
home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto
received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV,
pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so
hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as
far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice
is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter
has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than
at this time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is
looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and
environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every
time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather
stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is
piling up against the climate-change dogma. According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical
dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show
polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and
triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong. "We missed what was right
in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents
northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on
ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on
polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of
winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern
waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket."
Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur
coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio
telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot
activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice
Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and
drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade
ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the
hysteria of the global warmers, too.
An ice age is cooling due to lower sun activity- solar science proves
Svensmark, PhD., director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space,9
(Henrik, 9/10/09, Whatsupwiththat.com, Svensmark: global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning
enjoy global warming while it lasts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warmingstopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/, accessed 7/12/13, JA)

151
Warming Core
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the
usual signs of the Suns magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite
SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, It is likely that the current years number of blank days
will be the longest in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of
hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth. If you ask the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate
change, the answer is a reassuring nothing. But history and recent research suggest that is probably
completely wrong. Why? Lets take a closer look. Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000,
we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when
frosts in May were almost unknown a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in
Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, Chinas
population doubled in this period. But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get
colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking
settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London
the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly
nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger. "The March
across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where
Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great
Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjlland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to
Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image. Its important to realise
that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar
activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years
ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar
scientists call a grand minimum such as we saw in the Little Ice Age. The match between solar
activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns
out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link.
Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In
fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Suns changing activity
affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest
way for the Sun to change the climate a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb. Satellite
measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain
climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the
Sun to affect Earths climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun its impact on
Earths cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to
form clouds. When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming
from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earths cloud cover, the Sun can turn the
temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity
and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Suns
magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large
part of global warming seen then. That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It
does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2.
If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must
necessarily be smaller. Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp
criticism, which is normal in science. First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be
correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed
experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to
form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation. Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found
in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have
just rejected that criticism emphatically. It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural
experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few
days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid
water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect indeed so great that in
popular terms the Earths clouds originate in space. So we have watched the Suns magnetic activity with
increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s. That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep

152
Warming Core
minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel
Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that we are advising our
friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts. In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is
beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in
Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural
change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural
variations in climate are making a comeback.
Emissions can prevent an ice age we must continue to burn fossil fuels
Science Daily, 7
(Aug. 30, 2007, ScienceDaily.com, Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is
the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and
Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Arguably, this work demonstrates the most
far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. Dr Tyrrell's team
used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing
supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The world's oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere
but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells
produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is
elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed. Computer modelling in 2004 by a then
oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and
colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a theoretical analysis to
validate the plausibility of the phenomenon. The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment
Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first
estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age. Dr Tyrrell
said: 'Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we
stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at
what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at
more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.' Ice ages
occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun
strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only
variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also
important. Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000
Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that
the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice
ages.
Warming cant trigger another Ice Age prefer our science over their unwarranted fearmongering
Gibbs, journalist for the New York Times, 2007
(Walter, May 15th 2007, The New York Times, Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming
World, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/earth/15cold.html?
pagewanted=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/%20Environment&_r=2%3E, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of
cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about
that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held
climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of
the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of
Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that
warm-water current, Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would
be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries,

153
Warming Core
Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the
rest of the world sweltered. All that has now been removed from the forecast. Not only is northern Europe
warming, but every major climate model produced by scientists worldwide in recent years has also shown that
the warming will almost certainly continue. The concern had previously been that we were close to a threshold
where the Atlantic circulation system would stop, said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to
improved modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current are more stable
than previously thought. After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change said in February it was very unlikely that the crucial flow of warm water to
Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet
along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current by 25
percent through 2100. But the panel added that any cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed
by a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a
result of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. The bottom
line is that the atmosphere is warming up so much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic
Current will never be able to cool Europe, said Helge Drange, a professor at the Nansen Environmental
and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway.
An Ice Age causes extinction
Snook, author, 7
(Jim, Ice Age Extinction: Cause and Human Consequences, JA)
This study indicates that low atmospheric carbon dioxide was the major cause of the large animal
extinction near the end of the last ice age. There was not enough carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere for most plants in the higher latitude and low altitude areas. The reduction in
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occurred over thousands of years, and the dying off of the
plants was a very gradual process. Without sufficient plants to eat, most of the large animals
could not survive. These large animals had been on earth for many millions of years and had survived many
previous threats to their existence. Yet in a geologically short period of time they became extinct. We
will now look at the sequence of events involved in extinction.
Sunspots prove- global cooling is coming

Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for
Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the
American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the
White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General
of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, 5/26/13
(Peter, 7/12/13, Forbes.com, To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-globalcooling-is-here/, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s,
which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15
years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though
global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, The
world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.
That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. Yet, still no warming during that time.
That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global
temperature changes. At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back
to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short
term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots
declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years.
But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASAs Science News report for January 8,

154
Warming Core
2013 states, Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar
Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there
is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of
sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the
time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be
formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their
conclusion. That is even more significant because NASAs climate science has been controlled for years by
global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement. But this same concern is
increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013, Global warming
which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global
cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the
average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that
forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo
Observatory saying, Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesnt bring
about considerable climate change only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater up
to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. In other
words, another Little Ice Age.
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- only maintaining emissions can solve
Kenny 2
(Andrew, 7/14/02, The Sunday Mail, The Ice Age Cometh, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt
about consumerism to make us believe in global warming. THE Earth's climate is changing in a
dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This
was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their
prophecies. The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages.
They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely
source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in
International Wildlife, July 1975) The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor
nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world
famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe
Ponte, The Cooling, 1976) As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time
magazine, wrote: The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change
at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one for there will be a next
one could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already
started. The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures;
the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate
towards an icy apocalypse. But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to
the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather
recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the
shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry. Even the
White House is making cautionary sounds about warming. What facts have emerged to make this dramatic
reversal? Well, none really. The most reliable measurements show no change whatsoever in global
temperatures in the past 20 years. What has changed is the perception that global warming makes a better
scare than the coming ice age. A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending
catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming
is gloriously successful. It is not the destruction itself of Sodom and Gomorrah that makes the story so
appealing but the fact that they were destroyed because they were so sinful. One of the real threats to mankind
is the danger of collision with a large asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will
probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings, protests and newspaper
headlines about asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you
could persuade people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee
there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous

155
Warming Core
editorials in all the papers. Global warming has the perfect culprit: naughty, industrialised, advanced,
consuming, Western society, which has made itself very rich by burning a lot of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).
This, so the scare goes, is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide, which is dangerously heating up the world. THERE
are two facts in the scare. First, it is true that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas one which traps heat on Earth.
(Without it, the Earth would be 'too cold for' life.) Second, it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is rising. The rest is guesswork. The global warmers said the most accurate measure of climate
change would be air temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with
extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever. Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the
recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve
most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the
past 100 years. (The curve, incidentally, is a bad match against rising carbon dioxide but a good one against
solar activity, which suggests the sun might be the reason for the warming.) However, there are accurate
methods of measuring sea temperatures going back much further. Past temperatures for the Atlantic Ocean
have been found by looking at dead marine life. The isotope ratio of carbon-14 in their skeletons tells you when
they lived. The ratio of other isotopes tells you the temperature then. Thus we are able to know temperatures in
the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years. They make nonsense of the global warming
scare. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the "Holocene Maximum" of about
5000 years ago when it was about l.5C higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the
"Medieval Climate Optimum" in the years 600 to 1100, when temperatures. were about 1C higher than now.
This was a golden age for northern European agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation. Greenland,
now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England.
Then temperatures dropped to "The Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have
been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1000 years ago. We are now in a rather
cool period. What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a
fact of nature, and we have no idea if the claimed 0.3C heating over the past 100 years is caused by man's
activities or part of a natural cycle. What we can say, though, is that if Europe heats up by 1C it would do it a
power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide makes
plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests. The Earth's climate is immensely complicated, far
beyond our present powers of understanding and the calculating powers of modern computers. Changes in
phase from ice to water to vapour; cloud formation; convection; ocean currents; winds; changes in the sun: the
complicated shapes of the land masses; the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide all of these and a
thousand other factors operating with small differences over vast masses and distances make it practically
impossible for us to make predictions about long-term climate patterns, and perhaps make such predictions
inherently impossible. The computer models that the global warmers now use are ludicrously oversimplified,
and it is no surprise they have made one wrong prediction after another. If the global warming scare has little
foundation in fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before,
the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years
without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due. We do not know what
causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf
Stream, but we do not know. However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain
calamity. It may be that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually
warding off the ice age. In this case, we should give tax relief to coal power stations and
factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they release.
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- need to keep up emissions to survive
Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, 8
(Phil, April 23th 2008, The Australian, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time
image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point
between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on

156
Warming Core
Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued
increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature
is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate
Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the
Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California)
report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the
instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover,
we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was
exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply
terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook
discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events
in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few
years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length,
averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to
start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot
appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but
vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be
many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between
variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like
this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from
1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat
from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline
in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal
connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin
contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that
lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the
previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people
now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada.
Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we
do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die
from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland
and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has
almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America
and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief
warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout
recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that
glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20
years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the
other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial
transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then,
most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest
of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total
annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it
will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
The coming Ice Age outweighs any impacts of Warming
Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food
Issues at the Hudson Institute, 7
(Fred, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Page 13, JA
The climate event that deserves real concern is the next Big Ice Age . That is inevitably
approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may plummet 15
degrees Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder . Humanity and food
production will be forced closer to the equator, as huge ice sheets expand in Canada. Scandinavia. Russia, and
Argentina. Even Ohio and Indiana may gradually be encased in mile-thick ice, while California and the Great Plains could suffer

157
Warming Core
century-long drought. Keeping warm will become the critical issue, both night and day. Getting
enough food for eight or nine billion people from the relatively small amount of arable land left
unfrozen will be a potentially desperate effort . The broad, fertile plains of Alberta and the Ukraine will become subArctic wastes. Wildlife species will be extremely challenged, even though they've survived such cold
before-because this time there will be more humans competing for the ice-free land . That's when
human knowledge and high-tech farming will be truly needed. In contrast, none of the scary scenarios posited by today's global
warming advocates took place during the Earth's past warm periods

Warming Core
158
2NC UQ Ice Age Coming

Sunspots prove- global cooling is coming
Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for
Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the
American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the
White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General
of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, 5/26/13
(Peter, 7/12/13, Forbes.com, To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-globalcooling-is-here/, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global
temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not
actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, The world
added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010 . That is about
a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and
marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning
back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles,
with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined
substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the
current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASAs Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, Indeed, the sun could
be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest
in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening
trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots . Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar
Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any
sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their
conclusion. That is even more significant because NASAs climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who
recently announced his retirement. But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give
way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly
temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.
That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year
cycle doesnt bring about considerable climate change only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year
cycle is greater up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200250 years. In other words, another Little Ice Age.
An ice age is coming
National Post 8 (February 25th 2008, the National Post, Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice
Age. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab721adbdbb1d0d0, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any
time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered
record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler
than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the
normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had
toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the
real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of
February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the
pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its
"lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much
greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic
winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this
time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our
most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the
natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder
whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma. According to

Warming Core
159
Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical
dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping
the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward
from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by
over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year
cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in
the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as
"a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not
alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long
period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth
suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through
killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did
rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the
global warmers, too.
An ice age is cooling due to lower sun activity- solar science proves
Svensmark, PhD., director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space,9
(Henrik, 9/10/09, Whatsupwiththat.com, Svensmark: global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning
enjoy global warming while it lasts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warmingstopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the
Suns magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, It
is likely that the current years number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is
going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for
us on Earth. If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the
answer is a reassuring nothing. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Lets take a closer look. Solar
activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm
Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and
explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, Chinas population doubled in this period. But after about 1300
solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the
Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But
more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of
disease and hunger. "The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish
king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjlland). The risky
but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image. Its
important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the
past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed
again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a grand minimum such as we saw in
the Little Ice Age. The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes
explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not
just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high
and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a
cooling Earth the result. You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Suns changing activity affects the climate.
The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate a bit like turning up
and down the brightness of a light bulb. Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar
radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another,
much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earths climate . In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the
Sun its impact on Earths cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. When the
Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the
Earths cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity
and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Suns magnetism doubled in strength during the
20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then. That also explains why most climate scientists try
to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun
provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller. Ever since we put forward our
theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science. First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity
could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that
demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation. Then came the
criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just
rejected that criticism emphatically. It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause
the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the
amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect indeed so great that in popular terms the Earths
clouds originate in space. So we have watched the Suns magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s. That the
Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder

Warming Core
160
and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts. In fact
global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate
Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years . His explanation was a natural
change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a
comeback.

Warming Core
161
2NC Links Emissions Good

Emissions can prevent an ice age we must continue to burn fossil fuels
Science Daily, 7
(Aug. 30, 2007, ScienceDaily.com, Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm, accessed 7/12/2013, JA)
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels . That is the
implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography
Centre, Southampton. Arguably, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human
activity. Dr Tyrrell's team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The world's oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn
is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is
elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed. Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the
University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a
theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon. The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council,
confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising
CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age . Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our research shows why
atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It
shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The
result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we
would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result .' Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern
of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is
not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important. Humanity has to date
burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of
about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

Warming Core
162
2NC AT: Warming = Ice Age

Warming cant trigger another Ice Age prefer our science over their unwarranted fearmongering
Gibbs, journalist for the New York Times, 2007
(Walter, May 15th 2007, The New York Times, Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming
World, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/earth/15cold.html?
pagewanted=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/%20Environment&_r=2%3E, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
Mainstream climatologists
who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of
cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about
that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held climate
theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of the Gulf
Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of Europe with
warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that warm-water current, Americans
on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain,
northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of
the world sweltered. All that has now been removed from the forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced
by scientists worldwide in recent years has also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue. The concern had previously been that we were
close to a threshold where the Atlantic circulation system would stop, said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and
the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously thought. After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it
was very unlikely that the crucial flow of warm

water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with
increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any
cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed by a general warming of the atmosphere , a
warming that the panel said was under way as a result of rising concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. The bottom line is that the atmosphere is warming up
so much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe , said Helge
Drange, a professor at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway.

Warming Core
163
2NC Impacts Extinction

An Ice Age causes extinction
Snook, author, 7
(Jim, Ice Age Extinction: Cause and Human Consequences, JA)
This study indicates that low atmospheric carbon dioxide was the major cause of the large animal
extinction near the end of the last ice age. There was not enough carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere for most plants in the higher latitude and low altitude areas. The reduction in
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occurred over thousands of years, and the dying off of the
plants was a very gradual process. Without sufficient plants to eat, most of the large animals
could not survive. These large animals had been on earth for many millions of years and had survived many
previous threats to their existence. Yet in a geologically short period of time they became extinct. We
will now look at the sequence of events involved in extinction.

Warming Core
164
AFF 2AC Ice Age DA

No impact Enough resources to survive an ice age
Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological
Protection in Warsaw, 2004
(Zbigniew, winter 2004, Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate, 21st Century Science and
Technology, p. 64, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Will mankind be able to protect the biosphere against the next returning Ice Age? It depends on how much
time we still have. I do not think that in the next 50 years we would acquire the knowledge and resources
sufficient for governing climate on a global scale. Surely we shall not stop climate cooling by
increasing industrial CO2 emissions. Even with the doubling of CO2 atmospheric levels, the increase in
global surface air temperature would be trifling. However, it is unlikely that permanent doubling of the
atmospheric CO2 , even using all our carbon resources, is attainable by human activities.29 (See also
Kondratyev, Reference 59.) Also, it does not seem possible that we will ever gain influence over the
Suns activity. However, I think that in the next centuries we shall learn to control sea currents and clouds,
and this could be sufficient to govern the climate of our planet. The following thought experiment illustrates
how valuable our civilization, and the very existence of mans intellect, is for the terrestrial biosphere. Mikhail
Budyko, the leading Russian climatologist (now deceased), predicted in 1982 a future drastic CO2 deficit in
the atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire surface
of the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said, would survive on the active volcano
edges.60 Budykos hypothesis is still controversial, but 10 years later it was discovered that 700 million years
ago, the Earth already underwent such a disaster, changing into Snowball Earth, covered in
white from Pole to Pole, with an average temperature of minus 40C.15 However lets assume
that Budyko has been right and that everything, to the very ocean bottom, will be frozen. Will
mankind survive this? I think yes, it would. The present technology of nuclear power, based on
the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, would secure heat and electricity supplies for 5
billion people for about 10,000 years. At the same time, the stock of hydrogen in the ocean for
future fusion-based reactors would suffice for 6 billion years. Our cities, industrial plants,
food-producing greenhouses, our livestock, and also zoos and botanical gardens turned into
greenhouses, could be heated virtually forever, and we could survive, together with many
other organisms, on a planet that had turned into a gigantic glacier. I think, however, that such a
passive solution would not fit the genius of our future descendants, and they would learn how to
restore a warm climate for ourselves and for everything that lives on Earth.
Warming melts arctic sea ice that leads to an ice age
The Telegraph 2/27/12
(The Telegraph, news agency, 27 Feb 2012, Freezing winters ahead due to melting Arctic Sea ice,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9109106/Freezing-winters-ahead-due-to-melting-Arctic-Seaice.html)
Climate change means autumn levels of sea ice have dropped by almost 30 percent since 1979 but this is likely to trigger more frequent cold snaps such as those that brought blizzards to the
UK earlier this month. And Arctic sea ice could be to blame. Dr Jiping Liu and colleagues
studied the extensive retreat of the ice in the summer and its slow recovery focusing on the
impacts of this phenomenon on weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Information about snow
cover, sea level pressure, surface air temperature and humidity was used to generate model simulations for the
years 1979-2010. The researchers say dramatic loss of ice may alter atmospheric circulation
patterns and weaken the westerly winds that blow across the North Atlantic Ocean from
Canada to Europe. This will encourage regular incursions of cold air from the Arctic into
Northern continents - increasing heavy snowfall in the UK. Dr Liu said: "The results of this study
add to an increasing body of both observational and modeling evidence that indicates
diminishing Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in driving recent cold and snowy winters over

165
Warming Core
large parts of North America, Europe and east Asia." While the Arctic region has been warming
strongly in recent decades there has been abnormally large snowfall in these areas. Dr Liu, of Georgia
Institute if Technology in Atlanta, said: "Here we demonstrate the decrease in autumn Arctic
sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation.
"This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to
increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. "Moreover, the increase in
atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the
reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe
during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. "We conclude the recent
decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters." In November research
showed there is less Arctic sea ice now than there has been at any time in the last 1,450 years.
Warming causes a second ice age melting ice
Black 2/27/12
(By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News, Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269)
The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and
other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows. As global temperatures have
risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling. Writing in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet
stream and brings cold, snowy weather. Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further
is unclear. There was a marked deterioration in ice cover between the summers of 2006 and
2007, which still holds the record for the lowest extent on record; and it has not recovered
since. The current winter is roughly tracking the graph of 2007, according to the US National Snow and Ice
Data Center (NSIDC). The new study is not the first to propose a causal relationship between low Arctic ice in
autumn and Europe's winter weather. But it has gone further than others in assessing the strength of the link.
Through observations and computer modelling, the team headed by Jiping Liu from Georgia
Institute of Technology in Atlanta, US, and the Insitute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing has
also elucidated the mechanisms involved. "For the past four winters, for much of the northern
US, east Asia and Europe, we had this persistent above-normal snow cover," Dr Liu told BBC
News. "We don't see a predictive relationship with any of the other factors that have been
proposed, such as El Nino; but for sea ice, we do see a predictive relationship." How it happens If
less of the ocean is ice-covered in autumn, it releases more heat, warming the atmosphere.
This reduces the air temperature difference between the Arctic and latitudes further south,
over the Atlantic Ocean. The dwindling Arctic summer ice may have severe consequences for
wildlife In turn, this reduces the strength of the northern jet stream, which usually brings
milder, wetter weather to Europe from the west. It is these "blocking" conditions that keep the
UK and the other affected regions supplied with cold air. The researchers also found that the extra
evaporation from the Arctic Ocean makes the air more humid, with some of the additional water content falling
out as snow. "I agree with the study - I have no beef with the case that declining Arctic sea ice can drive
easterly winds and produce colder winters over Europe," commented Adam Scaife, head of monthly to decadal
prediction at the UK Met Office. Research in other institutions, including the Met Office, confirmed the
argument, he said. Dr Scaife was involved with another study published last year that showed how small,
natural changes in the Sun's output can also affect winter weather. And he emphasised that the declining
Arctic ice cover was just one of several factors that could increase blocking. "You can hit a bell with anything,
and you still produce the same note," he told BBC News. "This is no bigger than the solar effect or the El Nino
effect. But they vary, whereas Arctic ice is on a pretty consistent downward trend." The picture is further
complicated by the involvement of the Arctic Oscillation, a natural variation of air pressure that also changes
northern weather. Dr Len Shaffrey, University of Reading: "This is very early days for this research" The
oscillation is not understood well enough to predict - and even if it were, any pattern it has may be changing
due to escalating greenhouse gas concentrations. Nevertheless, the research suggests that on average, winters
in the UK and the rest of the affected region will be colder in years to come than they have been in recent
decades. Various computer simulations have generated a range of dates by which the Arctic might be
completely ice-free in summer and autumn, ranging from 2016 to about 2060. A few years ago, one projection

166
Warming Core
even showed 2013 was possible, though this now appears unlikely. So a related question is whether UK winters
will get colder and snowier still as the melting progresses, "It's possible that future winters will be colder and
snowier, but there are some uncertainties," cautioned Dr Liu. His team's next research project is to feed Arctic
ice projections and the mechanisms they have deciphered into various computer models of climate, and see
whether they do forecast a growing winter chill.
No extinction from ice agetechnology solves
Croatian Times, 2010
(Oct. 10, Croatian Times, Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years,
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-0210/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
*quoting Vladimir Paarphysicist at Croatias Zagreb University. **This card has been gender
modified
The Zagreb based scientist says it will still be possible for humans to survive in the ice age, but
the spending on energy will be enormous. "Food production also might be a problem. It would
need to be produced in greenhouses with a lot of energy spent to heat it", commented the
professor, who remains optimistic despite his predictions. He said: "The nuclear energy we
know today will not last longer than 100 years as we simply do not have enough uranium in the
world to match the needs in an ice age. But I'm still optimistic. There is the process of nuclear
fusion happening on the Sun. The fuel for that process is hydrogen and such a power plant is
already worked on in France as a consortium involving firms from Marseille and the European
Union, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. The head of the project is a Japanese
expert, and former Japanese ambassador in Croatia", Vladimir Paar revealed. He said the
building of the new technology power plant will take at least another 10 years. "In 40 years we'll
know how it functions. That would be a solution that could last for thousands of years. We have
a lot of hydrogen and the method is an ecological one", the professor concluded.
The most recent scientific consensus is that an ice age will not occur for at least 70,000 years
Berger, professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain and MF Loutre, 2002
(Andre, Aug. 23, Science, An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, EBSCO, Vol. 297,
accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
When paleoclimatologists gathred in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm period
would end ( 1), a slide into the next glacial seemed imminent. But more recent studies point
toward a different future: a long interglacial that may last another 50,000 years. An
interglacial is an uninterrupted warm interval during which global climate reaches at least the
preindustrial level of warmth. Based on geological records available in 1972, the last two
interglacials including the Eemian, 125,000 years ago) were believed to have lasted about
10,000 years. This is about the length of the current warm intervalthe Holoceneto date.
Assuming a similar duration for all interglacials, the scientists concluded that it is likely that
the present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene ( 1,p.
267). Some assumptions made 30 years ago have since been questioned. Past interglacials may
have been longer than originally assumed ( 2). Some, including marine isotope stage 11 (MIS-11,
400,000 years ago), may have been warmer than at present ( 3). We are also increasingly aware
of the intensification of the greenhouse effect by human activities ( 4). But even without human
perturbation, future climate may not develop as in past interglacials ( 5) because the forcings
and mechanisms that produced these earlier warm periods may have been quite different from
today's. Most early attempts to predict future climate at the geological time scale ( 6, 7)
prolonged the cooling that started at the peak of the Holocene some 6000 years ago, predicting
a cold interval in about 25,000 years and a glaciation in about 55,000 years. These projections
were based on statistical rules or simple models that did not include any CO2 forcing. They thus
implicitly assumed a value equal to the average of the last glacial-interglacial cycles [225 parts

167
Warming Core
per million by volume (ppmv) ( 8)]. But some studies disagreed with these projections. With a
simple ice-sheet model, Oerlemans and Van der Veen ( 9) predicted a long interglacial lasting
another 50,000 years, followed by a first glacial maximum in about 65,000 years. Ledley also
stated that an ice age is unlikely to begin in the next 70,000 years ( 10), based on the relation
between the observed rate of change of ice volume and the summer solstice radiation.
Their predictions about cooling are based on short term logicdefault to long term trends
which show warming is coming
Revkin, weather and climate writer for the NY Times, 2008
(Andrew, March 2, The New York Times, Skeptics on Human Climate Impact seize on cold spell,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past
year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with
a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop
in the globes average temperature. It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers,
political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused
global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment. Earths Fever Breaks: Global
COOLING Currently Under Way, read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc
Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts,
including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good oldfashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La
Nia phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Nio pattern. If
anything else is afoot like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and
atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures an array of scientists who have staked
out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to
pinpoint whether such a new force is at work. Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no
way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted
weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. The current downturn is not very
unusual, said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in
Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose
findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar
drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Nia event is over, he said. Mr. Morano,
in an e-mail message, was undaunted, saying turnabout is fair play: Fair is fair. Noting (not
hyping) an unusually harsh global winter is merely pointing out the obvious. Dissenters of a
man-made climate crisis are using the reality of this record-breaking winter to expose the silly
warming alarmism that the news media and some scientists have been ceaselessly promoting
for decades. More clucking about the cold is likely over the next several days. The Heartland
Institute, a public policy research group in Chicago opposed to regulatory approaches to
environmental problems, is holding a conference in Times Square on Monday and Tuesday
aimed at exploring questions about the cause and dangers of climate change. The event will
convene an array of scientists, economists, statisticians and libertarian commentators holding
a dizzying range of views on the changing climate from those who see a human influence but
think it is not dangerous, to others who say global warming is a hoax, the suns fault or
beneficial. Many attendees say it is the dawn of a new paradigm. But many climate scientists
and environmental campaigners say it is the skeptics last stand. Michael E. Schlesinger, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on
the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating
greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a
harmful distraction. Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, involves finding a
signal in a noisy background. He added, The only way to do this within our noisy climate
system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished,

168
Warming Core
thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know
whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise. The
shifts in the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic (where ice has retreated significantly in
recent summers) and Antarctic (where the area of floating sea ice has grown lately) are
similarly hard to attribute to particular influences. Interviews and e-mail exchanges with half a
dozen polar climate and ice experts last week produced a rough consensus: Even with the
extensive refreezing of Arctic waters in the deep chill of the sunless boreal winter, the freshformed ice remains far thinner than the yards-thick, years-old ice that dominated the region
until the 1990s. That means the odds of having vast stretches of open water next summer
remain high, many Arctic experts said. Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the
puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science
community sees by looking at all the pieces, said Ignatius G. Rigor, a climate scientist at the
Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle. He said the argument for a
growing human influence on climate laid out in last years reports from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, or I.P.C.C., was supported by evidence from many fields. I will
admit that we do not have all the pieces, Dr. Rigor said, but as the I.P.C.C. reports, the
preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming is real. As for the Arctic, he said,
Yes, this years winter ice extent is higher than last years, but it is still lower than the longterm mean. Dr. Rigor said next summers ice retreat, despite the regrowth of thin freshformed ice now, could still surpass last years, when nearly all of the Arctic Ocean between
Alaska and Siberia was open water. Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on
the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was
important not to be tempted to overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in
Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections
between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics
conference.) But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of
doing the same thing, saying that the predictable distortion of extreme weather goes in both
directions. Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr.
Michaels on many issues, but concurred on this point. When I get called by CNN to comment
on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks
about a blizzard, Dr. Schmidt said. Its all in the long-term trends. Weather isnt going to go
away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms
of something you think you understand, whether thats the next ice age coming or global
warming.
The plan doesnt cause an ice ageand even if it does, its 50,000 years away
Stager, an ecologist, paleoclimatologist, and science journalist with a Ph.D. in biology and
geology from Duke University, 11.
(Curt, Deep Future, p 17-19, CBC)
But maybe there's a middle route. If we do manage to follow a moderate-emissions path, then we'll
probably be leaving most of our coal reserves where they lie and running our future
civilizations on other energy sources. Environmental damage during the next several centuries
will be held to a minimum, some societies might benefit from a partial and temporary opening of
the Arctic Ocean, and the next ice age of 50,000 ad will be held at bay. This could also produce a
longer-term benefit, as well, by leaving lots of coal already sequestered in the ground for later. By saving
most of our fossil carbon in a safe, solid, reasonably accessible form, we would bequeath it to
later generations for possible use, not necessarily as a fuel but rather as a simple, cost-effective
tool for climate control.

Warming Core
***CO2 Good Agriculture DA***
169

Warming Core
170
1NC Agriculture DA
High-risk of short-term food shortages CO2 emissions is key to prevent extinction
Sherwood and Idso 10 (Keith and Craig, "The World's Looming Food and Water Shortage," CO2 Science
Magazine, Volume 13, Number 49:8, December, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N49/EDIT.php)
Every now and then, various astute observers of man's precarious position on planet earth call
our attention to a developing global crisis that seems destined to wreak havoc on the human
race a mere forty years from now: a lack of sufficient land and freshwater resources to produce
the food that will be required to sustain our growing population. The most recent of this community
of researchers to address the approaching problem are Hanjra and Qureshi (2010), who begin their treatment
of the subject by quoting Benjamin Franklin's well-known homily: "when the well is dry, we know the worth of
water." "Food policy," as the two Australian researchers write, "must not lose sight of surging water scarcity."
Stating that "population and income growth will increase the demand for food and water," they
indicate that "irrigation will be the first sector to lose water, as water competition by nonagricultural uses increases and water scarcity intensifies." And noting that "increasing water
scarcity will have implications for food security, hunger, poverty, and ecosystem health and
services," they report that "feeding the 2050 population will require some 12,400 km3 of water, up
from 6800 km3 used today." This huge increase, in their words, "will leave a water gap of about
3300 km3 even after improving efficiency in irrigated agriculture, improving water
management, and upgrading of rainfed agriculture," as per the findings of de Fraiture et al. (2007),
Molden (2007) and Molden et al. (2010). This water deficiency, according to Hanjra and Qureshi,
"will lead to a food gap unless concerted actions are taken today." Some of the things they propose,
in this regard, are to conserve water and energy resources, develop and adopt climate-resilient crop varieties,
modernize irrigation, shore up domestic food supplies, reengage in agriculture for further development, and
reform the global food and trade market. And to achieve these goals, they say that "unprecedented global
cooperation is required," which by the looks of today's world is an even more remote possibility than that
implied by the proverbial wishful thinking. So, on top of everything else they suggest (a goodly portion of which
will not be achieved), what can we do to defuse the ticking time-bomb that is the looming food and
water crisis? We suggest doing nothing. But not just any "nothing." The nothing we suggest is
to not mess with the normal, unforced evolution of civilization's means of acquiring energy. We
suggest this, because on top of everything else we may try to do to conserve both land and
freshwater resources, we will still fall short of what is needed to be achieved unless the air's
CO2 content rises significantly and thereby boosts the water use efficiency of earth's crop
plants, as well as that of the plants that provide food and habitat for what could be called "wild
nature," enabling both sets of plants to produce more biomass per unit of water used in the
process. And to ensure that this happens, we will need all of the CO2 that will be produced by
the burning of fossil fuels, until other forms of energy truly become more cost-efficient than
coal, gas and oil. In fact, these other energy sources will have to become much more costefficient before fossil fuels are phased out; because the positive externality of the CO2-induced
increase in plant water use efficiency provided by the steady rise in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels will be providing a most important service in
helping us feed and sustain our own species without totally decimating what yet remains of
wild nature.
CO2 solves food shortages no habitat destruction
Sherwood and Idso 10 (Keith and Craig, "Surviving the Perfect Storm," CO2 Science Magazine, Volume 13,
Number 44:3 November, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N44/EDIT.php)
In introducing their review of food security publications pertinent to the challenge of feeding nine billion
people just four decades from now, Godfray et al. (2010) note that "more than one in seven people today
still do not have access to sufficient protein and energy from their diet and even more suffer
some form of micronutrient malnourishment," citing the FAO (2009); and they write that although
"increases in production will have an important part to play" in correcting this problem and

171
Warming Core
keeping it from worsening in the future, they state that mankind "will be constrained by the
finite resources provided by the earth's lands, oceans and atmosphere," which set of difficulties
they describe at the end of their review as comprising a "perfect storm." The first question they ask
in regard to how we might successfully navigate this highly restricted terrain is: "How can more food be
produced sustainably?" They say that the primary solution to food shortages of the past was "to
bring more land into agriculture and to exploit new fish stocks," but they note that there is
precious little remaining of either of these pristine resources. Thus, they conclude that "the
most likely scenario is that more food will need to be produced from the same or less land,"
because, as they suggest, "we must avoid the temptation to sacrifice further the earth's already
hugely depleted biodiversity for easy gains in food production, not only because biodiversity
provides many of the public goods upon which mankind relies, but also because we do not have
the right to deprive future generations of its economic and cultural benefits." And, we might
add, because we should be enlightened enough to realize that we have a moral responsibility to
drive no more species to extinction than we have already sent to that sorry state. So how can
these diverse requirements all be met? ... and at one and the same time? A clue comes from
Godfray et al.'s statement that "greater water and nutrient use efficiency, as well as tolerance of
abiotic stress, are likely to become of increasing importance." And what is there that can bring
about all of these changes in mankind's crops? You guessed it: carbon dioxide. Yes, the colorless,
odorless, tasteless gas that all of us release to the atmosphere with every breath we exhale fits the bill perfectly.
Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 increase the photosynthetic prowess of essentially
all of earth's plants, while generally reducing the rate at which they simultaneously transfer
water from the soil to the air. In addition, more CO2 in the air tends to enhance the efficiency
with which plants utilize nutrients in constructing their tissues and producing the edible
portions that we and all of earth's animals depend upon for our very existence, as you can read
about -- almost interminably -- on our website (check out our Subject Index for a host of related topics), and as
you can readily convince yourself is true by perusing our vast Plant Growth Database, which lists the
experimentally-derived photosynthetic and biomass production responses of a huge host of different plants to
standardized increases in the air's CO2 concentration. Oh, and by the way, you can also spend a few months
reading about all of the scientific studies which, taken in their entirety, pretty much demonstrate that the
climatic catastrophes prophesied by the world's climate alarmists to result from anthropogenic CO2
emissions are largely devoid of significant real-world substantiation.
CO2 Ag Fertilization is key to solve the root cause of global war resource disparity
Idso and idso 99 (Craig, president of CO2 Science, Keith, Vice president of CO2 Science, Give Peace a Chance
by Giving Plants a Chance, October 1, 1999 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N19/EDIT.php)
President Carter begins by stating that "when the Cold War ended 10 years ago, we expected an era of peace"
but got instead "a decade of war." He then asks why peace has been so elusive, answering that most of
today's wars are fueled by poverty, poverty in developing countries "whose economies depend
on agriculture but which lack the means to make their farmland productive." This fact, he says,
suggests an obvious, but often overlooked, path to peace: "raise the standard of living of the
millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural productivity," his
argument being that thriving agriculture, in his words, "is the engine that fuels broader
economic growth and development, thus paving the way for prosperity and peace." Can the
case for atmospheric CO2 enrichment be made any clearer? Automatically, and without the
investment of a single hard-earned dollar, ruble, or what have you, people everywhere promote the cause of
peace by fertilizing the atmosphere with carbon dioxide; for CO2 - one of the major end-products of the
combustion process that fuels the engines of industry and transportation - is the very elixir of life, being
the primary building block of all plant tissues via the essential role it plays in the
photosynthetic process that sustains nearly all of earth's vegetation, which in turn sustains
nearly all of the planet's animal life. As with any production process, the insertion of more raw
materials (in this case CO2) into the production line results in more manufactured goods
coming out the other end, which, in the case of the production line of plant growth and
development, is biosphere-sustaining food. And as President Carter rightly states, "leaders of
developing nations must make food security a priority." Indeed, he ominously proclaims in his

172
Warming Core
concluding paragraph that "there can be no peace until people have enough to eat." Within this
context, we recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting
World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the
Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999.
We found that continued increases in agricultural knowledge and expertise would likely boost
world food production by 37% between now and the middle of the next century, but that world
food needs, which we equated with world population, would likely rise by 51% over this period.
Fortunately, we also calculated that the shortfall in production could be overcome - but just
barely - by the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from the many productivity-enhancing
effects of the expected rise in the air's CO2 content over the same time period. Our findings
suggest that the world food security envisioned by President Carter is precariously dependent
upon the continued rising of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. As Sylvan Wittwer, Director
Emeritus of Michigan State University's Agricultural Experiment Station, stated in his 1995 book, Food,
Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production, "The rising level of
atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food
production and total biological output, in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources
of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer. It is a means of inadvertently increasing the
productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active ecosystems. The effects
know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing
equally." So, let's give peace a chance. Let's give plants a chance. And, while we're at it, let's give all of the
world's national economies a chance as well. Let's let the air's CO2 content rise unimpeded, and let's
let the peoples of the world reap the multitudinous benefits that come from the God-given - and
scientifically proven - aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Let's live and
let live. And let's let CO2 do its wonderful work of promoting world peace via the planet-wide
prosperity that comes from enhanced agricultural productivity.

Warming Core
173
2NC Impact Calc

CO2 Solves Food Scarcity Outweighs and Turns the Case
A. Magnitude their science is wrong and its try or die
CO2 Science 2 (Feeding Humanity to Help Save Natural Ecosystems: The Role of the Rising Atmospheric
CO2 Concentration, September 4 2002, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php)
How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed by Waggoner
(1995) in the title of an essay designed to illuminate the dynamic tension that exists between the need for land
to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind and the need for land to support the natural
ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. 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. What parts of the world are likely to be
hardest hit by this human land-eating machine? Tilman et al. (2001) note that developed countries are
expected to actually withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next fifty years, leaving
developing countries to shoulder essentially all of the growing burden of feeding our expanding
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 they support.
B. Probability ambivalence causes extinction
Idso squared 1 (Craig and Keith, Two Crises of Unbelievable Magnitude: Can We Prevent One Without
Exacerbating the Other? Volume 4, Number 24: 13 June,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N24/EDIT.php)
So how do we resolve the knotty issue of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, when they are claimed to create one
crisis but are deemed capable of averting another? We do it by invoking the precautionary principle, wherein
we consider the question of risk; and in this regard we have already completed, with a little help from our
friends, one phase of the required analysis. We have determined with a good degree of confidence
that the agriculturally-driven environmental crisis will likely occur in spite of all we can do to
stop it with what we already know, and even in spite of all we can do to stop it with what we can
reasonably hope to learn over the next fifty years (Idso and Idso, 2000; Tilman et al., 2001). The
second task, therefore, is to determine if the likelihood of catastrophic CO2-induced global
warming occurring sometime in the foreseeable future is anywhere near as certain as the
looming agricultural crisis. We could, of course, argue this question back and forth with
various climate alarmists until both of our groups turned blue in the face; and so we will take a
different tack. What we will do instead is refer to the recent News Focus article of Kerr (2001) in the 13 April
issue of Science. In spite of the bad marks we gave the journal's Editor-in-Chief a few weeks ago for his
extremely biased comments about the subject (see our Editorial of 18 April 2001), news writer Kerr has
produced an amazingly balanced piece of science journalism aimed at this topic that provides
all the information needed for our purposes. Kerr begins by pointing out something about the
latest report from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that

174
Warming Core
"drew little public notice" when it was released to the world at large. That something was the
fact that the range of global warming projections actually widened over the five years since the
group's previous set of warming projections. In other words, the most recent report of the IPCC
suggests that it could get either warmer or colder than what they predicted five years ago,
which means, or course, that the last five years of scientific scrutiny of the subject have only
served to make earth's climatic future more uncertain than it was five years ago. Kerr then
proceeds to interview a number of outstanding climate scientists about this intriguing situation, noting that in
some vital areas of the climate modeling enterprise, it is very true that "uncertainties have actually
grown." Texas A & M's Gerald North, for example, says "it's extremely hard to tell whether the models
have improved." Peter Stone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers the opinion that "the
major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been reduced at all." Seattle's Robert Charlson,
emeritus professor at the University of Washington, states that "to make it sound like we understand
climate is not right." With respect to how today's climate models perform in comparison to
those of five years ago, Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Tim Barnett says "I don't know
that they reproduce climate any better." Jeffrey Kiehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
allows that "the more we learn [about aerosols], the less we know." In fact, the progress on the
aerosol front has been so "good" that the range of possible aerosol effects now extends from
essentially no effect to a cooling large enough, in Kerr's words, "to almost compensate for the
total warming from all current greenhouse gases," which includes a lot more than just CO2.
C. CO2 Solves Food Scarcity Solves the root cause of war resource scarcity creates
precedent for global cooperation
CO2 Science 2 (Center for the study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Feeding Humanity to Help Save
Natural Ecosystems: The Role of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Volume 5, Number 36: 4
September, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php
How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed by
Waggoner (1995) in the title of an essay designed to illuminate the dynamic tension that exists between the
need for land to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind and the need for land to support the
natural ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. 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. What parts of the world are likely to be
hardest hit by this human land-eating machine? Tilman et al. (2001) note that developed countries are
expected to actually withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next fifty years, leaving
developing countries to shoulder essentially all of the growing burden of feeding our expanding
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 they support. What can be done to
alleviate this bleak situation? In a new 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

175
Warming Core
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." This is also the conclusion of the study of Idso and Idso (2000), who - although acknowledging
that "expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the
food production potential of many countries and regions" - note that these advances "will not
increase production fast enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human
population of the planet." Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the air's
CO2 content that can provide what we can't. Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic "food" of
essentially all terrestrial plants, the more of it there is in the air, the bigger and better they
grow. For a nominal doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, 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% or more (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 (see also Plant Growth Data on our website). In addition, atmospheric
CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency
(see Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index). 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 new lands 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, if world
agricultural output is not dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence will occur
simply because we will need more land to produce what is required to sustain us and, in the
absence of the needed productivity increase, because we will simply take that 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, Idso and Idso (2000) have shown that 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, cause the extinction of untold millions of unique and irreplaceable
species 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. We have got to do all that we can to
preserve nature by helping to feed humanity; and to do so successfully, we have got to let the
air's CO2 content rise. Any policies that stand in the way of that objective are truly obscene.

Warming Core
176
2NC AT: CO2 Causes Warming

CO2 AGRICULTURE FERTILIZATION ACTUALLY LOWERS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 IN
THE ATMOSPHERE AND PREVENTS WARMING ALL YOUR TURNS GO THE WRONG WAY.
1. PHOTOSYNTHESIS
A. CO2 ENHANCES PHOTOSYNTHETIC RATESTHAT STABILIZES CO2 LEVELS.
Idso and idso 1 (Craig, president of CO2 Science, Keith, Vice president of CO2 Science, Yet Another
Biophysical Feedback Mechanism that May Help to Protect the Planet Against Deleterious CO2-Induced Global
Warming October 10, 2001, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N41/EDIT.php
The first of the linkages of this negative feedback loop is the proven propensity for higher levels
of atmospheric CO2 to enhance vegetative productivity (see Plant Growth Data on our sidebar for
verification) and plant water use efficiency (see Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index for verification),
which phenomena are themselves powerful negative feedback mechanisms of the type we
envision. Greater CO2-enhanced photosynthetic rates, for example, enable plants to remove
considerably more CO2 from the air than they do under current conditions; while CO2-induced
increases in plant water use efficiency allow plants to grow where it was previously too dry for
them. This latter consequence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment establishes a potential for more
CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere by increasing the abundance of earth's plants,
whereas the former phenomenon does so by increasing their robustness. Both limbs of this
one-linkage-long double-barreled negative feedback loop are extremely powerful, as Idso
(1991a,b) has demonstrated how just the first of them may be capable of stabilizing the air's CO2
concentration at less than a doubling of its pre-industrial value. Nevertheless, these
tremendous "side-effects" comprise but the first link of the more extended negative feedback
loop that is the subject of this essay.
B. This absorbs at least 50% of total emissions.
Spencer 8 (Roy, More Carbon Dioxide, Please, National Review Online, May 1st 2008,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224319/more-carbon-dioxide-please/roy-spencer
It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for
atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton
had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a
vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose. Now, no matter how much CO2 we
pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that
extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50
percent of the extra amount.
2.Bio-AerosolsCO2 increases Biosols which block radiation and prevent warming.
The second of the linkages of the new feedback loop is the ability of plants to emit gases to the
atmosphere that are ultimately converted into "biosols," i.e., aerosols that owe their existence
to the biological activities of earth's vegetation (Duce et al., 1983; Mooney et al., 1987), many of
which function as cloud condensation nuclei (Went, 1966; Meszaros, 1988; Kavouras et al., 1998;
Hopke et al., 1999). It takes little imagination to realize that since the existence of these
atmospheric particles is dependent upon the physiological activities of plants and their
associated soil biota (Idso, 1990), the CO2-induced presence of more and more-highly-productive
plants will lead to the production of more of these cloud-mediating particles, which can then act as

177
Warming Core
described by Charlson et al. to cool the planet. But this two-linkage-long negative feedback effect, like
the one-linkage-long dual cooling mechanism described in the previous paragraph, is still not
the endpoint of the new feedback loop we are describing. The third linkage of the new scenario
is the observed propensity for increases in aerosols and cloud particles to enhance the amount
of diffuse solar radiation reaching the earth's surface (Suraqui et al., 1974; Abakumova et al., 1996).
The fourth linkage is the ability of enhanced diffuse lighting to reduce the volume of shade
within vegetative canopies (Roderick et al., 2001). The fifth linkage is the tendency for less internal
canopy shading to enhance whole-canopy photosynthesis (Healey et al., 1998), which finally
produces the end result: a greater biological extraction of CO2 from the air and subsequent
sequestration of its carbon, compliments of the intensified diffuse-light-driven increase in total
canopy photosynthesis and subsequent transfers of the extra fixed carbon to plant and soil
storage reservoirs.
3. Carbon SequestrationCO2 increases nitrogen in the soil which exponentially enhances its
ability to safely absorb carbon.
Idso squared 8 (Sherwood, Keith, CO2 to the Rescue ... Again!
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N22/COM.php)
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment has long been known to help earth's plants withstand the
debilitating effects of various environmental stresses, such as high temperature, excessive
salinity levels and deleterious air pollution, as well as the negative consequences of certain
resource limitations, such as less than optimal levels of light, water and nutrients (Idso and Idso,
1994). Now, in an important new study, Johnson et al. (2002) present evidence indicating that
elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 do the same thing for soil microbes in the face of the
enhanced receipt of solar ultraviolet-B radiation that would be expected to occur in response to
a 15% depletion of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer. In addition, their study demonstrates
that this phenomenon will likely have important consequences for soil carbon sequestration.
Johnson et al. conducted their landmark work on experimental plots of subarctic heath located close to the
Abisko Scientific Research Station in Swedish Lapland (68.35N, 18.82E). The plots they studied were
composed of open canopies of Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii and dense dwarf-shrub layers containing
scattered herbs and grasses. For a period of five years, the scientists exposed the plots to factorial combinations
of UV-B radiation - ambient and that expected to result from a 15% stratospheric ozone depletion - and
atmospheric CO2 concentration - ambient (around 365 ppm) and enriched (around 600 ppm) - after which
they determined the amounts of microbial carbon (Cmic) and nitrogen (Nmic) in the soils of the plots. When
the plots were exposed to the enhanced UV-B radiation level expected to result from a 15% depletion of the
planet's stratospheric ozone layer, the researchers found that the amount of Cmic in the soil was
reduced to only 37% of what it was at the ambient UV-B level when the air's CO2 content was
maintained at the ambient concentration. When the UV-B increase was accompanied by the
CO2 increase, however, not only was there not a decrease in Cmic, there was an actual increase
of fully 37%. The story with respect to Nmic was both similar and different at one and the same time. In this
case, when the plots were exposed to the enhanced level of UV-B radiation, the amount of Nmic in the soil
experienced a 69% increase when the air's CO2 content was maintained at the ambient
concentration. When the UV-B increase was accompanied by the CO2 increase, however, Nmic
rose even more, experiencing a whopping 138% increase. These findings, in the words of Johnson et
al., "may have far-reaching implications ... because the productivity of many semi-natural ecosystems is limited
by N (Ellenberg, 1988)." Hence, the 138% increase in soil microbial N observed in this study to
accompany a 15% reduction in stratospheric ozone and a concomitant 64% increase in
atmospheric CO2 concentration (experienced in going from 365 ppm to 600 ppm) should do wonders in
enhancing the input of plant litter to the soils of these ecosystems, which phenomenon represents the first half
of the carbon sequestration process, i.e., the carbon input stage. With respect to the second stage of keeping as
much of that carbon as possible in the soil, Johnson et al. note that "the capacity for subarctic semi-natural
heaths to act as major sinks for fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide is [also] likely to be critically dependent on
the supply of N." Indeed, in a previous essay in this series, wherein we discussed the findings of the literature
review of Berg and Matzner (1997), we found that such is truly the case. With more nitrogen in the

178
Warming Core
soil, the long-term storage of carbon is significantly enhanced, as more litter is chemically
transformed into humic substances when nitrogen is more readily available; and these
resulting more recalcitrant carbon compounds can be successfully stored in the soil for many
millennia. Clearly, earth's biosphere is effectively programmed to engage in a whole host of
different phenomena that may act to slow - or actually stop - the ongoing rise of the air's CO2
content, especially if there is a chance it might otherwise attain a dangerously high level in
terms of its potential to induce global warming, as we have indicated in earlier essays of this
series. Furthermore, as was suggested in yet another related context well over a decade ago (Idso, 1990), lowly
soil microbes may well play a major role in this biologically-mediated regulatory enterprise, as is so nicely
demonstrated in the new and unique study of Johnson et al. in Swedish Lapland.
4. CO2 encouraged bio-aerosols block warming Volcano data supports.
How significant is the process? Roderick et al. provide a good estimate based on one of our favorite approaches
to questions of this type: the utilization of a unique "natural experiment," a technique that has been used
extensively by Idso (1998) to evaluate the climatic sensitivity of the entire planet. Specifically, Roderick and
his colleagues consider the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June of 1991. This event ejected
enough gases and fine materials into the atmosphere that it produced sufficient aerosol
particles to greatly increase the diffuse component of the solar radiation reaching the surface
of the earth from that point in time through much of 1993, while only slightly reducing the
receipt of total solar radiation. Based on a set of lengthy calculations, Roderick et al. conclude
that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption may well have resulted in the removal of an extra 2.5 Gt of
carbon from the atmosphere due to its diffuse-light-enhancing stimulation of terrestrial
vegetation in the year following the eruption, which would have reduced the ongoing rise in the
air's CO2 concentration that year by about 1.2 ppm. Interestingly, this reduction is about the
magnitude of the real-world perturbation that was actually observed (Sarmiento, 1993). What
makes this observation even more impressive is the fact that the CO2 reduction was coincident
with an El Nio event; because, in the words of the authors, "previous and subsequent such
events have been associated with increases in atmospheric CO2." In addition, the observed
reduction in total solar radiation received at the earth's surface during this period would have
had a tendency to reduce the amount of photosynthetically active radiation incident upon
earth's plants, which would also have had a tendency to cause the air's CO2 content to rise, as it
would tend to lessen global photosynthetic activity.

Warming Core
179
2NC AT: BioD Impact

CO2 helps the environment, NO GLOBAL WARMING
-- EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
Wall Street Journal 2013(Wall Street Journal, No Need to Panic About Global Warming July 4, 2013
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do
about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all
scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a
large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global
warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever , a supporter of President Obama in the last
election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I
did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The
evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken,
significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to
discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence
of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the
"pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the
opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason
is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to
the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin
Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we
can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving
water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years
since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionssuggests that
computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this
embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to
enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high
concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so
much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations
by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals
evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant
varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in
agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from
additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while
they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not
being promotedor worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the
journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually
correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past
thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr.
de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was
able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforefor example, in the frightening
period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they
believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were
sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

180
Warming Core
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the
American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly
reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a
scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the
modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a
reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes,
taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big
donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and
they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of
climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific
argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the
inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not
justified economically.
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon
dioxide is causing global warming.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the
highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded
by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that
would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the
fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on
investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall
benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent
scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the
oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we
can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much
of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no
sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but
untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Warming is Key to Macroalgae Development

Singer, Director of the Scienceand Environmental Policy Project, 2011 (Craig D., Robert, and S. Fred, 2011,
Writing as background for their study, Jiang et al. (2010) note seagrasses are flowering plants that
thrive in shallow oceanic and estuarine waters around the world, and are ranked as one of the
most ecologically and economically valuable biological systems on earth, citing the work of Beer et
al. (2006). They state Thalassia hemprichii is among the most widely-distributed seagrass species in an IndoPacific flora, dominating in many mixed meadows, citing the work of Short et al. (2007). In conducting their
analysis, the authors collected intact vegetative plants of T. hemprichii from Xincun Bay of
Hainan Island, Southern China, which they transported to the laboratory and cultured
inflowthrough seawater aquaria bubbled with four different concentrations of CO2
representative of (1) the present global ocean, with a pH of 8.10, (2) the projected ocean for
2100, with a pH of 7.75, (3) the projected ocean for 2200, with a pH of 7.50, and (4) the ocean
characteristic of an extreme beyond the current predictions (a hundredfold increase in free
CO2, with a pH of 6.2). The three researchers report the leaf growth rate of CO2-enriched
plants was significantly higher than that in the unenriched treatment, that nonstructural
carbohydrates (NSC) of T. hemprichii, especially in belowground tissues, increased strongly
with elevated CO2, and belowground tissues showed a similar response with NSC. The Chinese

181
Warming Core
scientists identify several implications of their findings that CO2 enrichment enhances photosynthetic
rate, growth rate and NSC concentrations of T. hemprichii. With higher atmospheric CO2
concentrations, they note, colonization beyond current seagrass depth limits is possible; the
extra stored NSC can be used to meet the carbon demands of plants during periods of low
photosynthetic carbon fixation caused by severe environmental disturbance such as
underwater light reduction; it can enhance rhizome growth, flowering shoot production and
vegetative proliferation; and it may buffer the negative effects of transplant shock by
increasing rhizome reserve capacity. They also write, the globally increasing CO2 may
enhance seagrass survival in eutrophic coastal waters, where populations have been devastated
by algal proliferation and reduced column light transparency, and ocean acidification will
stimulate seagrass biomass and productivity, leading to more favorable habitat and conditions
for associated invertebrate and fish species. Also researching the potential effects of ocean acidification
onmacroalgae were Xu et al. (2010), who write, Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Bory) Webervan Bosse is
an economically important red seaweed that is cultivated on a large scale in China due to the
quantity and quality of agar in its cell walls. In addition, they state much attention has been paid to
the biofiltration capacity of the species (Yang et al., 2005, 2006; Zhou et al., 2006), and that it has thus been
suggested to be an excellent species for alleviating coastal eutrophication in China (Fei, 2004).
Considering these important characteristics of this seaweed, the authors set out to examine how this
aquatic plant might respond to elevated CO2. In conducting their experiment, plants were grown
from thallicollected at 0.5 m depth from a farm located in Shenao Bay, Nanao Island,
Shantou (China)for 16 days in 3-L flasks of natural seawater maintained at either natural (0.5
M) or high (30 M) dissolved inorganic phosphorus (Pi) concentrations in contact with air of
either 370 or 720 ppm CO2, while their photosynthetic rates, biomass production, and uptake
of nitrate and phosphate were examined. As best as can be determined from Xu et al.s graphical
representations of their results, algal photosynthetic rates in the natural Pi treatment were
increased only by a non-significant 5 percent as a result of the 95 percent increase in the airs
CO2 concentration, and in the high Pi treatment they were increased by approximately 41
percent. In the case of growth rate or biomass production, on the other hand, the elevated CO2 treatment
exhibited a 48 percent increase in the natural Pi treatment, whereas in the high Pi treatment
there was no CO2-induced increase in growth, because the addition of the extra 29.5 M Pi
boosted the biomass production of the low-CO2 natural-Pi treatment by approximately 83
percent, and additional CO2 did not increase growth rates beyond that point. The three Chinese
researchers state elevated levels of CO2 in seawater increase the growth rate of many
seaweed species despite the variety of ways in which carbon is utilized in these algae, noting
some species, such as Porphyra yezoensis Ueda (Gao et al., 1991)
and Hizikia fusiforme (Harv.) Okamura (Zou, 2005) are capable of using HCO3 , but are limited
by the current ambient carbon concentration in seawater, and enrichment of CO2 relieves
this limitation and enhances growth. Regarding the results they obtained with Gracilaria lemaneiformis,
on the other handwhich they state efficiently uses HCO3 and whose photosynthesis is saturated at the
current inorganic carbon concentration of natural seawater (Zou et al., 2004)they write, the
enhancement of growth could be due to the increased nitrogen uptake rates at elevated CO2
levels, which in their experiment were 40 percent in the natural Pi treatment, because high
CO2 may enhance the activity of nitrate reductase (Mercado et al., 1999; Gordillo et al.,
2001; Zou, 2005) and stimulate the accumulation of nitrogen, which could contribute to
growth. Whatever strategy might be employed, these several marine macroalgae appear to be
capable of benefiting greatly from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
CO2 Increases Soybean Disease Resistance
Eastburn et al. (2010) note, globally, soybean is the most widely planted dicot crop and has
economic significance due to its wide variety of uses, ranging from food and health products to

182
Warming Core
printing inks and biodiesal, but little to no work has evaluated the influence of future
atmospheric conditions on soybean diseases. This is particularly surprising given that worldwide yield
losses to all soybean diseases combined are about 11% (Wrather et al., 1997), which is equivalent to more than
24 million metric tons based on current production. In an attempt to begin to fill this knowledge
void, Eastburn et al. evaluated the individual and combined effects of elevated carbon dioxide
(CO2, 550 ppm) and ozone (O3, 1.2 times ambient) on three economically important soybean
diseasesdowny mildew, Septoria brown spot, and sudden death syndrome (SDS)over the
three-year period 20052007 under natural field conditions at the soybean free-air
CO2enrichment (SoyFACE) facility on the campus of the University of Illinois (USA). The five
researchers found elevated CO2 alone or in combination with O3 significantly reduced downy
mildew disease severity by 3966% across the three years of the study. On the other hand, they
state elevated CO2 alone or in combination with O3 significantly increased brown spot
severity in all three years, but the increase was small in magnitude. Finally, they state the
atmospheric treatments had no effect on the incidence of SDS. Taken in their entirety, these findings
thus suggest, on balance, that elevated CO2 should provide a net benefit to soybean productivity
throughout the world, as its concentration continues to rise in the years and decades to come.
In the introduction to another soybean study, Kretzschmar et al. (2009) write, isoflavonoids constitute a
group of natural products derived from the phenylpropanoidpathway, which is abundant in soybeans, and they
state the inducible accumulation of low molecular weight antimicrobial pterocarpan phytoalexins,
the glyceollins, is one of the major defense mechanisms implicated in soybean resistance. Thus, in their
study, as they describe it, they evaluated the effect of an elevated CO2 atmosphere on the
production of soybean defensive secondary chemicals induced by nitric oxide and a fungal
elicitor. They did this in a glasshouse where they grew soybeans from seed for a period of nine days in large,
well-watered pots placed within opentop chambers that were maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of
either 380 or 760 ppm, while they examined changes in the production of phytoalexins and some of their
precursors. This work revealed that elevated CO2 resulted in an increase of intermediates and
diverted end products (daidzein by 127%, coumestrol by 93%,genistein by 93%, luteolin by 89%
and apigenin by 238%) with a concomitant increase of 1.53.0 times in the activity of enzymes
related to their biosynthetic routes. The Brazilian researchers state these findings indicate changes in
the pool of defense-related flavonoids in soybeans due to increased carbon availability, which may differentially
alter the responsiveness of soybean plants to pathogens in CO2 atmospheric concentrations such as those
predicted for future decades. Or to put it more simply, the ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content will
likely increase the ability of soybeans to withstand the attacks of various plant diseases in the
years and decades to come.
Elevated CO2 Levels Key to Stronger Forests
Moving up from individual species and small groups of plants to the ecosystem scale, we consider the case of
natural and plantation-type forests, beginning with studies of the latter type, where the air around groups
of trees has been experimentally enriched with CO2, starting with the study of McCarthy et al.
(2010). Conducted at the Duke Forest Free-Air CO2Enrichment (FACE) facility, this study is a
long-term experiment designed to investigate the effects of an extra 200 ppm of atmospheric
CO2 on the growth and development of a plantation of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees with an
understory of various broadleaf species, including Liriodendron tulipifera,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer rubrum,Ulmus alata, and Cornus florida, plus various other
trees, shrubs, and vines. All of these were grown on a soil that Finzi and Schlesinger (2003) describe as
being in a state of acute nutrient deficiency that can only be reversed with fertilization. Many researchers
had long thought such fertility deficiency would stifle the ability of the extra aerial supply of
CO2 to significantly stimulate the forests growth on a continuing basis. Working with data for the
years 19962004, the team of nine researchers writes, net primary productivity [NPP] for pines, hardwoods
and the entire stand was calculated as the sum of the production of coarse wood (stems, branches, coarse

183
Warming Core
roots), leaf litter (lagged for pines), fine roots and reproductive structures. The results of this protocol indicated
elevated CO2 increased pine biomass production, starting in 1997 and continuing every year
thereafter, and the CO2-induced enhancement remained fairly consistent as the stand
developed. In addition, they found elevated CO2 increased stand (pine plus all other species)
biomass production every year from 1997 onwards with no trend over time, while the average
yearly increase in NPP caused by the approximate 54 percent increase in the airs CO2 content
was 28 percent. Thus, and in spite of the original belief of many scientists that low levels of soil nitrogen
especially an acute deficiencywould preclude any initial growth stimulation provided by atmospheric CO2
enrichment from long persisting, the suite of trees, bushes, and shrubs that constitute the Duke Forest has
continued to maintain the extra CO2enabled vitality it exhibited right from the start of the study, with no sign
of it even beginning to taper off. Further extending the results of the Duke Forest FACE study were Jackson et
al. (2009), who describe new belowground data they obtained there, after which they present a synthesis of
these and other results obtained from 1996 through 2008, seeking to determine which, if any, variables show
evidence for a decrease in their response to atmospheric CO2 during that time frame. Among many other
things, Jackson et al. report on average, in elevated CO2, fine-root biomass in the top 15 cm of
soil increased by 24%, and in recent years the fine-root biomass increase grew stronger,
averaging ~30% at high CO2. Regarding coarse roots having diameters greater than 2 mm and
extending to a soil depth of 32 cm, they report, biomass sampled in 2008 was twice as great in
elevated CO2. We calculate from the graphical representation of their results that the coarseroot biomass was fully 130 percent greater, which is astounding, particularly given that the
extra 200 ppm of CO2 supplied to the air surrounding the CO2-enriched trees represented only
about a 55 percent increase over ambient conditions. In the concluding sentence of their papers
abstract, Jackson et al. state, overall, the effect of elevated CO2 belowground shows no sign of
diminishing. In expanding on this statement, the four researchers note if progressive
nitrogen limitation were occurring in this system, we would expect differences in productivity
to diminish for trees in the elevated vs. ambient CO2 plots, but they state, in fact there is little
evidence from estimates of aboveground or total net primary productivity in the replicated Duke experiment
that progressive nitrogen limitation is occurring there or at other forest FACE experiments, even after more
than a decade of manipulation of the airs CO2 content, citing in this regardwith respect to the latter portion
of their statementthe report of Finzi et al. (2007). Consequently, there is very good reason to believe
the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will continue to benefit Earths
forests significantly as long as the atmospheres CO2 concentration continues to rise.
CO2 key to the growth of fungi takes out your impact micro-organisms check for any
temperature increases the risk of CO2 being beneficial outweighs any of your warming
scenarios
Andrew and Lilleskov (2009) studied sporocarps (the reproductive structures of fungi), which
can be significant carbon sinks for the ectomycorrhizal fungi that develop symbiotic
relationships with plants by forming sheaths around their root tips, where they are the last
sinks for carbon in the long and winding pathway that begins at the source of carbon
assimilation in plant leaves. The researchers note it is critical to understand
how ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarpsare affected by elevated CO2 and ozone, because, they
continue, sporocarps facilitate genetic recombination, permit long-distance dispersal and
contribute to food webs, and we need to know how these important processes will be affected
by continued increases in the concentrations of these two trace constituents of the atmosphere.
Accordingly, the two researchers evaluated sporocarp biomass for a period of four years at the
Aspen free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) site near Rhinelander, Wisconsin, which provided, in
their words, a unique opportunity to examine the effects of both elevated CO2 and O3 on a
forested ecosystem. The examination was conducted during years four through seven of the aspen and
aspen-birch forests exposures to ambient and enriched concentrations of the two gases: CO2 (350 and 550

184
Warming Core
ppm) and O3 (3367 and 50-00 ppb). The scientists found total mean sporocarp biomass was
generally lowest under elevated O3 with ambient CO2, and it was greatest under elevated
CO2, regardless of O3 concentration. They also found a complete elimination of O3 effects
on sporocarp production when [extra] CO2 was added. And they state they expect that the
responses seen in the present study were conservative compared to those expected under
regional to global changes in CO2 and O3. Consequently, by itself or in combination with rising ozone
concentrations, the ongoing rise in the atmospheres CO2 content appears destined to enhance
the genetic recombination and long-distance dispersal of the ectomycorrhizal fungi that form
symbiotic relationships with the roots of aspen and birch trees, thereby positively contributing
to various food webs that will be found within aspen and aspenbirch forests of the future. In
another study dealing with soil fungi, Alberton et al. (2010) write, roots of a very large number of plant
species are regularly colonized by a group of ascomycete fungi with usually dark-pigmented
(melanized) septate hyphae (Mandyam and Jumpponen, 2005; Sieber and Grunig, 2006) that are referred to
as dark septate rootendophytic (DSE) fungi, with most species belonging to
the Leotiomycetes (Kernaghan et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2006). To study these fungi, the three
researchers grew Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) plants from seed for 125 days in Petri dishes
both with and without inoculation with one of seven different species/strains of DSE fungi
within controlled environment chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of
either 350 or 700 ppm, destructively harvesting some of the seedlings at the 98-day point of the
experiment and the rest of them at the experiments conclusion. They found across all plants
(DSE-inoculated and control plants) under elevated CO2, shoot and root biomass increased
significantly by 21% and 19%, respectively, relative to ambient, with higher values over the
final four weeks (increases of 40% and 30% for shoots and roots, respectively). In addition, they
indicate on average, shoot nitrogen concentration was 57% lower under elevated CO2, and elevated CO2
decreased root nitrogen concentration on average by 16%. Alberton et al. thus acknowledge their study did
not suggest a role for DSE fungi in increased nutrient uptake. In fact, they emphasize that under
elevated CO2, DSE fungi even reduced nitrogen content of the pine seedlings. But they also emphasize that
surprisingly, even under reduced nitrogen availability, elevated CO2 led to increases in both aboveground and below-ground plant biomass. To explain how that happened, the Brazilian and
Dutch scientists write, a potential mechanism for the increase of plant biomass even when
plant nutrient uptake decreases is the production of phytohormones by DSE fungi. They observe
that earlier authors noted that DSE fungi enhance plant growth by producing phytohormones or inducing
host hormone production without any apparent facilitation of host nutrient uptake or stimulation of host
nutrient metabolism (Addy et al., 2005; Schulz and Boyle, 2005), further demonstrating that low levels of soil
nitrogen availability need not be an insurmountable impediment to significant CO2-induced increases in plant
growth and development. In another study of note, Compant et al. (2010) write, virtually all land plant taxa
investigated have well-established symbioses with a large variety of microorganisms (Nicolson,
1967; Brundrett, 2009), some of which are known to support plant growth and to increase plant tolerance to
biotic and abiotic stresses (Bent, 2006). Many of these microorganisms colonize
the rhizosphere (Lugtenberg andKamilova, 2009), while others enter the root system of their hosts and
enhance their beneficial effects with an endophytic lifestyle (Stone et al., 2000). This is the case, as they put it,
for plant growth-promoting fungi such asarbuscular mycorrhizae, ectomycorrhizae and
other endophytic fungi, as well as for plant growthpromoting bacteria and the more specialized plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria. Many members of the first two categories, they note, are applied
as biocontrol agents, biofertilizers and/or phytostimulators in agriculture (Vessey, 2003; Welbaum et al.,
2004) or as degrading microorganisms in phytoremediation applications (Denton, 2007). Consequently, and in
order to determine how beneficial plant growth-promoting microorganisms might be affected by continued
increases in the airs CO2 content and by possible concomitant changes in climate, Compant et al. reviewed the
results of 135 studies that investigated the effects of CO2 and changes in various climatic factors on beneficial
microorganisms and their interactions with host plants. They found the majority of studies showed that
elevated CO2 had a positive influence on the abundance
of arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal fungi, which, in their words, is generally in agreement
with meta-analyses performed by Treseder (2004) and by Alberton et al. (2005). But they also
found the effects on plant growth-promoting bacteria and endophytic fungi were more variable. Nevertheless,
they state, in most cases, plant-associated microorganisms had a beneficial effect on plants under

185
Warming Core
elevated CO2. In addition, they report numerous studies indicated that plant growth
promoting microorganisms (both bacteria and fungi) positively affected plants subjected to drought stress.
Temperature effects, on the other hand, were more of a wash, as Compant et al. state the effects of increased
temperature on beneficial plant-associated microorganisms were more variable, positive and neutral, and
negative effects were equally common and varied considerably with the study system and the temperature
range investigated. In concluding, Compant et al. note the stress of drought is disadvantageous for nearly all
terrestrial vegetation, but plant growth-promoting microorganisms should help land plants
overcome this potentially negative aspect of future climate change, as long as the airs CO2
content continues to rise. Temperature effects, on the other hand, would appear to be no more
negative than they are positive in a warming world, and when they might be negative,
continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly
enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies. And under the best of climatic
conditions, atmospheric CO2 enrichment should bring out the best of Earths plants, plus the
best of the great majority of plant growth-promoting microorganisms that benefit them
biochemically.

Warming Core
186
2NC UQ Wall
Uniqueness Debate Group It
The next agricultural revolution is underway. Absent CO2, food demand will devastate wild
nature.
Idso squared, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 01
(Craig and Keith, The Most Important Global Change, February 2001, Volume 4, Number 8: 21,
It thus behooves us to seriously consider the findings of Tilman et al. (2001), reported just four days later in the pages of Science, which Leo and Gergen
had obviously not the advantage of seeing when they composed their essays. In an analysis of the global environmental
impacts of agricultural expansion that will likely occur over the next 50 years, which was based upon
projected increases in population and concomitant advances in technological expertise, the group of
ten respected researchers concluded that the task of meeting the doubled global food demand they
calculated to exist in the year 2050 will likely exact an environmental toll that "may rival climate change in
environmental and societal impacts." What are the specific problems? For starters, Tilman and his colleagues note that
"humans currently appropriate more than a third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and
about half of usable freshwaters, have doubled terrestrial nitrogen supply and phosphorus liberation, have
manufactured and released globally significant quantities of pesticides , and have initiated a major extinction
event." Now, think of doubling those figures. In fact, do even more; for the scientists calculate global nitrogen fertilization and
pesticide production will likely rise by a factor of 2.7 by the year 2050.
Agricultural demand will triple by 2050only increased CO2 emissions can solve
Idso Cubed 5 (Craig, president of CO2 Science, Keith, Vice president of CO2 Science, Sherwood, Will
Farming Destroy Wild Nature? APRIL 13TH 2005 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N15/EDIT.php)
In an article in Science entitled "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature," Green et al. (2005) address a looming problem of
incredible proportions and significance: how to meet the two- to three-fold increase in food demand that
will exist by 2050 (Tilman et al., 2002; Bongaarts, 1996) without usurping for agriculture all the land that is
currently available to what they call "wild nature." The four scientists demonstrate the immediacy of the
problem by discussing the relationship between farming and birds . They begin by noting that "farming
(including conversion to farmland and its intensifying use) is the single biggest source of threat to bird species listed as
Threatened (accounting for 37% of threats) and is already substantially more important for species in developing countries than those in developed
countries (40% and 24% of threats, respectively)," and by reporting that " for developing and developed countries alike, the
scale of the threat posed by agriculture is even greater for Near-Threatened species (57% and
33% of threats, respectively)." Clearly, a little more taking of land by agriculture will likely be
devastating to several species of birds; and a lot more usurpation (using words employed by climate alarmists the world over) will likely be
catastrophically deadly to many of them, and numerous other animals as well . So how does one solve the
problem and keep from driving innumerable species to extinction (using more words that climate alarmists
relish) and still feed the masses of humanity that will inhabit the planet a mere 45 years hence? The answer is simple: one has
to raise more food without appreciably increasing the amounts of land and water used to do it. The
problem is that it is getting more and more difficult to do so. Already, in fact, Green et al. report that annual growth in yield is now higher in the
developing world than it is in the developed world, which suggests we may be approaching the upper limits of the benefits to be derived from the types of
technology that served us so well over the last four decades of the 20th century, when global food production outstripped population growth and kept us
largely ahead of the hunger curve, at least where political unrest did not keep food from reaching the tables of those who needed it. This is also the
conclusion of Green et al., who report that "evidence from a range of taxa in developing countries suggests that high-yield farming may allow more
species to persist." But will the high-yield farming we are capable of developing in the coming years be high enough to keep the loss of wild nature's land
at an acceptable minimum? This question was addressed by Idso and Idso (2000), who developed a supply-and-
demand scenario for food in the year 2050. Specifically, they identified the plants that currently supply 95% of the world's food
needs and projected historical trends in the productivities of these crops 50 years into the future. They also evaluated the growthenhancing effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on these plants and made similar yield
projections based on the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration likely to occur by that future date. This
work indicated that world population would be 51% greater in the year 2050 than it was in 1998, but that world food production would be only 37%
greater, if its enhanced productivity were solely a consequence of anticipated improvements in agricultural technology and expertise. However, they
determined that the consequent shortfall in farm production could be overcome - but just barely - by
the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from the aerial fertilization effect of the expected

Warming Core
rise in the air's CO2 content, assuming no Kyoto-style cutbacks in anthropogenic CO2
emissions.
187

Warming Core
188
2NC CO2 Good Wall

1. CO2 fertilization increases agriculture output while reducing water use increases plant
yields while utilizing water more efficiently.
Thousands of studies prove.
Idso squared, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 01
(Craig and Keith, The Most Important Global Change, February 2001, Volume 4, Number 8: 21,
But how would allowing anthropogenic CO2 emissions to take their natural course help to ameliorate future
hunger? The answer resides in the fact that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to reduce plant
transpiration while simultaneously enhancing plant photosynthesis, which two phenomena enable
earth's vegetation to produce considerably more food per unit of water used in the food production process.
Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments - and that is no exaggeration - have verified this fact
beyond any doubt whatsoever. Indeed, this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes and as dependable as a
mother's love. But what do the climate-alarmist ideologues do about it? They spurn it. They deny it. And they try to reverse it, in fact. And they do it to
the detriment of all mankind.
2. Empirically proven -- CO2 increases total global biodiversityNASA study.

Solomon, Financial Post, 08 (Lawrence, In Praise of CO2, Don Mills, June 7, 2008
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/)
The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the
NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became
more bountiful a whopping 6.2%. by About 25% of the Earths vegetated landmass almost 110 million square
kilometres enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that
each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why
the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the
presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is natures fertilizer, bathing the biota
with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up carbon is the building block of life
and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month , released
along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2:
Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants
provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal
life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.

Warming Core
189
2NC Quals
Not a reason to reject Even if theyre unqualified, the aff should be able to provide warranted
arguments to disprove our claims. Privilege debate over ad homs.
The Idsos are qualified.
A. Scholastic background
Hayashi, Managing Director at The Dillard Anderson Group, 05
(Stuart, July 1, When Hot Tempers Not Hot Temperatures Create a Harsh Climate available at
http://50thstar.blogspot.com/2005/07/whenhot-tempers-not-temperatures.html)
When Robinsons paper cites a scientist who is not a climatologist, such as Sherwood B. Idso, it is done in a reasonable
fashion. When Idso, for example, was going for his Ph.D., his focus was on soil sciences while his
minor was meteorology, and he served as an adjunct professor of geology, geography, and
botany in the past So it makes sense that the 56th note of Robinsons paper cites Idso about how increases in
carbon dioxide can benefit the growth of plants. As far as professional credentials go, Idso is
qualified to make that assessment.
B. The Economist confirms quals.
Kjos, Author of Brave new schools, 08
(Berit, February 8, 2008 Saving the Earth, http://www.crossroad.to/Books/BraveNewSchools/5-Earth.htm,
Ch5)
In spite of the world's fear of carbon dioxide, science shows that a rise in CO2, the major "greenhouse gas", would help food
production. In a CFACT report on the Greenhouse Effect, Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Institute for Biospheric Research,
explains that "a simple doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, increases the productivity of essentially all plants
by about one-third, while decreasing the amount of water they lose through evaporation by an
equal amount. These effects essentially double the water use efficiencies of all plants, making them more productive and
drought resistant."[35] (Notice, all green plants, not just trees, use CO2 for photosynthesis.) The editors of The Economist seems
to agree. "Environmentalists are dismayed," they wrote in an April 1995 issue. "Their efforts to scare the
world over global warming seems not to have worked.... Some areas of the world would benefit
from a warmer climate.
C. ICSC coalition recognizes the Idsos as qualified experts.
ICSC 8
(International Climate Science Coalition, ellipse removes the alphabetical listing of other qualified scientists,
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=1)
QUALIFIED ENDORSERS NOT AT CONFERENCE: The following individuals, all well-trained in science and
technology or climate change-related economics and policy , have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change: Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe,
Arizona, U.S.A
And theyre a leading and respected group in the global warming debate.
Exchange Morning Post 8 (An intelligent discussion about climate change, Exchange, April 23rd,
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week17/Wednesday/0423016.html)
The International Climate Science Coalition is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy
experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change . ICSC is committed
to providing a highly credible alternative to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thereby
fostering a more rational, open discussion about climate issues .
All sides of the climate debate receive funding from interested parties and Idso reached and
published his conclusion before and funding controversy arose.
Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 06

190
Warming Core
(Sherwood, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, What Motivates the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? September 27th 2006,
In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who
receive funds from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual
and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between
them? Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a significant indication of what motivates me to do
what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and
wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of
different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I
self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably
anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more,
many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the
climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to
the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's
CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything
other than what has appeared in the scientific literature . And my sons are in their father's image.

Warming Core
191
CO2 Good Helps C3 and C4 Plants

C3 Plants benefit from an increase in CO2
Singer, Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2011
(Craig D., Robert, and S. Fred, 2011, NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered, 2011 Interim Report, Chapter 7,
We begin our review of atmospheric CO2 enrichment effects on Earths vegetation with a
consideration of C3 plantsthose in which the enzyme RuBisCO is involved in the uptake of
CO2 and the subsequent photosynthetic process, which results in its incorporation into a 3carbon compoundstarting with the study of Norikane et al. (2010). They focused on the genus
Cymbidium, which comprises about 50 species distributed throughout tropical and subtropical
Asia and Oceania. The four researchers worked with shoots of Music Hour Maria, a type of orchid,
possessing two to three leaves, which they obtained from a mass of protocorm-like bodies they derived from
shoot-tip culture. They grew them in vitro on a modified Vacin and Went medium in air augmented with either
0, 3,000, or 10,000 ppm CO2 under two photosynthetic photon flux densities (either 45 or 75 mol m -1 s -1 )
provided by cold cathode fluorescent lamps for a period of 90 days. They then transferred the plants to ex vitro
culture for 30 more days. Relative to plants grown in vitro in ambient air, the percent increases in
shoot and root dry weight due to enriching the air in which the plants grew by 3,000 ppm CO2
were, respectively, 216 percent and 1,956 percent under the low-light regime and 249 percent
and 1,591 percent under the high-light regime, while corresponding increases for the plants
grown in air enriched with an extra 10,000 ppm CO2 were 244 percent and 2,578 percent under
the low-light regime and 310 percent and 1,879 percent under the high-light regime. Similarly,
in the ex vitro experiment, the percent increases in shoot and root dry weight due to enriching
the air in which the plants grew by 3,000 ppm CO2 were 223 percent and 436 percent under the
low-light regime and 279 percent and 469 percent under the high-light regime, while
corresponding increases for the plants grown in air enriched with an extra 10,000 ppm CO2
were 271 percent and 537 percent under the low-light regime and 332 percent and 631 percent
under the high-light regime. Consequently, the Japanese scientists concluded, super-elevated
CO2 enrichment of in vitro-cultured Cymbidium could positively affect the efficiency and
quality of commercial production of clonal orchid plantlets.Turning from ornamental plants to food
crops, Vanaja et al. (2010) note grain legumes provide much needed nutritional security in the form of
proteins to the predominant vegetarian populations of India and also the world. They further state that
legumesof which pigeon peas are an important examplehave the potential to maximize the
benefit of elevated CO2 by matching stimulated photosynthesis with increased N2 fixation,
citing Rogers et al. (2009). Therefore, they grew pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) from
seed to maturity outdoors at Hyderabad, India within open-top chambers maintained at
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 370 or 700 ppm. They then harvested the plants and
measured pertinent productivity parameters. This work revealed, according to the team of nine Indian
scientists, that in the higher of the two CO2 concentrations, total biomass recorded an improvement of
91.3%, grain yield 150.1% and fodder yield 67.1%. They also found the major contributing
components for improved grain yield under elevated CO2 were number of pods, number of
seeds and test weight, with these items exhibiting increases of 97.9 percent, 119.5 percent, and
7.2 percent, respectively. In addition, they found there was a significant positive increase of
harvest index at elevated CO2 with an increment of 30.7% over ambient values, which they say
was due to the crops improved pod set and seed yield under enhanced CO2 concentration.
These multiple positive findings, according to the scientists from Indias Central Research
Institute for Dryland Agriculture, illustrate the importance of pigeon peas for sustained food
with nutritional security under a climate change scenario. In much the same vein, Yang et al. (2009)
declared, rice is unequivocally one of the most important food crops that feed the largest
proportion of the worlds population, that the demand for rice production will continue to
increase in the coming decades, especially in the major rice-consuming countries of Asia, Africa

192
Warming Core
and Latin America, and that accurate predictions of rice yield and of the ability of rice crops
to adapt to high CO2 environments are therefore crucial for understanding the impact of
climate change on the future food supply. In fact, they forcefully stateand rightly that
there is a pressing need to identify genotypes which could optimize harvestable yield as
atmospheric CO2 increases.
C4 plants also benefit- sugarcane is key for world health

(Craig D., Robert, and S. Fred, 2011, NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered, 2011 Interim Report, Chapter
7, http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html, accessed 7/5/13, AK)Moving on to C4 plants
where the enzyme PEP carboxylase allows CO2 to be taken in very quickly and delivered
directly to RuBisCO for photosynthetic incorporation into a 4-carbon compoundVu and Allen
(2009) note such vegetation represents fewer than 4% of all angiosperm species, yet their
ecological and economic significance is substantial. On a global basis, for example, they write, up
to onethird of terrestrial productivity is provided by C4 plants, citing Cerling et al.
(1997), Ghannoum et al. (1997), and Brown et al. (2005), and they note in many tropical regions, the
food source is primarily based on C4 crops, among [which] maize, millet, sorghum and
sugarcane are the most agriculturally important monocots in terms of production (Brown, 1999),
with up to 75% of the world sugar production provided by sugarcane (De Souza et al., 2008). In
addition, they indicate the emerging use of sugarcane as a source for biofuel production has
been highly recognized, citing Goldenberg (2007). So what will happen to the productivity of this important
crop as the airs CO2 content continues its upward climb, especially if global air temperatures rise along with
it? Historically, C4 crops have been thought to be relatively unresponsive to atmospheric CO2
enrichment, as they possess a CO2-concentrating mechanism that allows them to achieve a
greater photosynthetic capacity than C3 plants at the current atmospheric CO2 concentration,
particularly at high growth temperatures (Matsuoka et al., 2001). Thus, simple reasoning might
suggest C4 plants may be little benefited, if at all, in a CO2-enriched and warmer world of the
future. However, in the case of sugarcane, as the research of Vu and Allen demonstrates,
simple reasoning would be incorrect, especially with respect to the most important measure of
sugarcanes economic value: stem juice production. The two researchers with the USDAs Agricultural
Research Service, who hold joint appointments in the Agronomy Department of the University of Florida
(USA), grew two cultivars of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) for a period of three months in pairedcompanion, temperature gradient, sunlit greenhouses under daytime CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720 ppm
and air temperatures of 1.5C (near ambient) and 6.0C higher than outside ambient temperature, after which
they measured several different plant properties. On a main stem basis, Vu and Allen write, leaf
area, leaf dry weight, stem dry weight and stem juice volume were increased by growth at
doubled CO2 [as well as at] high temperature, and they state these increases were even greater
under the combination of doubled CO2 and high temperature, with plants grown under these
conditions averaging 50%, 26%, 84% and 124% greater leaf area, leaf dry weight, stem dry
weight and stem juice volume, respectively, compared with plants grown at [the] ambient
CO2/near-ambient temperature combination. In addition, they write, plants grown at [the]
doubled CO2/high temperature combination were 2- to 3-fold higher in stem soluble solids
than those at [the] ambient CO2/near-ambient temperature combination. Consequently, as Vu and
Allen conclude, sugarcane grown under predicted rising atmospheric CO2 and temperature in
the future may use less water, utilize water more efficiently, and would perform better in
sucrose production. This bodes well for tropical-region agriculture, especially, as they note,
with the worldwide continued increase in demand for sugarcane as a source of food and
biofuel. Last, they add that significant improvements in stem sucrose and biomass through
classical breeding and/or new biotechnology may also be achieved; and, hence, they state,
studies to identify the cultivars with high efficiency in water use and stem sucrose production
under future changes in CO2 and climate are of great importance and should be initiated and
explored. Working hand-in-hand with the benefits provided by the ongoing rise in the airs CO2
content, therefore, as well as those provided by the possibility of still higher air temperatures to
come, we may yet be able to meet the increasing food needs of our expanding numbers without

193
Warming Core
taking vast amounts of land and freshwater resources from Earths natural ecosystems. Also
studying sugarcane, Gouvea et al. (2009) used the agrometeorological model of Doorenbos and Kassam(1994)
to estimate sugarcane yield in tropical southern Brazil, based on future A1B climatic scenarios presented in
the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. They first calculated potential
productivity, which considers the possible impacts caused by changes in temperature,
precipitation, sunshine hours and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as well as
technological advances, and then actual productivity, which additionally accounts for the yieldreducing effects of water stress. Based on their calculations, Gouvea et al. determined potential
productivity will increase by 15% in relation to the present condition in 2020, by 33% in 2050 and by 47% in
2080, and actual productivity will increase by 12% in relation to the present condition in 2020, by 32% in
2050 and by 47% in 2080. They further indicate expected technological advances, including the development
of new varieties and best-management practices, will account for 35 percent of the yield gains in 2020, 51
percent in 2050, and 61 percent in 2080. Consequently, and in spite of the gloomy prognostications of the
IPCC and its followers, this modeling exercise suggests there will be, in the words of the four
researchers, a beneficial effect of forecasted climate changes on sugarcane productivity, due
to the expected increases in temperature and CO2 concentration.

Warming Core
194
CO2 Good Helps Microalgae

Warming is Key to Macroalgae Development
Writing as background for their study, Jiang et al. (2010) note seagrasses are flowering plants that thrive in
shallow oceanic and estuarine waters around the world, and are ranked as one of the most ecologically and
economically valuable biological systems on earth, citing the work of Beer et al. (2006). They
state Thalassia hemprichii is among the most widely-distributed seagrass species in an Indo-Pacific flora,
dominating in many mixed meadows, citing the work of Short et al. (2007). In conducting their analysis, the
authors collected intact vegetative plants of T. hemprichii from Xincun Bay of Hainan Island,
Southern China, which they transported to the laboratory and cultured in flow
through seawater aquaria bubbled with four different concentrations of CO2 representative of
(1) the present global ocean, with a pH of 8.10, (2) the projected ocean for 2100, with a pH of
7.75, (3) the projected ocean for 2200, with a pH of 7.50, and (4) the ocean characteristic of an
extreme beyond the current predictions (a hundredfold increase in free CO2, with a pH of 6.2).
The three researchers report the leaf growth rate of CO2-enriched plants was significantly
higher than that in the unenriched treatment, that nonstructural carbohydrates (NSC) of
T. hemprichii, especially in belowground tissues, increased strongly with elevated CO2, and
belowground tissues showed a similar response with NSC. The Chinese scientists identify several
implications of their findings that CO2 enrichment enhances photosynthetic rate, growth rate and
NSC concentrations of T. hemprichii. With higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, they note,
colonization beyond current seagrass depth limits is possible; the extra stored NSC can be
used to meet the carbon demands of plants during periods of low photosynthetic carbon
fixation caused by severe environmental disturbance such as underwater light reduction; it can
enhance rhizome growth, flowering shoot production and vegetative proliferation; and it
may buffer the negative effects of transplant shock by increasing rhizome reserve capacity.
They also write, the globally increasing CO2 may enhance seagrass survival in eutrophic coastal
waters, where populations have been devastated by algal proliferation and reduced column
light transparency, and ocean acidification will stimulate seagrass biomass and productivity,
leading to more favorable habitat and conditions for associated invertebrate and fish species.
Also researching the potential effects of ocean acidification on macroalgae were Xu et al. (2010), who write,
Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Bory) Webervan Bosse is an economically important red seaweed
that is cultivated on a large scale in China due to the quantity and quality of agar in its cell
walls. In addition, they state much attention has been paid to the biofiltration capacity of the species (Yang
et al., 2005, 2006; Zhou et al., 2006), and that it has thus been suggested to be an excellent species
for alleviating coastal eutrophication in China (Fei, 2004). Considering these important characteristics
of this seaweed, the authors set out to examine how this aquatic plant might respond to elevated
CO2. In conducting their experiment, plants were grown from thallicollected at 0.5 m depth from
a farm located in Shenao Bay, Nanao Island, Shantou (China)for 16 days in 3-L flasks of
natural seawater maintained at either natural (0.5 M) or high (30 M) dissolved inorganic
phosphorus (Pi) concentrations in contact with air of either 370 or 720 ppm CO2, while their
photosynthetic rates, biomass production, and uptake of nitrate and phosphate were examined.
As best as can be determined from Xu et al.s graphical representations of their results, algal photosynthetic
rates in the natural Pi treatment were increased only by a non-significant 5 percent as a result
of the 95 percent increase in the airs CO2 concentration, and in the high Pi treatment they were
increased by approximately 41 percent. In the case of growth rate or biomass production, on the other
hand, the elevated CO2 treatment exhibited a 48 percent increase in the natural Pi treatment,
whereas in the high Pi treatment there was no CO2-induced increase in growth, because the
addition of the extra 29.5 M Pi boosted the biomass production of the low-CO2 natural-Pi
treatment by approximately 83 percent, and additional CO2 did not increase growth rates
beyond that point. The three Chinese researchers state elevated levels of CO2 in seawater

195
Warming Core
increase the growth rate of many seaweed species despite the variety of ways in which carbon is
utilized in these algae, noting some species, such as Porphyra yezoensis Ueda (Gao et al.,
1991) and Hizikia fusiforme (Harv.) Okamura (Zou, 2005) are capable of using HCO3 , but are
limited by the current ambient carbon concentration in seawater, and enrichment of CO2
relieves this limitation and enhances growth. Regarding the results they obtained
with Gracilaria lemaneiformis, on the other handwhich they state efficiently uses HCO3 and whose
photosynthesis is saturated at the current inorganic carbon concentration of natural seawater (Zou et al., 2004)
they write, the enhancement of growth could be due to the increased nitrogen uptake rates at
elevated CO2 levels, which in their experiment were 40 percent in the natural Pi treatment,
because high CO2 may enhance the activity of nitrate reductase (Mercado et al.,
1999; Gordillo et al., 2001; Zou, 2005) and stimulate the accumulation of nitrogen, which could
contribute to growth. Whatever strategy might be employed, these several
marine macroalgae appear to be capable of benefiting greatly from increased atmospheric CO2
concentrations.

Warming Core
196
CO2 Good Helps Soybeans

CO2 Increases Soybean Disease Resistance
Eastburn et al. (2010) note, globally, soybean is the most widely planted dicot crop and has
economic significance due to its wide variety of uses, ranging from food and health products to
printing inks and biodiesal, but little to no work has evaluated the influence of future
atmospheric conditions on soybean diseases. This is particularly surprising given that worldwide yield
losses to all soybean diseases combined are about 11% (Wrather et al., 1997), which is equivalent to more than
24 million metric tons based on current production. In an attempt to begin to fill this knowledge
void, Eastburn et al. evaluated the individual and combined effects of elevated carbon dioxide
(CO2, 550 ppm) and ozone (O3, 1.2 times ambient) on three economically important soybean
diseasesdowny mildew, Septoria brown spot, and sudden death syndrome (SDS)over the
three-year period 20052007 under natural field conditions at the soybean free-air
CO2enrichment (SoyFACE) facility on the campus of the University of Illinois (USA). The five
researchers found elevated CO2 alone or in combination with O3 significantly reduced downy
mildew disease severity by 3966% across the three years of the study. On the other hand, they
state elevated CO2 alone or in combination with O3 significantly increased brown spot
severity in all three years, but the increase was small in magnitude. Finally, they state the
atmospheric treatments had no effect on the incidence of SDS. Taken in their entirety, these findings
thus suggest, on balance, that elevated CO2 should provide a net benefit to soybean productivity
throughout the world, as its concentration continues to rise in the years and decades to come.
In the introduction to another soybean study, Kretzschmar et al. (2009) write, isoflavonoids constitute a
group of natural products derived from the phenylpropanoidpathway, which is abundant in soybeans, and they
state the inducible accumulation of low molecular weight antimicrobial pterocarpan phytoalexins,
the glyceollins, is one of the major defense mechanisms implicated in soybean resistance. Thus, in their
study, as they describe it, they evaluated the effect of an elevated CO2 atmosphere on the
production of soybean defensive secondary chemicals induced by nitric oxide and a fungal
elicitor. They did this in a glasshouse where they grew soybeans from seed for a period of nine days in large,
well-watered pots placed within open top chambers that were maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations
of either 380 or 760 ppm, while they examined changes in the production of phytoalexins and some of their
precursors. This work revealed that elevated CO2 resulted in an increase of intermediates and
diverted end products (daidzein by 127%, coumestrol by 93%,genistein by 93%, luteolin by 89%
and apigenin by 238%) with a concomitant increase of 1.53.0 times in the activity of enzymes
related to their biosynthetic routes. The Brazilian researchers state these findings indicate changes in
the pool of defense-related flavonoids in soybeans due to increased carbon availability, which may differentially
alter the responsiveness of soybean plants to pathogens in CO2 atmospheric concentrations such as those
predicted for future decades. Or to put it more simply, the ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content will
likely increase the ability of soybeans to withstand the attacks of various plant diseases in the
years and decades to come.

Warming Core
197
CO2 Good Helps Forests

Elevated CO2 Levels Key to Stronger Forests
Moving up from individual species and small groups of plants to the ecosystem scale, we consider the case of
natural and plantation-type forests, beginning with studies of the latter type, where the air around groups
of trees has been experimentally enriched with CO2, starting with the study of McCarthy et al.
(2010). Conducted at the Duke Forest Free-Air CO2Enrichment (FACE) facility, this study is a
long-term experiment designed to investigate the effects of an extra 200 ppm of atmospheric
CO2 on the growth and development of a plantation of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees with an
understory of various broadleaf species, including Liriodendron tulipifera,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer rubrum,Ulmus alata, and Cornus florida, plus various other
trees, shrubs, and vines. All of these were grown on a soil that Finzi and Schlesinger (2003) describe as
being in a state of acute nutrient deficiency that can only be reversed with fertilization. Many researchers
had long thought such fertility deficiency would stifle the ability of the extra aerial supply of
CO2 to significantly stimulate the forests growth on a continuing basis. Working with data for the
years 19962004, the team of nine researchers writes, net primary productivity [NPP] for pines, hardwoods
and the entire stand was calculated as the sum of the production of coarse wood (stems, branches, coarse
roots), leaf litter (lagged for pines), fine roots and reproductive structures. The results of this protocol indicated
elevated CO2 increased pine biomass production, starting in 1997 and continuing every year
thereafter, and the CO2-induced enhancement remained fairly consistent as the stand
developed. In addition, they found elevated CO2 increased stand (pine plus all other species)
biomass production every year from 1997 onwards with no trend over time, while the average
yearly increase in NPP caused by the approximate 54 percent increase in the airs CO2 content
was 28 percent. Thus, and in spite of the original belief of many scientists that low levels of soil nitrogen
especially an acute deficiencywould preclude any initial growth stimulation provided by atmospheric CO2
enrichment from long persisting, the suite of trees, bushes, and shrubs that constitute the Duke Forest has
continued to maintain the extra CO2enabled vitality it exhibited right from the start of the study, with no sign
of it even beginning to taper off. Further extending the results of the Duke Forest FACE study were Jackson et
al. (2009), who describe new belowground data they obtained there, after which they present a synthesis of
these and other results obtained from 1996 through 2008, seeking to determine which, if any, variables show
evidence for a decrease in their response to atmospheric CO2 during that time frame. Among many other
things, Jackson et al. report on average, in elevated CO2, fine-root biomass in the top 15 cm of
soil increased by 24%, and in recent years the fine-root biomass increase grew stronger,
averaging ~30% at high CO2. Regarding coarse roots having diameters greater than 2 mm and
extending to a soil depth of 32 cm, they report, biomass sampled in 2008 was twice as great in
elevated CO2. We calculate from the graphical representation of their results that the coarseroot biomass was fully 130 percent greater, which is astounding, particularly given that the
extra 200 ppm of CO2 supplied to the air surrounding the CO2-enriched trees represented only
about a 55 percent increase over ambient conditions. In the concluding sentence of their papers
abstract, Jackson et al. state, overall, the effect of elevated CO2 belowground shows no sign of
diminishing. In expanding on this statement, the four researchers note if progressive
nitrogen limitation were occurring in this system, we would expect differences in productivity
to diminish for trees in the elevated vs. ambient CO2 plots, but they state, in fact there is little
evidence from estimates of aboveground or total net primary productivity in the replicated Duke experiment
that progressive nitrogen limitation is occurring there or at other forest FACE experiments, even after more
than a decade of manipulation of the airs CO2 content, citing in this regardwith respect to the latter portion
of their statementthe report of Finzi et al. (2007). Consequently, there is very good reason to believe
the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will continue to benefit Earths
forests significantly as long as the atmospheres CO2 concentration continues to rise.

Warming Core
198
CO2 Good Solves BVOCs

More CO2 means more BVOCs- they are key to cloud formation and cooling- this turns the case.
Still other secondary carbon compounds comprise what are known as biogenic volatile organic
compounds or BVOCs. Plants re-emit a substantial portion of their assimilated CO2 back to the
atmosphere as BVOCs, and these substances affect both the chemical and physical properties of
the air, where they generate large quantities of organic aerosols that can affect the planets
climate by forming cloud condensation nuclei that may lead to increased cooling during the day
by reflecting a greater portion of the incoming solar radiation back to space. In addition, many
BVOCs protect plants from a host of insect pests. But not all BVOCs are so helpful.
CO2 solves isoprene BVOCs
The scientists found that between 1901 and 2002, climate change at the global scale was
responsible for a 7% increase in isoprene emissions, but rising atmospheric CO2 caused a 21%
reduction, and by the end of the 20th century, anthropogenic cropland expansion had the
largest impact, reducing isoprene emissions by 15%, so that overall, these factors combined to
cause a 24% decrease in global isoprene emissions during the 20th century. These findings
represent good news, as the factors identified should reduce the undesirable consequences of
increases in tropospheric ozone and methane concentrations. The three scientists warn,
however, that the possible rapid expansion of biofuel production with high isoprene-emitting
plant species (e.g., oil palm, willow and poplar) may reverse the trend by which conversion of
land to food crops leads to lower isoprene emissions. This provides yet another reason not to
force use of biofuels as replacements for fossil fuels.
CO2 produces BVOCs that increases cloud formation which resolves warming and prevents
future pest attacks
Still other secondary carbon compounds comprise what are known as biogenic volatile organic
compounds or BVOCs. Plants re-emit a substantial portion of their assimilated CO2 back to the
atmosphere as BVOCs, and these substances affect both the chemical and physical properties of
the air, where they generate large quantities of organic aerosols that can affect the planets
climate by forming cloud condensation nuclei that may lead to increased cooling during the day
by reflecting a greater portion of the incoming solar radiation back to space. In addition, many
BVOCs protect plants from a host of insect pests. But not all BVOCs are so helpful.

Warming Core
199
AFF 2AC CO2 Ag

Benefits are short-term cant act as a sufficient negative feedback and warming kills other
resources needed to sustain agriculture
Mann 4 (Michael E, PHD in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, member of the Penn State University faculty,
holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental
Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), "CO2
Fertilization," http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/)
It has sometimes been argued that the earths biosphere (in large part, the terrestrial biosphere) may have the capacity to
sequestor much of the increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere associated with human fossil fuel burning. This effect is known as
CO2 fertilization because, in the envisioned scenario, higher ambient CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere literally fertilize plant growth.
Because plants in turn, in the process of photosynthesis, convert CO 2 into oxygen, it is thus sometimes argued that such co2 fertilization could
potentially provide a strong negative feedback on changing CO 2 concentrations. Recent experiments and model calculations, however,
suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. A set of controlled experiments known as FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experiments
have been performed in which ambient CO2 levels are elevated in forest stands and changes in various
measures of productivity are made over several years. Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in
agreement with models), that any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly
offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity. This is due in part to the fact that other
conditions (e.g. availability of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus) appear to quickly become limiting, even when carbon
availability is removed as a constraint on plant growth when ambient CO 2 concentrations are sufficiently
increased. A few simple calculations indicate that any hypothesized co2 fertilization response is unlikely to offset a significant fraction of projected
increases in atmospheric co2 concentration over the next century. At present, about 600 billion tons of carbon are tied up in the
above-ground vegetation. About 2-3 times this much is tied up in roots and below ground carbon, which is a
more difficult carbon pool to augment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century
range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if the world increases its
reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically. These numbers clearly indicate that sequestering
a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very difficult, especially as forests are cleared to make way for
agriculture and communities. While there are possibilities of storage in wells and deep in the ocean, stabilizing the atmospheric CO2
concentration would require gathering up the equivalent of 1 to 2 times the worlds existing above ground
vegetation and putting it down abandoned oil wells or deep in the ocean . While CO2 fertilization could help to increase above
ground vegetation a bit, storing more than a few tens of percent of the existing carbon would be quite surprising, and this is likely to be more like a few
percent of global carbon emissions projected for the 21st century.
Multiple reasons warming kills agriculture

William Cline, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Center for Global
Development, 3-2008, Global warming and agriculture Finance and Development, the quarterly publication
of the IMF March 2008,. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/cline.htm
For that reason, this study (Cline, 2007) was undertaken both to get a better long-term fix on overall world
effects under current policies (the so-called baseline or business-as-usual scenario) and to understand the
likely impact on individual countries and regions. The time frame stretched out to the average for 207099,
what is called the "2080s." Climate model projections are available on a comparable basis for this period,
which is far enough in the future to allow sizable warming and potential damage to materialize but close
enough to the present to elicit public concern. The study, which is explored in this article, suggests that there
is good reason not to downplay the risks to agriculture from global warming. How climate affects
agriculture Climate change can affect agriculture in a variety of ways. Beyond a certain range of
temperatures, warming tends to reduce yields because crops speed through their development,
producing less grain in the process. And higher temperatures also interfere with the ability of
plants to get and use moisture. Evaporation from the soil accelerates when temperatures rise
and plants increase transpirationthat is, lose more moisture from their leaves. The combined effect is
called "evapotranspiration." Because global warming is likely to increase rainfall, the net impact of higher
temperatures on water availability is a race between higher evapotranspiration and higher precipitation.
Typically, that race is won by higher evapotranspiration. But a key culprit in climate changecarbon emissions
can also help agriculture by enhancing photosynthesis in many important, so-called C3, crops (such as wheat,

200
Warming Core
rice, and soybeans). The science, however, is far from certain on the benefits of carbon fertilization.
But we do know that this phenomenon does not much help C4 crops (such as sugar-cane and maize),
which account for about one-fourth of all crops by value .
CO2 is net worse for food
Justin Gillis June 4, 2011 is an assistant business editor at The New York Times, in charge of the paper's coverage of food, agriculture and energy.
He joined the Times last year after a dozen years as an editor and reporter at The Washington Post, and before that, a dozen years at The Miami Herald.
A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Now, the latest scientific research suggests that a previously discounted factor is helping to destabilize the food system:
climate change. Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in
the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia. Scientists believe some, though not all, of those events
were caused or worsened by human-induced global warming. Temperatures are rising rapidly during the
growing season in some of the most important agricultural countries , and a paper published several weeks ago found that this
had shaved several percentage points off potential yields, adding to the price gyrations. For nearly two decades, scientists had predicted that
climate change would be relatively manageable for agriculture, suggesting that even under worst-case assumptions, it would
probably take until 2080 for food prices to double. In part, they were counting on a counterintuitive ace in the hole: that rising carbon
dioxide levels, the primary contributor to global warming, would act as a powerful plant fertilizer and offset many of the ill
effects of climate change. Until a few years ago, these assumptions went largely unchallenged. But lately, the destabilization of the
food system and the soaring prices have rattled many leading scientists . The success of agriculture has been astounding, said
Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher at NASA who helped pioneer the study of climate change and agriculture. But I think theres starting to
be premonitions that it may not continue forever. A scramble is on to figure out whether climate science has been too sanguine about
the risks. Some researchers, analyzing computer forecasts that are used to advise governments on future crop prospects, are pointing out what
they consider to be gaping holes. These include a failure to consider the effects of extreme weather, like the floods and the
heat waves that are increasing as the earth warms. A rising unease about the future of the worlds food supply came through during interviews this year
with more than 50 agricultural experts working in nine countries. These experts say that in coming decades, farmers need to
withstand whatever climate shocks come their way while roughly doubling the amount of food they produce
to meet rising demand. And they need to do it while reducing the considerable environmental damage caused
by the business of agriculture.
Heat capacity, financial and tech constraints outweigh CO2 benefits
James McCarthy, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Full Text of Third Assessment WG #2,
1.2.1.1, http://www.ipcc.ch
Human production factors notwithstanding, food production is influenced mostly by the availability of water and nutrients, as well as by
temperature. Increases in temperatures could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk
of
heat or drought stress in other areas. Livestock (e.g., cattle, swine, and poultry) are all susceptible to heat
stress and drought (Gates, 1993). The effects of climatic changeseven smooth trends will not be uniform in space or time. For smoothly
evolving climatic scenarios, recent literature (see Chapter 5) tends to project that high latitudes may experience increases in productivity for global
warming up to a 1C increase, depending on crop type, growing season, changes in temperature regimes, and seasonality of precipitation. In the
tropics and subtropics -where some crops already are near their maximum temperature
tolerance and where dry land, no irrigated agriculture predominates the literature suggests
that yields will tend to decrease with even nominal amounts of climate change (IPCC, 1998; Chapter 5).
Moreover, the adaptive capacity of less developed countries in the tropics is limited by financial
and technological constraints that are not equally applicable to more temperate. developed
countries. This would increase the disparity in food production between developed and
developing countries, For global warming greater than 2.5c Chapter 5 reports that most studies agree that
world food prices a key indicator of overall agricultural vulnerability would increase . Much of
the literature suggests that productivity increases in middle to high latitudes will diminish, and yield
decreases in the tropics and subtropics are expected to be more severe (Chapters 5 and 19). These
projections are likely to be. underestimates, and our confidence in them cannot be high because they are
based on scenarios in which significant changes in extreme events such as droughts and
floods are not fully considered or for which rapid nonlinear climatic changes have not been,
assumed (Section 2.3.4 notes that vulnerability to extreme events generally is higher than vulnerability to changing mean conditions).

201
Warming Core
Weeds accelerate with warming kills plants
Hatfield et. al. 11Laboratory Director @ National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment (Ames,
IA)AND K.J. Boote, Professor of Agronomy @ UFloridaAND B.A. Kimball, worker @ USDA-ARS, U.S.
Arid-Land Agricultural Research CenterAND L.H. Ziska, worker @ USDA Crop Systems and Global Change
LabAND R. C. Izaurralde, Professor @ Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National
Lab @ UMarylandAND D. Ort, USDA/ARS, Photosynthesis Research Unit and Professor @ UIllinoisAND
A.M. Thomson, Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Lab. @ UMarylandAND
D. Wolfe, Professor of Horticulture @ Cornell University (J.L, Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications
for Crop Production, Agronomy Journal, Vol. 103, Iss. 2, March 2k11, American Society of Agronomy)
Along with precipitation, temperature is a primary abiotic variable that affects invasive weed biology. The probable impact
of rising temperatures on the expansion of invasive weeds into higher latitudes is of particular concern. Many of the
worst invasives for warm season crops in the southern U nited S tates originated in tropical or warm temperature
areas; consequently, northward expansion of these invasives may accelerate with warming (Patterson, 1993). For example, itchgrass
(Rottboelliia cochinchinensis), an invasive weed associated with significant yield reductions in sugarcane for Louisiana
(Lencse and Griffin, 1991), is also highly competitive in corn, cotton, soybean, grain sorghum, and rice systems (e.g., Lejeune et
al., 1994). The response of this species to a 3C increase in average temperature stimulated biomass by 88% and
leaf area by 68% (Patterson et al., 1979), projecting increases in growth for the middle Atlantic states (Patterson et al., 1999).
Northward migration of other invasive weeds, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) and witchweed (Striga asiatica), is also anticipated
(Patterson, 1995a). Conversely, additional warming could also restrict the southern range of other invasive weeds, for example, wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) or
Canada thistle (Ziska and Runion, 2007).
Warming increases Pests kills agriculture

WRI 99 (World Resource Institute, "Climate change will affect plant pests and diseases in the same way it
affects infectious disease agents." wri.org, http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8486)
Climate change will affect plant pests and diseases in the same way it affects infectious disease
agents. In other words, the range of many insects will expand or change, and new combinations
of pests and diseases may emerge as natural ecosystems respond to altered temperature and
precipitation profiles. Any increase in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events,
including droughts, heat waves, windstorms, or floods, could also disrupt the predator-prey
relationships that normally keep pest populations in check. An explosion of the rodent
population that damaged the grain crop in Zimbabwe in 1994, after 6 years of drought had eliminated many rodent predators,
shows how altered climate conditions can intensify pest problems . The effect of climate on pests may add to the
effect of other factors such as the overuse of pesticides and the loss of biodiversity that already contribute to plant pest and disease outbreaks [300].
The ingenuity of farmers, breeders, and agricultural engineers, and the natural resilience of
biological systems, will help buffer many of the negative effects of climate change on
agriculture. However, experts believe that over the longer term, the accumulated stresses of
sustained climate change stand a good chance of disrupting agro-ecosystems and reducing
global food productivity.
CO2 kills ocean biodiversity

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, Science: Ocean Acidifying
So Fast It Threatens Humanitys Ability to Feed Itself, 3/2/2012,
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanityability-to-feed-itself/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed
%3A+climateprogre
The worlds oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major extinctions
in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the
geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. What were doing today really stands out, said lead author Brbel Hnisch, a paleoceanographer
at Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped outnew species evolved to replace
those that died off. But if
industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care
aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon. Thats the news release from a major 21-author Science paper, The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew
from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred.
But this study looked back over 300 million and found that the
unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place has

put marine life at risk in a frighteningly unique way: the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release
stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially
unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of
marine ecosystem change. That is to say, its not just that acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of century as a 2010 Geological Society study put it.
We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass

202
Warming Core
extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones devoid of fish and seafood are poised to expand and remain
for thousands of years. And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that carbon dioxide is driving fish
crazy and threatening their survival. Heres more on the new study: The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the
gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too
quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shellbuilding.
Extinction
Craig 3 (Robin Kundis, Indiana University,Winter, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, p. 264-266)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political
debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other
environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all
the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." In a very real and
direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to
support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine
ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in
the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse
ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among
component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This
implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is
also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining
the rest of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine
ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide.
ecosystems provide. More generally,
Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values
for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also
have considerable force and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine
ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that
most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory
if we kill the ocean we kill

ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, its once-complex and productive ecosystem
relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much:
almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." More
The stresses piled up:

overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the
introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with
shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological
importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large.
stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing
the United
States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few
fishers go out of business as a result.
frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that
Their studies are flawed they were done in greenhouses rather than open fields
Mittelstaedt 9 (Martin, The Globe and Mails environment reporter, The Globe and Mail, 3-31,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article743395.ece, 7-3-11)
Scientists have made another worrisome discovery , this time about carbon dioxide itself, the main
greenhouse gas, which is vital for plant development. It had been assumed in the 1980s, based on greenhouse experiments , that an
atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide would stimulate plant growth , raising some crop yields by as much as
30 per cent. That is part of the reason why, up until now, few people worried much about agriculture and global warming. It was thought that, while
climate change might wreak havoc on ice-dependent polar bears and low-lying coastal cities, it held a verdant lining for farmers. But new
research published last year based on experiments in the U.S., Japan, Switzerland and New Zealand
found the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide were vastly overrated when crops were grown in
the more realistic setting of open farm fields, rather than in greenhouses. Corn yields didn't rise at
all, and the rise in wheat and rice yields was less than half previous estimates.

Warming Core
203
***Russia DA***

Warming Core
204
1NC- Russia DA
Arctic warming is key to Russias economy
Mahoney 11 (Honor Mahony, is editor of the EUobserver in Brussels and has also written for The Irish Times, Sunday Business Post and Spiegel
Online, 6/7/11, Ocnus.net, http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Business_1/Arctic-Shipping-Routes-Unlikely-to-be-Suez-of-the-North.shtml
Late last year a cargo ship made maritime history. It became the first foreign bulk carrier to make a commercial
trip across Russian Arctic waters. Carrying over 40,000 tonnes of iron ore, the MV Nordic Barents left
Kirkenes port in Norway on 4 September. It sailed the North Sea route, a path that runs eastwards from
northern Europe, along Russia's north coast and through the Bering Strait. Some three weeks later, it docked in
Xingang, northern China. The North Sea route has become freer of ice, but the navigation season is
still just two-four months "The whole trip went very well. There were no big delays and it was a
lot cheaper. Just compared to going via the Cape of Good Hope, the savings for fuel alone was
around $550,000," said Christian Bonfils, CEO of Nordic Bulk Carriers, operator of the ship.
The Russians have been using Arctic waters all year round for decades. Retreating sea ice due
to global warming in recent years has seen foreign shipping companies start to look
northwards for the possibility of commercial shipping routes. But until recently the area has
been closed to foreign ships wanting to get to hungry Asian markets. Instead companies use
the Suez Canal - a trip which, counted from Norway, is almost twice as long. Last year Tschudi
Shipping, which owns a mine in Kirkenes, approached the Russians about the possibility of using the North Sea
route to get to China, the mine's biggest customer. "We got a very clear message from the Russians. It was: 'We
want to compete with Suez'," said CEO Felix Tschudi. The Norwegian company hooked up with Nordic Bulk
Carriers, who had the right type of ice ship, to make the trip. Until then uncertainty about how much the
Russians would charge for the mandatory use of their ice-breakers meant the trip was not economically viable.
"The rate we paid last year [$210,000] for ice-breaker services was very comparable with the Suez Canal," said
Bonfils. Getting Russian natural resources out So what prompted the Russian thaw? According to Professor
Lawson Brigham, an expert on Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, it comes down to Russia
wanting to exploit natural resources in the area. "The bottom line is that Russia's GNP is tied to Arctic
natural resources development. The real driver is building up a transport system to move the cargoes of
natural resources to global markets and one of the big global markets sitting there is China," he said. The
region has a wealth of natural resources including nickel, iron ore, phosphate, copper and
cobalt. There are huge reserves of gas in the Shtokman gas field, while a 2008 report by the US
Geological Survey suggested oil in the Arctic circle could amount to 13 percent of the world's
undiscovered supply. Tschudi and Bonfils have an additional, more prosaic explanation. The obligation
to use Russian ice-breakers is a money spinner. "If they can employ their icebreakers in the
summer season, then it's good business for them," said Bonfils. Problems Several more such transarctic trips are planned this year. According to Tschudi the North Sea route "will be important for those who
are shipping from fairly high north." "It will be quite important for mines in the Kola Peninsula [in north west
Russia], mines in Finland. You can also save by shipping from Rotterdam." But for all the buzz it has been
creating - shipping companies are also thrilled at the prospect of pirate-free waters caveats abound. Good
trade depends on predictability Global warming has meant the North Sea route has become freer of
ice. But this is the case only for about four months a year at most, sometimes only two. An
impact study on Arctic marine shipping by the Arctic Council notes that the navigation season
for the North Sea route is expected to be 90-100 days only by 2080. "Despite all of the change,
the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered for most of the year." said Brigham, adding: "The global maritime
industry works on just-in-time cargoes and the regular nature of marine traffic." "There is a little bit of a
misperception that this is a new global regime with new global shipping lanes that will replace Panama and
Suez [canals]." In addition, businesses need to feel less that they are subject to Russia's whim when it comes to
tariffs. "We need predictability [on prices] in order to plan," said Tschudi. There are a host of other problems
too. There is little infrastructure in Arctic territory. If a ship gets into trouble, help is far away. There are also
no clear rules on standards for ships sailing in the area. The waters are not as well chartered as elsewhere.
More oceangraphic and meterological data is needed as well as information on icebergs. At the political level,
there is a dispute over the waters. Russia considers the Northern Sea route as national territory, so
it makes the rules. The US disagrees.

Warming Core
205
Russian econ decline causes global nuclear wars

Filger 9 (Sheldon, Author and Writer @ the Huffington Post, Former VP for Resource Development at New Yorks United Way, Russian Economy
Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction, http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356)
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is
rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of
the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both
intimately acquainted with their nations history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect
that Russias economic crisis will endanger the nations political stability, achieved at great cost
after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among
rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that
the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are
the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a
desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where
economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious
accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical
dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic
vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations
on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we
know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake
at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and
destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obamas
national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in
Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by
the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis
represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political
instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding
the nations nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel
would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia
were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It
may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous
consequence.

Warming Core
206
2NC- Russia- Impact Calc

Russian economic decline outweighs and turns the affOur filger evidence says econ decline would destroy Russias stability, causes nuke prolif and
warIts the only extinction level war
Bostrom 2 (Nick, PhD and Professor of Philosophy @ Oxford, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,
The Journal of Evolution and Technology, March)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that mighthave been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There
was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear
Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.
[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation,
either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large
nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for
instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted.
Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the
existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
Russian economic weakness causes nuclear war, prolif, disease, terrorism, CBW use, and US
intervention
Oliker and Charlick-Paley 2 ( (Olga and Tanya, OLIKER AND CHARLICK-PALEY 2002 RAND Corporation
Project Air Force, Assessing Russias Decline, www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1442/)
The preceding chapters have illustrated the ways in which Russias decline affects that country and may evolve
into challenges and dangers that extend well beyond its borders. The political factors of decline may
make Russia a less stable international actor and other factors may increase the risk of internal
unrest. Together and separately, they increase the risk of conflict and the potential scope of
other imaginable disasters. The trends of regionalization, particularly the disparate rates of economic
growth among regions, combined with the politicization of regional economic and military interests, will be
important to watch. The potential for locale, or possibly ethnicity, to serve as a rallying point for internal
conflict is low at present, but these factors have the potential to feed into precisely the cycle of
instability that political scientists have identified as making states in transition to democracy
more likely to become involved in war. These factors also increase the potential for domestic turmoil,
which further increases the risk of international conflict, for instance if Moscow seeks to united a divided
nation and/or demonstrate globally that its waning power remains something to be reckoned with. Given
Russias conventional weakness, an increased risk of conflict carries with it an increased risk of
nuclear weapons use, and Russias demographic situation increases the potential for a major
epidemic with possible implications for Europe and perhaps beyond. The dangers posed by
Russias civilian and military nuclear weapons complex, aside from the threat of nuclear
weapons use, create a real risk of proliferation of weapons or weapons materials to terrorist
groups, as well as perpetuating an increasing risk of accident at one of Russias nuclear power
plants or other facilities. These elements touch upon key security interests, thus raising serious concerns
for the United States. A declining Russia increases the likelihood of conflictinternal or otherwise
and the general deterioration that Russia has in common with failing states raises serious
questions about its capacity to respond to an emerging crisis. A crisis in large, populous, and nucleararmed Russia can easily affect the interests of the United States and its allies. In response to such a
scenario, the United States, whether alone or as part of a larger coalition, could be asked to

207
Warming Core
send military forces to the area in and around Russia. This chapter will explore a handful of scenarios
that could call for U.S. involvement. A wide range of crisis scenarios can be reasonably extrapolated from the
trends implicit in Russias decline. A notional list includes: Authorized or unauthorized belligerent actions by
Russia troops in trouble-prone Russian regions or in neighboring states could lead to armed conflict. Border
clashes with China in the Russian Far East or between Russia and Ukraine, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, or
another neighbor could escalate into interstate combat. Nuclear-armed terrorists based in Russia or
using weapons or materials diverted from Russian facilities could threaten Russia, Europe,
Asia, or the United States. Civil war in Russia could involve fighting near storage sites for
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and agents, risking large-scale contamination and
humanitarian disaster. A nuclear accident at a power plant or facility could endanger life and
health in Russia and neighboring states. A chemical accident at a plant or nuclear or nuclearrelated facility could endanger life and health in Rusisa and neighboring states. Ethnic pogrom in
south Russia could force refugees into Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and/or Ukraine. Economic and ethnic
conflicts in Caucasus could erupt into armed clashes, which would endanger oil and gas pipelines in the region.
A massive ecological disaster such as an earthquake, famine, or epidemic could spawn refugees
and spread illness and death across borders. An increasingly criminalized Russian economy
could create a safe haven for crime or even terrorist-linked groups. From this base, criminals, drug
traders, and terrorists could threaten the people and economies of Europe, Asia, and the United States.
Accelerated Russian weapons and technology sales or unauthorized diversion could foster the proliferation of
weapons and weapon materials to rogue states and nonstate terrorist actors, increasing the risk of nuclear war.

Warming Core
208
2NC- Russia- Warming Key to Russias Economy- Oil/Gas

Arctic warming is crucial to Russias economy- prevents collapse from peak oil
CSM 8 (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 5282008 (lexis)
The Kremlin often touts Russia's image as an "energy superpower," but now the country's oil
production is declining. Some say Russia may have already reached peak oil output. Related
stories The Monitor's View Untapped oil, overtapped politics Risks of rising oil nationalism Each oil
crisis spells a new energy future Underscoring the urgency of the issue, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's
new cabinet made its first order of business on Monday the approval of a package of measures to relieve the oilproduction crisis. "It's a good first step," says Natalia Milchakova, an oil and gas analyst for Otkritiye, a
Moscow-based brokerage firm. But she adds that "rapidly slowing" oil production, which was growing
by more than 10 percent five years ago, isn't "something that can be quickly fixed with political
declarations." As the world's second-largest oil exporter, Russia joins a growing number of top oil suppliers
wrestling with how to address declining or peaking production. Like Venezuela and Mexico, Russia is heavily
dependent on oil, which accounts for more than two-thirds of government revenue and 30
percent of the country's gross domestic product. Now, Moscow is trying to remedy a situation
caused in part by outdated technology, heavy taxation of oil profits, and lack of investment in
oil infrastructure. The Presidium of the Cabinet, as it is officially known, in its inaugural meeting Monday
approved tax holidays of up to 15 years for Russian companies that open new oil fields and proposed raising the
threshold at which taxation begins from the current $9 per barrel to $15. Oil companies welcomed the
measures, but experts say that after almost two decades of post-Soviet neglect, which have seen little new
exploration, it may be too little, too late. After rising steadily for several years to a post-Soviet high
of 9.9 million barrels per day (bpd) in October, Russian oil production fell by 0.3 percent in the
first four months of this year, while exports fell 3.3 percent the first Putin-era drop. Russia's proven
oil reserves are a state secret, but the Oil & Gas Journal, a US-based industry publication, estimates it has
about 60 billion barrels the world's eighth largest which would last for 17 years at current production rates.
Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko recently admitted the decline, but suggested it might be overcome by fresh
discoveries in underexplored eastern Siberia or in new Arctic territories recently claimed by Russia. "The
output level we have today is a plateau, or stagnation," he said.
Arctic warming is key to Russias economy
Technocrat '7 [March 29th, http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/29/17033, Global Climate Change Spurs Arctic
Economic Boom]
It's not all doom and gloom with the Arctic warming up, for a lot of people and companies it
means an economic boom. So much so, that there are now some long simmering territorial disputes back
on the high burner. ..."The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25% of the
world's undiscovered oil and gas. Moscow reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice
of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion."....more bucks there, and all this new Arctic boom
is going to require technicians, engineers, scientists, and many workers of the sturdy yeoman
sort....a new frontier.

Warming Core
209
2NC- Russia- Warming Key to Econ- General

Warming is key to Russian growth
Korepin 11 (Serge Korepin, research intern at the Russia and Eurasia Program at CSIS, Might Russia
Welcome Global Warming? Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 11 2011, Online @
http://csis.org/blog/might-russia-welcome-global-warming)
Russia pays a price for this cold. Hill and Gaddy demonstrate that there is an accelerating drop in the efficiency
of human and machine work as the temperature drops from freezing to -40 C;2 in fact, sometimes it is too
cold to work at all. In addition, as the temperature drops, wind has an increasingly negative effect: at -15 C, a
20 mph wind quadruples the amount of time to perform a task.3 Writing on this topic in 1983, Victor Mote
concluded In an average year, total losses to the cold comprise 33% of all possible working time
in the Soviet north.4 Furthermore, cold causes damage to industries, human health, buildings,
equipment, and infrastructure; at -15 C high carbon steel breaks, at -25-30 C unalloyed steel
breaks, frost-resistant rubber is required. When temperatures hit -35-40 C tin-alloy steel
components shatter, all compressors stop work, standard steels and structures rupture en
mass.5 These climate effects result in high maintenance and replacement costs. In addition
to these efficiency costs, it is also expensive to live in the cold climates; for example, there are high heating
and snow and ice removal costs. These costs affect Russia more so than other areas because
communist planners have populated cities and built industries that are too big to be
economically viable in the relative coldness of their locations.6 Thus, there is economic
pressure because of the cold for many Russian cities to shrink (which has been difficult given
the existing infrastructure of these cities). Russias increasing temperatures (which are
probably the result of global warming) could relieve some the economic pressures that result
from the cold climate. Warming will directly reduce the effects of cold on work efficiency in
Russia and reduce adaptation costs. In fact, this is already happening. Rosgidromet (Russias Hydrometeorology agency) stated in 2008 that average annual temperature in Russia has risen by 1.3 C over the past
30 years and that winter temperatures in Siberia have increased 2-3 C over the past 120-150 years.7 This is
reflected in the agencys estimate that there will be five fewer days that require heat in 2015 than in 2000. The
agency also estimates that Russians could reduce heating costs by as much as 10 % by 2050. Russia will
further gain from the warming of the ground and water in and around its territory. The UN
sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2001 that if average air
temperature increased by 2-3.5 degrees, a quarter of the earths permafrost would melt.8 This is
already happening; Greenpeaces 2009 report on Russia states that over the past 35 years the southern
boundary of permafrost has moved north by 18-25 miles in European Russia and 50 miles near the Urals.
Rosgidromet predicts that by 2050 the permafrost boundary would shift north by another 95-125 miles. The
retreat of permafrost will make extraction of raw materials easier; Victor Mote wrote; In Siberia
standard mining and excavation machinery may be used for only three to four months a year in northern
Siberian tin and gold operations.9 In addition, most of Russias gas and oil comes from Arctic regions,
as well as considerable quantities of the worlds nickel, cobalt, copper and diamonds.
Observers are tracking additional warming trends like the spread of trees and shrubs northward, which implies
an increase of habitable land. Warming will also allow agriculture to spread north, extend the
growing seasons, and perhaps increase overall agricultural yieldsRussia has recently marked
yield records. In addition, Russias chief forecaster, Alexander Frolov, said that the North Pole may be
completely ice-free in the summer within a few decades. The retreat of Arctic ice will reduce the cost of
extracting natural resources from Arctic waters, which contain large reserves of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, nickel
and tungsten. One concern for such extraction has been icebergs. A reduction in Arctic ice is also
opening up a trade route which would be an alternative to the Suez Canal; the distance between
Rotterdam and Yokohama is about one-third shorter via the Northern Sea Routealong Russias
north coast and then south through the Bering Strait. Rosgidromet has stated that Russia is close to opening
almost the entire Northern Sea Route to icebreaker-free shipping [from August to September]. In fact,
representatives of the eight Arctic powers are already discussing the development of the route. The Northern
Sea Routes freight consisted of about 110,000 tons this year. By 2020, some predict freight will increase to 64

210
Warming Core
million tons. Additionally, Siberia contains eleven of the worlds fifty longest riversall of them flowing into
the Arctic Ocean, except the Amur that flows to the Sea of Okhotsk (to a port that is unusable for five months
out of the year because of the ice). As the Arctic sea-ice retreats, the settlements along these rivers will no
longer be on waterways that essentially come to a dead end. It will become possible to transport cargo from
these rivers to ports around the globe, which could lead to a decrease in transport costs and an increase in trade
volume from the interior of Siberia. David Lempert and Hue Nhu Nguyen write in The Ecologist that the
biggest winner from global warming is going to be Russia.

Warming Core
211
2NC- Russia- AT: Euro Crisis Alt Cause

Euro crisis doesnt hurt Russias economy
Vaisman 11 (Euro cloud has silver lining for Russia November 30, 2011 Andrei Vaisman Russia is not immune to the effects of
the eurozone crisis, but investors may see the countrys markets as a shelter from the storm.
Opinions among Russian experts vary, however. Mikhail Kozakov, financial markets director with
investment company Grandis Capital, says: In the medium term, Russia is a more attractive
investment destination than the developed markets. And besides, we have a trump card in the
shape of our commodities. With the currency exchange situation as uncertain as the outlook for the
economically developed countries, the commodity market is also becoming more interesting, at least for
speculative capital. Some other positive factors will not escape investors notice. In spite of the
overall mood of recession in Russia, the countrys economy is performing in a moderately
positive manner. According to the State Statistics Committee (Goskomstat), industrial output increased by
5.1pc from January to October and GDP in the third quarter is expected to grow by an estimated 4.8pc. When
times are hard, investors always look for alternative markets, says Georgy Aksyonov, an analyst with the Net
Trader company. I think the Russian market, which is part of Brics and is still growing, albeit at a
slower pace in recent years, may be promising in this situation. Another cause for optimism
is that, in the current situation, the single European currency did not go into a tailspin, as many
predicted: at the time of going to press, the euro/dollar rate has not once dropped below 1.30
since January of this year. It should also be noted that the European debt crisis is changing the attitude to
protective mechanisms such as government bonds. Investors today are clearly shifting their focus from
sovereign to corporate debt. This is good news for Russia, because Russian corporations are much
cheaper than their Western counterparts. Russias financial authorities appear to be
optimistic. Sergey Shevtsov, vice-president of the Central Bank, does not anticipate any serious threats to the
domestic economy, though he admits that the crisis might lead to a shortage of liquidity. We expect it to peak
in mid-December and, thereafter, the budget will be disbursing actively, he said on the fringes of an
international financial conference sponsored by Sberbank. The liquidity deficit will grow but it will not,
on the whole, create problems for the banking sector and the economy in general.

Warming Core
212
2NC- Russia- Oil Key to Econ

Russian budget projects are premised on oil - decline causes total collapse
Busvine 7/20 (Douglas, Russia Writer @ Reuters, Analysis: Russia's biggest contingent liability: oil, 2011,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-russia-risks-idUKTRE76J2KY20110720, EMM)
(Reuters) - With a sovereign debt of just 10 percent of GDP and half a trillion dollars in reserves,
Russia has a balance sheet that the United States and Europe can only envy as they battle their
debt crises. But a closer look at Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin's latest fiscal plans reveals two concerns: he
is betting that oil prices will stay high for years; and even if he is right, the pace of budget consolidation
will slow significantly. By his own reckoning, the books would only balance with oil at $125 per
barrel next year, reflecting the impact on the public finances of the global slump that put an end
to years of surpluses generated at much lower oil prices. Kudrin has only managed to keep the
projected deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the three-year budget
horizon by hiking his oil price forecast to the mid-$90s from the high $70s previously. Even
then, the fiscal strategy abandons a previous goal of balancing the budget by 2015. After
stripping out energy revenues -- which account for nearly half of the tax take -- the deficit will
stay over 10 percent of GDP. "Given the very high oil price forecast, the slow fiscal consolidation is
disappointing," said Ivan Tchakarov, chief economist at Renaissance Capital. "The oil sensitivity of the budget
has increased dramatically." "It's a retrograde step," agreed Edward Parker, sovereign analyst at Fitch Ratings
in London. The biggest risk for Russia remains "a sharp and sustained" drop in oil prices.
LOCKED IN In rough terms, a $10 fall in the oil price would translate into an increase of one
percentage point in the deficit for the world's largest oil and gas producer. "With oil at $95
everybody's happy," said Sergei Guriev, rector of Moscow's New Economic School. "But at $70,
borrowing becomes hard for both companies and the government." On the spending side, the
government has locked itself into higher pension outlays, increasing budget transfers from 1.5 percent of GDP
in 2008 to 5.2 percent in 2010, Yevsei Gurvich, head of the Economic Expert Group, wrote in a recent study.
An offsetting hike in payroll taxes will be partly unwound next year on the orders of President Dmitry
Medvedev, who is likely to run for a second term next March if Prime Minister Vladimir Putin chooses not to
return to Russia's highest office. That will swell the largest budget item, social spending, which will rise in 2012
by 20 percent to 3.8 trillion roubles ($135 billion), accounting for 31 percent of federal outlays. Put another
way, Russia will spend four-fifths of its energy revenues on welfare. The cost of the pension
system, if left unreformed, could "completely undermine the stability of the budget system,"
Gurvich wrote. Kudrin will present his budget to parliament in the autumn. DOWNSIDE ACCELERATORS
Even if those costs are bearable under a sanguine view on oil, they would become difficult to
sustain in the event of a sharp and sustained oil price crash due to other contingent liabilities
that are, effectively, derivatives on the oil price. Chief of those are debts owed by large state-controlled
firms, such as energy majors Gazprom and Rosneft and banks Sberbank and VTB. Economists at Deutsche
Bank have estimated that a contingent liability shock caused by such "quasi-sovereign" entities could add 10
percentage points to Russia's national debt by 2020.
Past recessions prove
Pirani 10 researcher and journalist, senior research fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy studies (Simon, 05/10/10, RUSSIAN ECONOMY:
Russia's oil problem http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/2682714/RUSSIAN-ECONOMY-Russias-oil-problem.html)
The recession was a devastating reminder of Russias economic dependence on natural

resources, mainly oil. And the differing interpretations of the recovery often rest on
contrasting views about how easy it will be to escape that dependence. The enthusiasts focus on the
fruit that government efforts to marshal oil funds to diversify the economy will bear. But the doubters worry
that oil dependence will not be conquered without stronger policies to ensure sufficient private investment
flows, properly targeted. Clemens Grafe, economist at UBS and firmly in the optimist camp, says fears that
Russian domestic demand will fall behind that in the other Brics are misplaced. He argues
that a structural shift in fiscal policy means that oil revenues were not just used for the 2008
09 crisis rescue package, but will be shifted onshore longer term, boosting domestic demand

213
Warming Core
and investment. This shift, together with structurally lower inflation rates, means that
private-sector savings and domestic leverage are likely to expand rapidly and drive the
economy forward, he says. While Russia will continue to be dependent on volatile commodity prices,
domestic savings will grow and interest rates can stay low, which will fuel a trend growth rate
significantly higher than that of the world economy.

Warming Core
214
2NC- AT: Diversification Good

Slow diversification is inevitable but massive diversification wrecks the Russian economy
comparative advantage is key to overall growth, which makes diversification a terrible idea.
Gaddy 11 Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, economist specializing in Russia (Clifford G., 06/16/11, Will the Russian
economy rid itself of its dependence on oil? http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20110616/164645377.html)
To ask whether the Russian economy will rid itself of its dependence on oil is to ask whether
ideology will trump economics. Many people in Russiaincluding President Medvedevseem
to believe Russia should de-emphasize the role of oil, gas, and other commodities because they
are primitive. Relying on them, they argue, is degrading. From the economic point of view, this makes no
sense. Oil is Russias comparative advantage. It is the most competitive part of the economy. Oil
and gas are something everyone wants, and Russia has more of them than anyone else. It is true
that the Russian economy is backward, and that oil plays a role in that backwardness. But oil is
not the root cause. The causes of Russias backwardness lie in its inherited production structure. The physical structure of
the real economy (that is, the industries, plants, their location, work forces, equipment, products, and the production chains in which they
participate) is predominantly the same as in the Soviet era. The problem is that it is precisely the oil
wealth (the so-called oil rent) that is used to support and perpetuate the inefficient structure .
For the sake of social and political stability, a large share of Russias oil and gas rents is
distributed to the production enterprises that employ the inherited physical and human capital .
The production and supply chains in that part of the economy are in effect rent distribution
chains. A serious attempt to convert Russias economy into something resembling a modern
Western economy would require dismantling this rent distribution system . This would be both
highly destabilizing, and costly in terms of current welfare . Current efforts for diversification
do not challenge the rent distribution system . On the contrary, the kinds of investment envisioned in those efforts will
preserve and reinforce the rent distribution chains, and hence make Russia more dependent on oil rents. Even under optimal
conditions for investment, any dream of creating a non-oil Russia that could perform as well
as todays commodity-based economy is unrealistic. The proportion of GDP that would have to
be invested in non-oil sectors is impossibly high . Granted, some new firms, and even entire sectors,
may grow on the outside of the oil and gas sectors and the rent distribution chains they
support. But the development of the new sectors will be difficult, slow, and costly . Even if successful, the
net value they generate will be too small relative to oil and gas to change the overall profile of the economy. Thus, while it is fashionable to
talk of diversification of the Russian economy away from oil and gas, this is the least likely
outcome for the countrys economic future. If Russia continues on the current course of
pseudo-reform (which merely reinforces the old structures), oil and gas rents will remain important because
they will be critical to support the inherently inefficient parts of the economy . On the other hand, if
Russia were to somehow launch a genuine reform aimed at dismantling the old structures, the
only realistic way to sustain success would be to focus on developing the commodity sectors .
Russia could obtain higher growth if the oil and gas sectors were truly modern. Those sectors need to be opened to new entrants, with a level playing field
for all participants. Most important, oil, gas, and other commodity companies need to be freed from the requirement to participate in the various
informal schemes to share their rents with enterprises in the backward sectors inherited from the Soviet system. Certainly, there are issues with oil. It is a
highly volatile source of wealth. But there are ways to hedge those risks. A bigger problem is that oil will eventually lose its special status as an energy
source and therefore much of its value. But that time is far off. It will not happen suddenly. In the meantime, sensible policies can deal with the
problems. Otherwise, the approach should be to generate the maximum value possible from the oil and protect that value through prudent fiscal policies.
Russia should not, can not, and will not significantly reduce the role of oil and gas in its
economy in the foreseeable future. It will only harm itself by ill-advised and futile efforts to try.

Warming Core
215
2NC- AT: Adventurism Turn

Russia wont expand - population problems
Zeihan, Director of Global Analysis @ STRATFOR, 2010 (Peter, June 15, One fight Russia cant
afford, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100614_kyrgyzstan_crisis_and_russian_dilemma)
But it is no longer the 17th century, and this strategy does not necessarily play to Russia's strengths anymore.
The second prong of the strategy -- flooding the region with ethnic Russians -- is no longer an option because of
Russia's demographic profile. The Russian birth rate has been in decline for a century, and in the
post-Cold War era, the youngest tranche of the Russian population simply collapsed. The
situation transformed from an academic debate about Russia's future to a policy debate about
Russia's present. The bust in the birth rate in the 1990s and 2000s has generated the smallest
population cohort in Russian history, and in a very few years, those post-Cold War children will
themselves be at the age where they will be having children. A small cohort will create an even
smaller cohort, and Russia's population problems could well evolve from crushing to irrecoverable. Even if this
cohort reproduces at a sub-Saharan African birthrate, even if the indications of high tuberculosis and HIV
infections among this population cohort are all wrong, and even if Russia can provide a level of services for this
group that it couldn't manage during the height of Soviet power, any demographic bounce would not occur
until the 2050s -- once the children of this cohort have sufficiently aged to raise their own children. Until 2050,
Russia simply has to learn to work with less. A lot less. And this is the best-case scenario for Russia in the next
generation. Simply put, Russia does not have the population to sustain the country at its present boundaries.
As time grinds on, Russia's capacity for doing so will decrease drastically. Moscow understands all this
extremely well, and this is a leading rationale behind current Russian foreign policy: Russia's
demographics will never again be as "positive" as they are now, and the Americans are unlikely
to be any more distracted than they are now. So Russia is moving quickly and, more important,
intelligently. Russia is thus attempting to reach some natural anchor points, e.g., some
geographic barriers that would limit the state's exposure to outside powers. The Russians hope
they will be able to husband their strength from these anchor points. Moscow's long-term
strategy consistently has been to trade space for time ahead of the beginning of the Russian
twilight; if the Russians can expand to these anchor points, Moscow hopes it can trade less
space for more time. Unfortunately for Moscow, there are not many of these anchor points in Russia's
neighborhood. One is the Baltic Sea, a fact that terrifies the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Another is the Carpathian Mountains. This necessitates the de facto absorption not only of Ukraine, but also of
Moldova, something that makes Romania lose sleep at night. And then there are the Tien Shan Mountains of
Central Asia -- which brings us to the crisis of the moment. The Crisis in Kyrgyzstan The former Soviet Central
Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan is not a particularly nice piece of real estate. While it is in one of those
mountainous regions that could be used to anchor Russian power, it is on the far side of the Eurasian steppe
from the Russian core, more than 3,000 kilometers (1,800 miles) removed from the Russian heartland. The
geography of Kyrgyzstan itself also leaves a great deal to be desired. Kyrgyzstan is an artificial
construct created by none other than Stalin, who rearranged internal Soviet borders in the
region to maximize the chances of dislocation, dispute and disruption among the indigenous
populations in case the Soviet provinces ever gained independence. Stalin drew his lines well:
Central Asia's only meaningful population center is the Fergana Valley. Kyrgyzstan obtained
the region's foothills and highlands, which provide the region's water; Uzbekistan gained the
fertile floor of the valley; and Tajikistan walked away with the only decent access to the valley as
a whole. As such, the three states continuously are jockeying for control over the only decent
real estate in the region. Arguably, Kyrgyzstan has the least to work with of any of the region's
states. Nearly all of its territory is mountainous; what flat patches of land it does have on which to build cities
are scattered about. There is, accordingly, no real Kyrgyz core. Consequently, the country suffers from sharp
internal differences: Individual clans hold dominion over tiny patches of land separated from each other by
rugged tracts of mountains. In nearly all cases, those clans have tighter economic and security relationships
with foreigners than they do with each other. (click here to enlarge image) A little more than five years ago,
Western nongovernmental organizations (and undoubtedly a handful of intelligence services) joined forces
with some of these regional factions in Kyrgyzstan to overthrow the country's pro-Russian ruling elite in what

216
Warming Core
is known as a "color revolution" in the former Soviet Union. Subsequently, Kyrgyzstan -- while not exactly proWestern -- dwelled in a political middle ground the Russians found displeasing. In April, Russia proved that it,
too, can throw a color revolution and Kyrgyzstan's government switched yet again. Since then, violence has
wracked the southern regions of Jalal-Abad, Batken and Osh -- strongholds of the previous government. In
recent days, nearly 100,000 Kyrgyz residents have fled to Uzbekistan. The interim government of Prime
Minister Roza Otunbayeva is totally outmatched. It is not so much that her government is in danger of falling -those same mountains that make it nearly impossible for Bishkek to control Osh make it equally difficult for
Osh to take over Bishkek but that the country has de facto split into (at least) two pieces. As such,
Otunbayeva -- whose government only coalesced due to the Russian intervention -- has publicly and directly
called upon the Russians to provide troops to help hold the country together. This request cuts to the core
weakness in the Russian strategy. Despite much degradation in the period after the Soviet dissolution, Russia's
intelligence services remain without peer. In fact, now that they have the direct patronage of the Russian prime
minister, they have proportionally more resources and influence than ever. They have proved that they can
rewire Ukraine's political world to expunge American influence, manipulate events in the Caucasus to whittle
away at Turkey's authority, cause riots in the Baltics to unbalance NATO members, and reverse Kyrgyzstan's
color revolution. But they do not have backup. Were this the 19th century, there would already be scads of
Russian settlers en route to the Fergana to dilute the control of the locals (although they would certainly be
arriving after the Russian army), to construct a local economy dependent upon imported labor and linked to
the Russian core, and to establish a new ruling elite. (It is worth noting that the resistance of Central Asians to
Russian encroachment meant that the Russians never seriously attempted to make the region into a majorityRussian one. Even so, the Russians still introduced their own demographic to help shape the region more to
Moscow's liking.) Instead, Russia's relatively few young families are busy holding the demographic line in
Russia proper. For the first time in Russian history, there is no surplus Russian population that can be
relocated to the provinces. And without that population, the Russian view of the Fergana -- to say nothing of
Kyrgyzstan -- changes dramatically. The region is remote and densely populated, and reaching it requires
transiting three countries. And one of these states would have something to say about that. That state is
Uzbekistan. The Uzbek Goliath After the Russians and Ukrainians, the Uzbeks are the most populous ethnicity
in the former Soviet Union. They are a Turkic people who do not enjoy particularly good relations with anyone.
Uzbekistan's ruling Karimov family is roundly hated both at home and abroad; the Central Asian country
boasts one of the most repressive governing systems in modern times. Uzbekistan also happens to be quite
powerful by Central Asian standards. There are more Uzbeks in Central Asia than there are Kyrgyz, Turkmen,
Tajiks and Russians combined. The Uzbek intelligence services are modeled after their Russian counterparts,
interspersing agents throughout the Uzbek population to ensure loyalty and to root out dissidents. It is the only
country of the five former Soviet states in the region that actually has a military that can engage in military
action. It is the only one of the five that has most of its cities in logical proximity and linked with decent
infrastructure (even if it is split into the Tashkent region and the Fergana region by Stalinesque cartographic
creativity). It is the only one of the five that is both politically stable (if politically brittle) and that has the
ability to project power. And it is also the only Central Asian state that is self-sufficient in both food and energy.
To top it all off, some 2.5 million ethnic Uzbeks reside in the other four former Soviet Central Asian states,
providing Tashkent a wealth of tools for manipulating developments throughout the region. And manipulate it
does. In addition to the odd border spat, Uzbekistan intervened decisively in Tajikistan's civil war in the 1990s.
Tashkent is not shy about noting that it thinks most Tajik, and especially Kyrgyz, territory should belong to
Uzbekistan, particularly the territory of southern Kyrgyzstan, where the current violence is strongest.
Uzbekistan views many of the Russian strategies to expunge Western interests from Central Asia as
preparation for moves against Uzbekistan, with the Russian-sponsored coup in Kyrgyzstan an excellent case in
point. From March through May, Uzbekistan began activating its reserves and reinforcing its Fergana border
regions, which heightened the state of fear in Bishkek from shrill to panic mode. Given Uzbek means, motive
and opportunity, Moscow is fairly confident that sending Russian peacekeepers to southern Kyrgyzstan would
provoke a direct military confrontation with an angry and nervous Uzbekistan. In STRATFOR's view, Russia
would win this war, but this victory would come neither easily nor cheaply. The Fergana is a long way from
Russia, and the vast bulk of Russia's military is static, not expeditionary like its U.S. counterpart. Uzbek supply
lines would be measured in hundreds of meters, Russian lines in thousands of kilometers. Moreover,
Uzbekistan could interrupt nearly all Central Asian natural gas that currently flows to Russia without even
launching a single attack. (The Turkmen natural gas that Russia's Gazprom normally depends upon travels to
Russia via Uzbek territory.) Yet this may be a conflict Russia feels it cannot avoid. The Russians have not

217
Warming Core
forward-garrisoned a military force sufficient to protect Kyrgyzstan, nor can they resettle a population that
could transform Kyrgyzstan. Therefore, the Russian relationship with Kyrgyzstan is based neither on military
strategy nor on economic rationality. Instead, it is based on the need to preserve a certain level of credibility
and fear -- credibility that the Russians will protect Kyrgyzstan should push come to shove, and Kyrgyz fear of
what Russia will do to it should they not sign on to the Russian sphere of influence. It is a strategy strongly
reminiscent of the U.S. Cold War containment doctrine, under which the United States promised to aid any
ally, anytime, anywhere if in exchange they would help contain the Soviets. This allowed the Soviet Union to
choose the time and place of conflicts, and triggered U.S. involvement in places like Vietnam. Had the United
States refused battle, the American alliance structure could have crumbled. Russia now faces a similar
dilemma, and just as the United States had no economic desire to be in Vietnam, the Russians really do not
much care what happens to Kyrgyzstan -- except as it impacts Russian interests elsewhere. But even victory
over Uzbekistan would not solve the problem. Smashing the only coherent government in the region would
create a security vacuum. Again, the Americans provide a useful corollary: The U.S. "victory" over Saddam
Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban's Afghanistan proved that "winning" is the easy part. Occupying the region over
the long haul to make sure that the victory is not worse than the status quo antebellum is a decade-togenerational effort that requires a significant expenditure of blood and treasure. Russia desperately needs to
devote such resources elsewhere -- particularly once the United States is no longer so preoccupied in the
Middle East. Russia is attempting to finesse a middle ground by talking the Uzbeks down and offering the
compromise of non-Russian troops from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Russian-led military
organization, as an alternative to Russian forces. This may resolve the immediate crisis, but neither the Uzbeks
nor the challenges they pose are going anywhere. And unlike Russia, Uzbekistan boasts very high demographic
growth. The bottom line is this: Despite all of Russia's recent gains, Moscow's strategy requires tools that the
Russians no longer have. It requires Moscow delving into the subregional politics of places that could well
bleed Russia dry -- and this is before any power that wishes Russia ill begins exploring what it and the Uzbeks
might achieve together.

Warming Core
218
2NC-Russia- AT: No investment

Polar melting will create massive influx of investment to Russia
Der Spiegel 6 (March 10, http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,405320,00.html)
Global warming isn't necessarily the catastrophe it's made out to be -- at least not for
multinational oil companies. Shrinking ice caps would reveal the Arctic's massive energy
sources and shorten tanker routes by thousands of miles. AFP This NASA handout satellite image
shows the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 2005, when the sea ice extent dropped to the lowest level
ever recorded. Ice-cap melting may be bad news for the polar bears in Manitoba, Canada, but it is great news
for Pat Broe of Denver. When the ice melts in the Arctic, the polar predators have to search for new
hunting grounds or starve -- but Broe doesn't mind. He figures global warming will make him
around $100 million a year. His friends laughed at him when he bought the run-down port in Churchill -- a
tiny outpost of a thousand souls on the Hudson Bay. What could he possibly want with a harbor in one of the
most deserted places on the planet that's frozen over a big chunk of the year? Wait and see, said Broe. He only
paid a symbolic price of seven dollars -- not a bad price for a port. He knew that time was on his side.
Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rising twice as fast as in the southern half. The
summers are getting longer and the pack ice is getting thinner. By 2015 the North Pole is
expected to be navigable for normal ships six months out of the year. It's then that a golden age
will dawn upon Churchill. Via Arctic waterways, an oil tanker only needs a week to make it from the
Russian port city Murmansk on the Barents Sea to the east coast of Canada. That's only half the time it takes
from Abu Dhabi on the Persian Gulf to Galveston, Texas. And from Churchill to Chicago on the Hudson Bay
Railway, it's not much further than from Texas to the Windy City. Tankers from Venezuela to Japan can even
save some 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles) by traveling over the pole. Of course, with rising ocean
temperatures comes an increased danger of icebergs, but at least the Arctic oil fields aren't in a region plagued
by political instability. No suicide bombers, no kidnappings, no explosions. What risk there is up north, is
nothing big oil companies aren't happy to take on. The first cargo likely to be transported via the
Northwest Passage is Russian oil from Siberia destined for North America. The melting ice will
also make it easier to get to oil and natural gas fields that are still blocked by pack ice. The
Arctic is a giant treasure trove for energy multinationals. A quarter of the world's oil and gas
reserves are estimated to be hidden underneath its rapidly shrinking ice. At current market
values they would be worth $1.5 to $2 trillion. There are even proven oil deposits at the North
Pole itself.

Warming Core
219
2NC Russia Relation

Arctic melting key to US-Russian relations
Abelsky, written about Russian politics, art and architecture for The Baltimore Sun, Chicago
Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Toronto Star, 2007 (Paul, writer, Russia Profile, June,
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=resources-arctic)
In particular, within our lifetimes and possibly in less than a single generation, we may
witness the opening up of Arctic sea lanes that are fully navigable year round, he added. The
economic and military impact will be enormous, and the social impacts could also be both
powerful and positive. I imagine a world where international shipping can take the direct
northern route linking Asian markets to Europe, cutting consumption of fuel and reducing
carbon emissions from the shorter shipping routes; the potential for maritime commerce to
stimulate the economic development of Arctic ports, from James Bay to the High Arctic; secure sea
lanes for the shipping of strategic commodities, enabling northern oil producers to deliver product to market
without having to navigate through chokepoints vulnerable to terrorism. Among other likely benefits, Zellen
mentions an emergence of a more efficient military supply distribution network, enabling NATO,
the United States and allied Asian nations to operate securely across the top of the world to
bolster military bases and troops deployed in distant military theaters. Ultimately, he says, the
most positive outcome of the thawing ocean could be a true reconciliation between Russia, the
United States and the West, and the full integration of Russia into a Western security alliance.
Even with the increasing security and economic strains, Russia prioritized the social aspect of development in
the Arctic during its chairmanship of the Arctic Council from 2004 to 2006. Alexander Ignatiev, an official at
Russias Foreign Ministry who served as head of Senior Arctic Officials at the Arctic Council, says the socioeconomic plight in the countrys northern regions prompted Russia to put emphasis on this dimension of the
institutions agenda.
Relations solve extinction
Allison, Director Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards Kennedy
School, 2011 (10-31 -- Graham, Director Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards
Kennedy School, and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Robert D. Blackwill, Senior Fellow Council
on Foreign Relations, 10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters, Politico, 2011,
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9C-C5B3396CA0E6)
That central point is that Russia
matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests. Prime
Minister Vladimir Putins decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to
manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing
state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose
choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to advance our nations interests by engaging and working with
Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every
president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russias
cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war. Second,

Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism. Through a combination of more than
$11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism, two decades
after the collapse of the evil empire, not one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third, Russia plays an essential role in
preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems . As Washington seeks to
stop Irans drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between
failure and the possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and
cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational
terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As
U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries.
Sixth, Russia is the worlds largest oil producer and second largest gas produce r. Over the past decade,
Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in
Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily,
Americans feel Russias impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in todays international

220
Warming Core
system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the G8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of
power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the
largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory
provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S.
economy. Ninth, Russias brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places
first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International
Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei
Brin. Tenth, Russias potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate. Consider what a Russian
president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do from stopping the supply flow to
Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N.
Security Council resolutions.

Warming Core
221
2NC Econ Impact

Warming causes arctic melting- this is key to the global economy
Mayer, a veteran of the banking industry, specifically in the area of corporate lending, 2007
[Daily
Reckoning Australia, October 10th, Northwest Passage Reopens Shipping Routes With Global Economic Impact, Mayer is a veteran of the banking
industry, specifically in the area of corporate lending. A financial writer since 1998, Mr. Mayer's essays have appeared in a wide variety of publications,
from the Mises.org Daily Article series to here in The Daily Reckoning. He is the editor of Mayer's Special Situations and Capital and Crisis - formerly the
Fleet Street Letter, http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/northwest-passage/2007/10/10/]
It started with a Russian expedition planting the Russian flag in a polar seabed. Though largely symbolic, it touched off a scramble among a handful of
nations, all trying to lay claim to the Arctic. Among these claimants: the U.S., Canada, Russia and Denmark. Why the sudden interest in the Arctic?
There are two big reasons. First, thanks to global warming, deposits of natural resources once layered over
in impenetrable ice are now easier to get at. Second, thanks to melting ice, some previously
icebound shipping lanes like the Northwest Passage are opening up . The available resources are still a long way
from being developed. The climate is incredibly harsh, and easier-to-get-at resources still exist on the fringes of the Arctic. As an oil and gas story, this
one has a long fuse. The Arctic thaws more immediate and bigger impact will be as a shipping lane. Since Aug. 21, the Northwest Passage
has been open to navigation and free of ice for the first time. Analysts confirm that the
passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in
1972, reports the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. The fabled passage through the Arctic Ocean connects the Pacific and Atlantic oceans along
the northern coast of North America. To pass through here from China on your way to Europe is about 5,000 miles shorter than going through the
Panama or Suez canals. As the Financial Times observes, A ship traveling at 21 knots between Rotterdam and Yokohama takes 29 days if it goes via the
Cape of Good Hope, 22 days via the Suez Canal and just 15 days if it goes across the Arctic Ocean. An oil tanker could make the trip
from the Russian port city of Murmansk to the east coast of Canada in a week by crossing the Arctic Ocean. That is about half the time it
takes to get an oil tanker from Abu Dhabi to Galveston, Texas. In the early 1900s, it took the famed Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and his team
nearly two years to pick their way through the ice and narrow waterways. Now the Northwest Passage could revolutionize shipping . More than
90% of all goods in the world, measured by tonnage, make their way by se a. And as Ive noted in the past, the
rapid surge in trade with China and India is putting a lot of strain on ports around the world. In recent years, the volume of container shipments has
grown 5-7% annually - basically, doubling every 10-15 years. The ships carrying those containers are getting bigger, and the old canals cant hold these
new seafaring beasts of burden as they once did. The Suez Canal can still handle the largest current container ships, but not the next generation. The
Panama Canal is even smaller. Its too small for ships that are now common on longer shipping routes. Panama plans to deepen its channels and make
them wider. But even so, the new Panama Canal wont be able to service the next generation of ships. So it looks like the world will have a new navigable
ocean with the Northwest Passage. The effects on trade could be immense. Much shorter shipping distances
and quicker shipping times will lower the cost of doing business. It could lead to big increases
in trade and, certainly, a major shift in sea lanes. A freer-flowing Arctic Ocean would also bring fish
stocks north - with fishing fleets not far behind. It could mean a new boom in fishing for salmon, cod, herring and smelt.
It could also mean that sleepy old ports could become important new hubs in international
trade. As the Financial Times recently wrote, Leading world powers have an unprecedented chance to win navigation rights and ownership of
resources in the Arctic seabed untouched since its emergence during the twilight of the dinosaurs. The U.S. alone could lay claim to
more than 200,000 square miles of additional undersea territory . The specific investment implications of this
are still too early to say. But the cracking open of new trade routes or reopening of old ones - and their
impact on global trade - always has ripple effects across financial markets. As for the Arctic, the
Northwest Passage has got to be one of the most important new developments on that front in a
long time.
Economic growth is key to prevent major wars
Royal , Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,

2010 (Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010,
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and
Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on
the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the
global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition
from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution
of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the
risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment
for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles

Warming Core
222
combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes
and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000 )
theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable
in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states . He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations , However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult
to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access
to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because
it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline
and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify
the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with
an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when
facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect . Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency
towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states , due to the fact
that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided
evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of
economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied
connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Warming Core
223
2NC Trade Impact

Arctic melting key to free trade
Borgerson, International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former
Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, 2008 (Scott G, March/April 2008,Arctic Meltdown:
The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63222/scott-g-borgerson/arctic-meltdown#)
Arctic shipping could also dramatically affect global trade patterns. In 1969, oil companies sent
the S.S. Manhattan through the Northwest Passage to test whether it was a viable route for
moving Arctic oil to the Eastern Seaboard. The Manhattan completed the voyage with the help of
accompanying icebreakers, but oil companies soon deemed the route impractical and prohibitively
expensive and opted instead for an Alaskan pipeline. But today such voyages are fast becoming
economically feasible. As soon as marine insurers recalculate the risks involved in these
voyages, trans-Arctic shipping will become commercially viable and begin on a large scale. In
an age of just-in-time delivery, and with increasing fuel costs eating into the profits of shipping
companies, reducing long-haul sailing distances by as much as 40 percent could usher in a new
phase of globalization. Arctic routes would force further competition between the Panama and Suez Canals,
thereby reducing current canal tolls; shipping chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca would no longer
dictate global shipping patterns; and Arctic seaways would allow for greater international economic
integration. When the ice recedes enough, likely within this decade, a marine highway directly
over the North Pole will materialize. Such a route, which would most likely run between
Iceland and Alaska's Dutch Harbor, would connect shipping megaports in the North Atlantic
with those in the North Pacific and radiate outward to other ports in a hub-and-spoke system. A
fast lane is now under development between the Arctic port of Murmansk, in Russia, and the Hudson Bay port
of Churchill, in Canada, which is connected to the North American rail network.
Trade solves Nuclear War
Copley News Service, privately held newspaper business, founded in Illinois, but later based in La
Jolla, California.Its flagship paper was The San Diego Union-Tribune ,99 (December 1)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by
nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists
protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth
is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but
also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a
worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters
clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades
past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia
about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace
activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament
movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other.
These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss
economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are
trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a
major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the
WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese
prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of
hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations
benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of
all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And
those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs

224
Warming Core
at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many
of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade
today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday
workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of
the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once
imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should
be celebrating it.

Warming Core
225
AFF 2AC At Russia Warming turn

Arctic melting is natural we dont stop it.
Sydney Morning Herald, Natural causes behind Arctic warming, 1/6/2008,
http://news.smh.com.au/world/natural-causes-behind-arctic-warming-20080106-1kdm.html
A natural cause may account for much of the recent dramatic thawing of the Arctic region, in
addition to man-made global warming, a new study finds . New research indicates a natural and cyclical increase in
the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic
Circle, according to the study published in the journal Nature
Too late
Connor, degree in zoology from the University of Oxford,2008( Steve, 12/16/2008,The
Independent, Has the Arctic melt passed the point of no return?,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-melt-passes-the-point-of--no-return1128197.html
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a
faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen. Climatechange researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected
during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the
ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least
another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already
passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to
another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more
indirect effects around the world. Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during
the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal
that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions. However, in a study to be presented later today to
the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show
that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to
intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future. Computer models of the global climate have for
years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but
many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades. However, a study by
scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is
already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the
autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period. Julienne Stroeve, of the
NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in
recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the
sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a
frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was
lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today. "The observed autumn warming that
we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic
amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The
warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through
spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming. "In autumn, as the sun
sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the
atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic
amplification." Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire
Arctic region between 3C and 5C above average but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort
Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this
time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the
ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the

226
Warming Core
atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform. "One of the reasons we focus on Arctic
amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were
telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said.
"This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to
say we told you so, but we did," she added. Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free
summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer
could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
Climate change internally link turns the DA
C2ES, worlds top environmental think tank, 2011 (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions - successor
to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and recently named the worlds top environmental think tank,
"Science FAQs," http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm)
Some people argue that cold countries are likely to be climate change winners. For example,
warmer temperatures in Russia could reduce heating fuel consumption, lengthen the
agricultural growing season, and open up transportation routes and access to mineral and
energy deposits in the Arctic. But these types of analyses inevitably focus on a few simplistic
variables, while neglecting a plethora of more complex and likely negative impacts. Consider
the many negative effects of the extreme heat wave Russia experienced in summer 2010. That
single event destroyed a third of Russias wheat crop, prompting Russia to suspend grain
exports, which caused food prices to rise globally. The heat wave killed 15,000 people and shaved
$123 billion off Russias GDP. Results of a recent peer-reviewed scientific study suggest that we
may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly, due
primarily to the influence of projected increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If these
events do become common in future decades, it is hard to see Russia being a climate-change winner.

Warming Core
227
***SO2 Screw***

Warming Core
228
1NC SO2 Screw

CUTTING EMISSIONS WASHES SULFATE AEROSOLS OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE CAUSES
RAPID WARMING
Connor, Science Editor of the Independent London, 1990
[Steve, Science Editor of The Independent (London), Carbon dioxide cuts 'may heat up earth', The
Independent (London), August 19, 1990, pg. 7]
MAN'S attempts to halt the greenhouse effect by cutting carbon dioxide emissions could make
the world even hotter, scientists have warned. The latest research challenges the conventional wisdom
about the best way to stop global warming: to burn less coal and oil and thus release smaller amounts of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. Scientists say that, if fewer fossil fuels were burnt, there would be a
reduction in the release of sulphur dioxide as well as of carbon dioxide - and their research suggests
that sulphur dioxide has been keeping the world cooler than it would otherwise have become as
a result of the Industrial Revolution. Professor Tom Wigley, of the Climatic Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia, says in the current issue of Physics World that sulphur dioxide stays in
the atmosphere for a much shorter time than carbon dioxide. Cutting both gases would thus
remove sulphur dioxide more quickly. ''The first response of the climate system to a fossil-fuel
cutback might therefore be a warming rather than a cooling,'' he says. Professor Wigley, one of
the world's leading experts on climate, reached this conclusion after a new study of the role of sulphur
emissions by a team of researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Factories and
power stations release thousands of tons of sulphur dioxide over land in the northern hemisphere by burning
fossil fuels. Some of this falls back to Earth in the form of acid rain, and some wafts out to sea where it is
converted into sulphates. Once over the sea, sulphates act as tiny particles for water vapour to
condense, and so are important in the formation of clouds which block sunlight and keep the
oceans cool. Without sulphates, fewer clouds would form and sea temperatures would rise. The
suggestion was first made nearly 20 years ago, but with little evidence to support it. It was revived more
recently, but researchers thought that sulphates could result from marine algae rather than industrial sources.
So important is sulphur dioxide in the formation of clouds that the Lawrence Livermore researchers believe
man-made emissions of sulphur dioxide could account for the fact that global warming since the Industrial
Revolution has been less than predicted from known increases in carbon dioxide emissions over the past 100
years.''A 1C rise is indicated but we've only seen about 0.5C,'' said Dr Joyce Penner of the Lawrence Livermore
laboratory. ''Man- made emissions of sulphur dioxide may explain why we haven't seen the
magnitude of warming we expected.''
The loss of sulfate aerosols will have a rapid impact on climate change
Henson 98, Director at University Coperation for Atmospheric Research, 1998
[Bob, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Particles of Doubt, April 10,
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/highlights/1998/particles.html]
Sulfates are sprinters in the climate race: they stay in the atmosphere only a few days to weeks before
falling or raining out. In contrast, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are marathon runners,
remaining airborne for years, even centuries. Because they have so little time to roam, sulfates tend
to affect the climate mainly over regions where they're emitted. Their short lifespan also means
that any big change in sulfur emissions might have a relatively prompt impact on local climate
(although weather patterns would likely create too much "noise" for scientists to directly detect such a link). In
the United States, where concern over acid rain led to stringent regulation in the 1970s and 1980s, sulfur
emissions have gradually stabilized. However, they are rising quickly in regions like China, India, and
Southeast Asia.
Aerosols guarantee slow warming, but rapid warming will CAUSE EXTINCTION
Freedman, senior science writer for Climate Central, 2005

229
Warming Core
[Andrew, Keep warming below threshold to avert 'runaway climate change,' report says, Greenwire, January
25, 2005]
Industrialized nations must join developing countries to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius -- or 3.6
degrees Farenheit -- above pre-industrial levels, according to a report released yesterday by the International
Climate Change Task Force. Temperature increases beyond that level would increase the risk for
disruption of human societies and natural systems, and potentially bring about abrupt or "runaway
climate change," the report says. The task force, led by former British cabinet Secretary Stephen Byers and
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), was established under the auspices of the Institute for Public Policy Research
in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States, and the Australia Institute. Calling itself a
"unique international cross-party, cross-sector collaboration," the task force says its goal is to propose ways to
bring the United States and Australia, which both rejected the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas
emissions, back into multilateral negotiations on climate change. It is also meant to inform the next meeting of
the group of eight nations, which will be led by Blair and feature climate change as a key topic. The report
"provides ambitious but achievable policy solutions that reach across partisan lines and national boundaries to
build momentum for a new global energy agenda that can make important progress on this critical problem,"
said Center for American Progress President and Chief Executive Officer John Podesta in a statement. The
1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto agreement, committed
signatories to averting "dangerous" human interference with the climate system but left open the question of
what would constitute such interference. "Scientific evidence suggests that there is a threshold of
temperature increase above which the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change
increase sharply," the report states. The 2 degrees Celsius threshold has been increasingly discussed in
scientific and policy circles during the past few years and has been adopted as official policy by the European
Union, which represents the largest bloc of countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing
greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the United States has steered clear of any such predictions of a threshold level
that would constitute dangerous human interference under the UNFCCC. "No one can say with certainty what
that threshold is, but it is important that we make an educated judgment at this time based on the best
available science," the task force report states. It found that a net warming of about 2 degrees Celsius likely
would be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations above 400 parts per million, a level that is likely to be
surpassed on a business as usual emissions scenario as early as the next few decades. The emissions picture
is a complicated one, in part because some of the warming effects of the CO2 are blunted by
atmospheric particles such as sulfate aerosols, which exert a cooling influence on the climate.
Decreases in sulfur emissions will cause warming due to an increase in methane emissions
from wetlands and a decrease in radiative forcing
Gauci, Professor of Earth Sciences, Open University, 2004 [Vincent Gauci, Department of Earth
Sciences, Open University, Sulfur pollution suppression of the wetland methane source in the 20th and 21st
centuries, Environmental Sciences, http://cepsar.open.ac.uk/pers/v.gauci/pics/d39285.pdf]
Our estimates of the combined effects of climate change, sulfate aerosol radiative effects, and SDEP
(GHGAEROSDEP) on CH4 emissions show that anthropogenic SDEP may have been sufficient to have
decreased the global wetland CH4 source to a level below preindustrial estimates by 1015 Tg during the
second half of the 20th century (Fig. 3). The combined effect of SO4 2 aerosols (cooling) and SO4 2deposition (limiting methane production at the source by microbial competition) are predicted
to offset the effect of GHG warming on CH4 emissions by 26 Tg in 2030 and by 15 Tg in 2080. In this
scenario, CH4 emissions will exceed preindustrial emissions by 14 Tg by 2080. The influence of
production and deposition of oxidized sulfur compounds through economic growth in North America and
Europe between 1960 and 1980, followed by increases in the economic growth in South America, Africa, and

230
Warming Core
(primarily) Asia, are responsible for this pattern. Beyond 2030, however, a decline is predicted in sulfur
pollution because of anticipated cleaner technologies. Together with the additional effect of
enhanced greenhouse warming, we predict this reduction in sulfur pollution will result in a
rapid increase in CH4 emission (15% enhancement between 2030 and 2080) that may exacerbate
climate warming during that time.
This evidence is particularly devastating for them, not only is it a link to both of our climate
turns, but it proves that the turns function simultaneously and are consistent. If they appear in
the literature and the studies together, there is no inconsistency between them. Also, we only
need to win one of these scenarios to access our rapid warming impacts.

Warming Core
231
2NC Overview
DECREASING EMISSIONS AS A WHOLE CAUSES Loss of sulfate they wash out of the
environment within days and cause massive warming. Happens literally centuries before your
warming impact THATS HENSON
Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols cool the earth and cancel out global warming, but they are
extremely short-lived
NASA Atmospheric Sciences Division, 1996 [Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They
So Important?, NASA.gov, August 1996, http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html]
The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in
the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols
created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the
atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current
production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally
produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where
industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby
reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to
survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days.
The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the
droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the
presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying
clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been
seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the
clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to
last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.
Climatic Effects of Aerosols
The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the
climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases.
The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric
trace gases - cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.
NEW LINK Decreases in sulfur emissions will cause warming due to an increase in methane
emissions from wetlands and a decrease in radiative forcing
Our estimates of the combined effects of climate change, sulfate aerosol radiative effects, and SDEP
(GHGAEROSDEP) on CH4 emissions show that anthropogenic SDEP may have been sufficient to
have decreased the global wetland CH4 source to a level below preindustrial estimates by 1015
Tg during the second half of the 20th century (Fig. 3). The combined effect of SO4 2- aerosols (cooling)
and SO4 2-deposition (limiting methane production at the source by microbial competition) are predicted
to offset the effect of GHG warming on CH4 emissions by 26 Tg in 2030 and by 15 Tg in 2080. In this
scenario, CH4 emissions will exceed preindustrial emissions by 14 Tg by 2080. The influence of production and
deposition of oxidized sulfur compounds through economic growth in North America and Europe between
1960 and 1980, followed by increases in the economic growth in South America, Africa, and (primarily) Asia,
are responsible for this pattern. Beyond 2030, however, a decline is predicted in sulfur pollution
because of anticipated cleaner technologies. Together with the additional effect of enhanced
greenhouse warming, we predict this reduction in sulfur pollution will result in a rapid
increase in CH4 emission (15% enhancement between 2030 and 2080) that may exacerbate climate
warming during that time.

232
Warming Core
Natural wetlands and rice paddies are a potentially huge source of methane, a potent
greenhouse gas. Sulfate aerosols prevent methane production by keeping the wetlands cool
and encouraging sulfur-reducing bacteria, preventing a massive spike in global warming
Natural wetlands form the largest source of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Emission of this
powerful greenhouse gas from wetlands is known to depend on climate, with increasing
temperature and rainfall both expected to increase methane emissions. This study, combining our
eld and controlled environment manipulation studies in Europe and North America, reveals an additional
control: an emergent pattern of increasing suppression of methane (CH4) emission from peatlands with
increasing sulfate (SO4 2 -S) deposition, within the range of global acid deposition. We apply a model of this
relationship to demonstrate the potential effect of changes in global sulfate deposition from 1960 to 2080 on
both northern peatland and global wetland CH4 emissions. We estimate that sulfur pollution may currently
counteract climate-induced growth in the wetland source, reducing CH4 emissions by 15 Tg or 8% smaller than
it would be in the absence of global acid deposition. Our ndings suggest that by 2030 sulfur pollution may be
sufcient to reduce CH4 emissions by 26 Tg or 15% of the total wetland source, a proportion as large as other
components of the CH4 budget that have until now received far greater attention. We conclude that
documented increases in atmospheric CH4 concentration since the late 19th century are likely due to factors
other than the global warming of wetlands.
Atmospheric methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) that is responsible for an
estimated 22% of the present anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect (1). Natural
(nonrice agriculture) wetlands are the worlds largest single CH4 source and are estimated to
currently contribute between 110 and 260 Tg (Tg 1012 g) to the global methane budget (2), of which one-third is
derived from temperate and boreal northern wetlands (3). CH4 emissions from wetlands are
climatesensitive, responding positively to increases in temperature and rainfall as microbial
activity and anaerobic conditions increase and negatively to cool temperatures and drought (4,
5). Like many other ecosystems, wetlands are also subject to the effects of aerial pollution and
increasing CO2 levels. The stimulatory effects of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations on
CH4 emission (by enhancement of net primary productivity) is well reported (68), although a similar
stimulatory effect of nitrogen pollution on wetland CH4 emission has not always been identified (810)
because of differing effects nitrogen has on the ecosystem, e.g., plant species composition is an important factor
in determining the effect of experimental N additions on CH4 fluxes (10).
CH4 is produced by two different groups of methanogenic archaea (MA); one group obtains energy by the
fermentation of simple organic compounds, such as acetate to CO2 and CH4, and the other obtains energy by
oxidizing molecular hydrogen to H2 O by using CO2, which is reduced to CH4. Acetate-fermenting MA tend to
dominate in more nutrient-rich peatlands and in summer, when the supply of labile organic carbon is relatively
high. However, it has been recently demonstrated that climate, depth of the acrotelm, and acetate
concentrations add a fair degree of plasticity over controls on acetate-fermenting MAyyyyyy (11). Both
groups of microorganisms are strictly anaerobic, and both are suppressed by another group of anaerobic
microorganisms, sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) (12).
SRB have a higher affinity for both hydrogen and acetate than MA, which, under ideal conditions, enables them
to maintain the pool of these substrates at concentrations too low for MA to use (13, 14). In wetlands, however,
the balance between sulfate reduction and methanogenesis is affected by factors such as the temperature
[warmer temperatures favor methanogenesis (15)], the rate of SO4 2 and acetate supply [lower concentrations
of sulfate or higher concentrations of acetate reduce the intensity of competition (13)], and the availability of
noncompetitive substrates [some low molecular weight hydrocarbons may be preferentially used over acetate
by SRB (16, 17) and some substrates such as methanol, methanethiol, and dimethyl sulfide may be used by MA
but are poorly used by SRB (18, 19)]. As a consequence, sulfate reduction in wetlands partially,
rather than completely, inhibits methane production (19). Stimulation of sulfate reduction has been
exploited as a mechanism to reduce GHG emissions from rice paddies; in field trials, CH4 emissions have been
reduced by as much as 72% with doses of gypsum (CaSO4) ranging from several hundred to thousands of
kilograms of SO4 2 per hectare (ha) (20, 21).y

Warming Core
233
2NC Aerosols Solve Warming

Aerosol cooling is valid science, Nobel laureates in atmospheric physics agree
Connor, Science Editor of The Independent (London), 2006 [Steve, Science Editor of The Independent
(London), Scientist publishes escape route from global warming, Belfast Telegraph, July 31, 2006]
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has drawn up an emergency plan to save the world from global warming, by
altering the chemical makeup of Earth's upper atmosphere. Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel
Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, believes that political attempts to limit manmade greenhouse gases are so pitiful that a radical contingency plan is needed. In a polemical
scientific essay to be published in the August issue of the journal Climate Change, he says that an "escape
route" is needed if global warming begins to run out of control. Professor Crutzen has proposed a method of
artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would
reflect sunlight and heat back into space. The controversial proposal is being taken seriously by scientists
because Professor Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research. A fleet of high-altitude balloons
could be used to scatter the sulphur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy
artillery shells, said Professor Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany. The
effect of scattering sulphate particles in the atmosphere would be to increase the reflectance, or
"albedo", of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect.
Aerosols counter global warming, the claims that it is only regional or insufficient to counter
warming are based on old and discarded data
Berreby 93 (David, Staff Writer, The parasol effect - sulfate aerosols block sun's rays and may cause cooling,
Science, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n7_v14/ai_13923194/print)
Indeed, Charlson himself, with his longtime collaborator Bert Bolin of Stockholm University,
wrote a paper in the mid-1970s that said aerosols could not have much impact on global
climate. We had made a mistake, Charlson says now. We didnt have the global chemical model. We were
guessing as to numbers. We didnt get the geographical extent of sulfates right. Then, in the 1980s, sulfate haze
began to register as more than a technical problem for tourists and bomber pilots. Sulfate aerosols were
recognized as the key culprit in the acid rain that is killing lake fish, stunting forests, and
corroding buildings and equipment in Europe and North America. The acid rain problem led to
more support for research into sulfates. Out of this focus on the problem came better
techniques for measuring emissions, as well as new and more accurate computer models of
wind patterns and chemical mixing in the lower atmosphere and of the dispersal of particles on
those winds. In early 1990 this led to a big break. Charlson was attending a meeting on sulfates in a
huge nineteenth- century faux-medieval castle in Bavaria. Many other climate experts were there also, of
course, including two other collaborators and old friends of Charlsons from Stockholm University, Henning
Rodhe and Joakim Langner, who were showing off one of these improved computer models. The new Swedish
model was the first devised to process data about industrial activity and weather, and it yielded a crucial
variable in acid rain--the distribution of sulfur in the air after it leaves the pollution centers that create it.
Fortunately, Charlson recalls, one of the talks after theirs was very boring. His mind wandered back to the
Swedes model, which--not surprisingly--predicted strikingly high concentrations of sulfates throughout the
heavily industrialized Northern Hemisphere and related that finding to acid rain. But they hadnt related such
levels of sulfates to one of Charlsons areas of expertise--optical scattering. Charlson won his first patent for
measuring such scattering nearly 30 years ago, with an invention dubbed the nephelometer (nephelos is the
Greek word for cloud). The prototype still sits on a bookshelf in his office. Its gunmetal gray, roughly the size
and shape of a bazooka. Through an inlet on the bottom, a tiny pump sucks aerosol-laden air into a chamber.
On one side of the cylindrical chamber, about halfway down its length, is a halogen movie-projector lamp. At
one end of the chamber is an electric light detector--the technologically more sophisticated great- grandson,
Charlson says, of those electric eyes that open doors and set off alarms. By determining how much light
makes it through an air sample to the light detector, Charlson can accurately measure how
much light is being deflected by aerosols in the sample. It gives you the scattering efficiency,

234
Warming Core
Charlson says. You might think of it as the amount of a light beam that a particle blocks out per
gram of material. To get a complete measure of optical scattering, Charlson explains, you make a
measurement with a nephelometer; simultaneously you filter the air, get the particles out of it, and do a
chemical analysis of the material. That gives you an amount of sulfate per cubic meter of air. Then
you take the ratio of the scattering to the concentration of material. Thats what allows you to
say that given X amount of sulfate in the air, there will be Y amount of scattering. As he sat in the
Bavarian castle, listening to the high figures for sulfates that the Swedish model yielded, Charlson realized that
he knew how to make the optical calculations, to get the amount of scattering in meters squared per gram of
material in the air. He took out a pencil and did some rough math on a scrap of paper. It was much bigger
than I thought, he recalls. So after the boring talk was over, at the coffee break, I grabbed Langner and
Rodhe and said, Look at this! That was the light bulb, right there. That was a Thursday. I was due to see them
in Stockholm the next week. When I got there on Monday, a new model, with my light-scattering calculations
incorporated, was sitting on a desk waiting for me. The computer model confirmed his rough calculation. The
aerosol umbrellas over the Northern Hemisphere, he saw, are keeping, on average, about a watt of solar energy
per square meter from reaching Earths surface. That may not sound like much--very roughly, Charlson says,
its perhaps a fifth of the amount of heat put out by a Christmas-tree light bulb, spread out over an average
desktop. But thats enough to cool Earth substantially. Its also, on average, equal to the amount
of heat added to the planet by man-made greenhouse gases, according to some estimates.
The cooling effect of aerosols is balancing 90% of the warming expected from greenhouse gas
emissions, the best data and studies support our aerosols argument
World Climate Report 1 (Smoking Out UN-Science, World Climate Report, Feb 19, 2001,
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol6/v6n11/feature1.htm)
The upshot of the addition of Jacobson's findings is that the amount of warming we should currently be
observing increases. Using the estimates of NASA climatologist James Hansen, if there were no
indirect sulfate cooling, and if the oceans weren't holding back warming, the total rise in
temperature of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) should be around 2.3 to 3.3C by now, with
the majority in recent decades. Yet according to surface, satellite and weather balloon records, the
observed warming averaged over the troposphere since the three histories became concurrently available
(since January 1979), is only around 0.07C or about one-tenth of what should have happened.
Something has got to give here. The ocean isn't holding back that much Hansen says he believes about 60
percent of the ultimate warming for today's atmospheric changes should already have been
realized. The only way a person can explain the profound difference between observations and
projections is to assume that the sulfate cooling effect is massive.

Warming Core
235
2NC Our Method Good

The latest climate models and large scientific studies conclude that aerosols from fossil fuel
consumption are balancing the warming effects of greenhouse gases
Dyba, Geosciences, Environmental Research & Education at the NSF, 1995
[Cheryl, Geosciences, Environmental Research & Education at the NSF,National Science Foundation, NSF
Scientists to Study Airborne Particles that May Be Cooling Earth, October 1995,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pfsf/is_199510/ai_1404523332/print]
Scientists now suspect that increasing numbers of small particles of sulfur compounds and other pollutants
floating in the atmosphere may affect so-called greenhouse warming in heavily industrialized regions. By
reflecting sunlight back to space, these tiny airborne particles, called aerosols, can cool the earth
beneath. To learn more about "background" aerosols -- the naturally occurring counterparts to these
pollutants - researchers from eight universities and the National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado are flying to the remote skies of Tasmania, with
stops in Alaska, Hawaii, and other sites along the way. Flight operations for detailed studies of "clean" ocean air
in the Southern Hemisphere will be based at Hobart, Tasmania, and take place from November 15 to December
14, 1995. More than 100 scientists from 57 institutions representing Australia, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United
States are participating in this major study of airborne particles. "Existing theories suggest that it
should be very hard to create new particles in the lower atmosphere, yet they keep showing up," says researcher
Barry Huebert of the University of Hawaii at Honolulu. "We're deploying state of- the-art instruments to the
remote marine atmosphere for the first time to seek the source of these new particles. This is the largest and
most comprehensive experiment on natural background aerosols that we have ever done."
Among the high- tech instrumentation will be NCAR's dual wavelength airborne lidar, which will map the
vertical extent of aerosol layers in the atmosphere. Experiments will be conducted from a fully equipped C-130
research airplane owned by NSF and operated by NCAR. Researchers aboard the C-130 will spend as many
flight hours taking measurements during the two-week trip from the north Alaska coast to south of New
Zealand as they will during the operations in Tasmania. In Alaska, they will begin their research measurements
with a flight toward the North Pole and back. While in Hawaii November 5 and 6, the C-130 will fly through the
Kilauea volcano plume to study how its particles form and how much sunlight they reflect. After arrival at
Hobart, a flight toward the South Pole will complete the study's nearly pole-to-pole measurements. Called
ACE-1, the study is the first of the Aerosol Characterization Experiments, a series of international field
programs to help scientists understand the chemical, physical, and optical properties of aerosols; how they
form and grow; and their effect on radiation and climate. Like carbon dioxide, sulfate aerosols are
produced by human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. They also exist naturally as
sulfur emissions from living organisms and volcanoes. By scattering incoming solar energy
back to space, both the natural and pollutant aerosols directly affect the amount of radiation
entering the earth's atmosphere. They also serve as tiny sites on which water vapor can
condense, allowing more small droplets to form within a cloud. This change in the droplets' size
distribution makes the cloud more reflective, bouncing more solar radiation back to space and
cooling the earth below. In ACE-1, scientists will study the natural marine system -distant from Northern
Hemisphere sulfate aerosols produced by human activity. ACE-2, scheduled for 1997, will focus on the marine
atmosphere near European industrialized areas. As scientists learn more about aerosols naturally occurring in
the undisturbed atmosphere, they can better assess the growing influence of human produced sulfate aerosols
on climate. "Until recently all climate models have supposed that the only human activity driving
climate change was the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," explains
scientist Tom Wigley of NCAR. "We now believe that other factors, particularly sulfate aerosols,
may be as important as greenhouse gases."

236
Warming Core
THE OBSERVED DATA ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT
AEROSOL COOLING IS TRUE
Hartmann and Mouginis, UW Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Hawaii Institute Director of Geophysics
and Planetology, 1996
[Dennis. L., P., UW Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Hawaii Institute Director of Geophysics and
Planetology, NASA Earth Observation Systems Group EOS Science Plan #339, Volcanoes and
Climate Effects of Aerosols, http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/science_plan/Ch8.pdf, 7/12/13, JZ]
Modeling of tropospheric aerosols present a greater challenge, because of the large number of
heterogeneously distributed aerosols and the evidence that aerosols can alter cloud properties.
The predominant anthropogenic aerosol is probably sulfate originating from the burning of
fossil fuels. The regional distribution of these aerosols can be estimated from aerosol formation models
(Langner and Rodhe 1991) and used to calculate an approximate anthropogenic sulfate climate forcing (Kiehl
and Briegleb 1993). There is a qualitative consistency among the regions of heavy aerosol amounts
(Eastern United States, Europe, and China), calculated aerosol coolings (Taylor and Penner 1994), and
the observed temperature change of the past century (Karl et al. 1995).

Warming Core
237
2NC Links Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuel consumption produces aerosols that counteract greenhouse gases, even the IPCC
concedes that aerosols provide cooling to counteract warming
Miller and Koch, scientists at NASA 6 (Ron Miller and Dorothy Koch, NASA GISS Atmospheric Study Group,
An Aerosol Tour de Forcing, February 8, 2006,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/)
Scientists have confidence in a result to the extent that it can be derived by different investigators. Their
confidence is increased if different techniques lead to the same conclusion. Concurrence provides evidence that
the conclusion does not depend upon assumptions that occasionally are insufficiently supported. In contrast,
two articles published last December on the same day arrive at very different and incompatible estimates of the
effect of human-made aerosols on the radiative budget of the planet (Bellouin et al., 2005; Chung et al., 2005).
They follow an earlier estimate published last year, (which included Dorothy as a co-author) that was in the
middle (Yu et al., 2005). Aerosols are important to climate partly because their concentration is
increased by the same industrial processes that increase the atmospheric concentration of
greenhouse gases; yet aerosols generally oppose greenhouse warming. Because aerosols cause respiratory
and other health problems and acid rain, they have been regulated more aggressively than greenhouse gases.
Concentrations of some aerosols have decreased over the United States and Europe in recent decades as a
result of environmental laws, although an increase has been observed in many thrid world regions, where
economic development is a priority. In the twenty-first century, aerosol levels are anticipated to drop
faster than greenhouse gases in response to future emission reductions, which will leave
greenhouse warming unopposed and unmoderated. Each published calculation of aerosol radiative
forcing was a tour de force for integrating a wide variety of measurements ranging from absorption of radiation
by individual particles to satellite estimates of aerosol amount. The disparate results emphasize the complexity
and difficulty of the calculation. But lets start at the beginning. Aerosols are solid particles or liquid droplets
that are temporarily suspended within the atmosphere. Naturally occurring examples are sea spray or sulfate
droplets, along with soil particles (dust) eroded by the wind. During the twentieth century, natural
sources of sulfate aerosols were overwhelmed by the contribution from pollution, in particular
from the burning of fossil fuels. The number of soot particles in the atmosphere was increased by industry
and the burning of forests to clear land for agriculture. Sulfate aerosols are reflective and act to cool the
planet. Soot particles are also reflective, but can absorb sunlight and cause warming. Soot
production is greater if combustion occurs at low temperatures, as with cooking fires or inefficient power
generation. Aerosols also scatter longwave radiation, although this is significant only for larger aerosols like
soil dust, and is neglected by all three of the studies discussed here. In addition to their ability to scatter
radiation and change the net energy gain at the top of the atmosphere (the direct effect), aerosols modify the
reflectance and lifetime of clouds (the indirect radiative effects). Aerosols act as nuclei for the condensation of
water vapor, resulting in the distribution of water over a larger number of cloud droplets compared to
condensation in clean air. This increases the clouds ability to reflect sunlight, while increasing the number of
droplet collisions required to form a raindrop large enough to fall out of the cloud, effectively increasing the
cloud lifetime. Observations and models provide a weaker constraint upon the size of the indirect effects, so the
studies discussed here confine themselves to calculating only the direct radiative effect of anthropogenic
aerosols. According to the latest (2001) IPCC report, direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols cools
the planet, but the forcing magnitude is highly uncertain, with a global, annual average between -0.35 and -1.35
W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The uncertainty of the total indirect effect is even larger. Aerosols
eventually fall out of the atmosphere or are washed out by rainfall. The smaller particles having
the largest radiative effect typically reside in the atmosphere for only a few days to a few weeks.
This time is too short for them to be mixed uniformly throughout the globe (unlike CO2), so there are large
regional variations in aerosol radiative forcing, with the largest effects predictably downwind of industrial
centers like the east coast of North America, Europe, and East Asia. Consequently, aerosol effects upon climate
are larger in particular regions, where they are key to understanding twentieth century climate change. Aerosol
concentrations have been measured downwind of sources over the past few decades, but the number of
observing sites is limited and the analysis is laborious. Since the late 1970s, satellite instruments have detected
aerosols routinely with nearly global coverage. However, only the combined effect of all aerosols upon radiation
impinging upon the satellite was originally measured. The original instruments couldnt distinguish between

238
Warming Core
dust and sulfate aerosols where both were present, over the Mediterranean or East Asia, for example. Recent
instruments, like the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) measure radiation at multiple
wavelengths. This allows particle size to be distinguished with greater confidence, which can be used with some
assumptions to infer the aerosol species. The new generation of satellite instruments is at the heart of recent
attempts to reduce the large uncertainty of direct radiative forcing by aerosols. Each of these studies provides
an estimate of the most likely value, along with a range of uncertainty. Bellouin et al. (2005) in Nature arrive at
TOA forcing of -0.8 0.1 W/m2. While near the center of the range published by the IPCC, this estimate is
noteworthy for its comparatively small uncertainty. Yet on the same day, Chung et al. (2005) published an
article in the JGR, estimating based upon similarly extensive calculations that the forcing by aerosols at TOA is
-0.35 0.25 W/m2. A few months earlier, Yu et al. (2005) had estimated a more conciliatory value of -0.5
0.33 W/m2. The wide range of estimates give some indication the difficulty of the problem. Forcing estimates
differ not only at TOA but also at the surface: Bellouin et al. predict that aerosols reduce the net radiation
incident upon the surface by 1.9 0.2 W/m2 compared to 3.4 0.1 W/m2 for Chung et al. (2005). That is,
Chung et al. estimate much greater atmospheric absorption. Because radiation into the surface is mainly
balanced by evaporation, except within extremely arid regions, the discrepancy has implications for the supply
of moisture to the atmosphere. Chung et al. estimate a much larger reduction in global rainfall by aerosols.
What are the sources of disagreement and uncertainty? Ideally, one would know the three-dimensional
distribution of each aerosol species and its evolution throughout the year. One would also be able to distinguish
natural and human fractions of each species. For sulfate aerosols, this means distinguishing droplets created by
industrial sources, compared to biogenic sources. In addition, the ability of each particle to scatter radiation
would be known as a function of its age and aggregation with other species (in the way that dust can be coated
with sulfates when passing over industrial areas, for example). Many of these processes are included in aerosol
models, but some of the key parameters are uncertain given limited observations. Bellouin et al. attempt an
empirical end-run around this uncertainty by dividing the planet into six regions where aerosol concentration
is high, and using a typical value of particle absorption based on surface measurements. The measured
absorption is a single value that reflects the combined effect of both anthropogenic and natural aerosols,
although the six representative sites were chosen where contribution by the former dominates. Regions with a
preponderance of sulfates, such as the eastern coast of North America and downwind, were assigned greater
reflectance and lesser absorption than particles over the Indian Ocean where dark soot particles are more
common. This is based upon contrasting surface measurements at Washington DC and the Maldive Islands in
the Indian Ocean. The total aerosol mass was inferred from MODIS estimates of the aerosol optical thickness
(AOT), which measures attenuation of a light beam passing through an aerosol layer. To estimate the
anthropogenic fraction of aerosols, Bellouin et al. made use of the fact that anthropogenic aerosols such as
sulfate and soot are generally smaller than natural aerosols such as soil dust and sea salt. MODIS provides not
only the total AOT but also the fractional contribution corresponding to smaller particles whose diameter is
less than one micron (a thousandth of a millimeter). Bellouin et al. attributed the total AOT to human influence
in regions where the fine fraction AOT exceeds 85% of the total. Conversely, regions where larger particles
make the predominant contribution to AOT were excluded from the anthropogenic total. While MODIS is able
to make this distinction between small and large particles over ocean, the distinction is more uncertain over
land, and here Bellouin et al. resorted to the anthropogenic fraction computed by five aerosol models, a
number chosen to reduce the uncertainty associated with any single model. Despite their different result
compared to Bellouin et al., the calculations by Chung et al. and Yu et al. are similar. Chung et al. assign the
total AOT using MODIS, and adjust this value using local measurements by the AERONET array of sun
photometers. (These instruments point toward the sun and record incident radiation at various wavelengths.)
The main difference is that Chung et al. compute the anthropogenic fraction over both land and ocean using a
single aerosol model, and they use this model along with AERONET measurements to specify the radiative
properties of the combined aerosol population within each column. Consequently, these properties vary within
each region as opposed to the regionally averaged values used by Bellouin et al. based upon a single putatively
representative site. Yu et al. use an even broader array of measurements and models. Why do similar methods
result in forcing estimates whose uncertainty ranges dont overlap? This is difficult to know, although here we
speculate upon the effect of some of the differing assumptions. Chung et al. specify greater particle absorption
compared to all but one of the six regional values used by Bellouin et al. Because the TOA forcing becomes less
negative as absorption increases, this accounts for some of the difference. Similarly, Chung et al.s replacement
of their model estimate of anthropogenic particle fraction over the ocean with the MODIS estimate (following
Bellouin et al.) narrows the difference. Treatment of aerosol forcing over cloudy regions also contributes to the

239
Warming Core
difference. Both studies estimate nearly identical forcing at the surface in the absence of clouds. While
aerosol absorption and reflection have opposing effects at TOA, they both reduce sunlight
beneath the aerosol layer, contributing to negative forcing at the surface. Thus, forcing at the
surface is less sensitive to the relative strength of absorption versus reflection. When cloudy
regions are included, Chung et al. calculate a much larger reduction of surface radiation than Bellouin et al.,
who assume that aerosol forcing in these regions is zero. At TOA, Chung et al. calculate positive aerosol forcing
within cloudy regions, accounting for some of the global disagreement with Bellouin et al. TOA forcing depends
strongly upon the relative position of the cloud and aerosol layer. An absorbing soot layer above a bright cloud
absorbs more radiation than if the layer were beneath the cloud. Unlike AOT, the vertical distribution of
aerosols is not measured routinely, and is comparatively uncertain. The disagreement among forcing estimates
raises the more general point of whether any study really captures the full range of uncertainty. The number of
calculations needed to sample the uncertainty can increase exponentially with the number of uncertain
parameters. While parametric uncertainty is straightforward to estimate, the dearth of observations makes it
difficult to estimate the effect of assuming a bulk absorption that represents an average aerosol rather than
computing absorption by each species separately. The latter is an example of a structural uncertainty that is
typically difficult to characterize. Given the difficulty of measuring the aerosol mass over the entire planet,
along with myriad aspects of the aerosol life cycle that are poorly measured and impossible to model precisely,
the most reliable estimate of forcing uncertainty may be derived by combining the central forcing estimate
from a number of studies, as opposed to taking the uncertainty range of any single study. Yu et al. seem to
acknowledge the large outstanding uncertainty by relegating their estimate of anthropogenic aerosol forcing to
a table, rather than highlighting it in the abstract or conclusions. Progress will come by more systematic
comparisons among studies to identify key uncertainties. The unambiguous distinction between individual
aerosol species within models will eventually become possible by direct observation as a result of more
discerning instruments. Nonetheless, models will remain valuable for their ability to distinguish natural and
anthropogenic sources of the same aerosol species. While Bellouin et al. assume that all soot particles over the
ocean are anthropogenic, naturally occurring forest fires contribute as well. As consensus emerges regarding
the global aerosol forcing, attention will turn to regional values that cause local changes to climate and heat
redistribution by the atmosphere. Because of the added complexity of cloud physics, the aerosol indirect effect
may be even more resistant to consensus. Aerosol forcing remains a crucial problem because its
offset of greenhouse warming is expected to decrease with time as governments address the
health problems associated with aerosols. Because of their comparatively short lifetimes, the
concentration of aerosols decreases much faster than that of CO2 given a reduction in fossil
fuel use. Regardless of the absolute amount of the forcing, future reductions in aerosol
emissions will be a positive forcing, amplifying the warming effects of increasing greenhouse
gases.

Warming Core
240
2NC Links Pollution

Reduction of air pollution will cause a rapid and catastrophic global warming
World Climate Report, scientific views on anthropogenic climate activities, 1 (World Climate Report
Smoking Out UN-Science, World Climate Report, Feb 19, 2001,
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol6/v6n11/feature1.htm)
World Climate Report was up in arms about the United Nations' preposterous pronouncement of a possible
11F warming this century, as predicted in a future projection they called a "storyline." In that particular
storyline, the cooling of sulfate aerosols, which some theorize has countered the warming we
should have been seeing, abruptly comes to an end as antipollution measures curtail their
emission. Their absence then rapidly jacks up the warming. It also supposes those particles were
cooling the earth twice as much as it has warmed in the last 100 years. Well, this is how that story ends. Nature
magazine just published a seemingly obscure article that has shot the U.N.'s storyline dead. For good measure,
it probably also kills any other big warming in this century that would be driven by increasing concentrations of
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. In the article, Stanford engineer Mark Jacobson asserts that common black
soot in the atmosphere the stuff that goes up the smokestack along with other products of combustion, such as
sulfate aerosols exerts a whopping warming effect. The net direct warming that soot produces is
greater than that from any other emission with the exception of carbon dioxide, Jacobson
writes. That warming is almost exactly equal to the putative cooling directly caused by sulfate aerosol. If true,
Jacobson's calculation has a number of neat effects. After all, sulfate aerosol and soot go hand in hand. Their
combination is colloquially known as "smoke." Particles of both are about the same size. So any attempt to
remove one (often done with electrostatic precipitators) will remove the other. If the size of the prevented
warming then equals the size of the prevented cooling, the result is no net change in temperature as sulfates
drop out. End of 11 story. You might ask how the U.N.'s original storyline garnered any credibility. After all,
the global effect of sulfate cooling has never been measured. For that matter, neither has the global effect of
soot aerosols. There's another sulfate cooling that is even more hypothetical, called the "indirect" effect. Here,
sulfates serve as tiny condensation points for water. As a result, the story goes, clouds have more fine droplets
and become whiter, reflecting away more solar radiation. Like the "direct" effect of sulfates, that capacity has
never been measured, either. But if clouds are enhanced by sulfate aerosol, it's also likely that they are
evaporated by the warming effect of black soot. Again, the result is a pushremove the sulfates and the
aerosols together, and the net climate effect is near zero. Again, end of 11 story. In all of the hype surrounding
the 11 storyline, reports failed to mention that the U.N. itself has very little confidence that the storyline, if it
actually occurred, would generated that much warming. At least that's what we take from Figure 1, reproduced
from the "Policymakers Summary" of the new report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). That was the document approved in Shanghai as the Clinton Administration clock ran down on Jan.
20. It represents the state of the science that underlies all the projections, including the 11 story. And it shows
how little confidence surrounds this hype. What Figure 1 shows is the relative warming and cooling the IPCC
hypothesizes for various human activities and emissions. At the insistence of some members, the uncertainty
range within each category was added. (The IPCC's current best estimate of the magnitude is shown by the
rectangular bars and the range of uncertainty is shown by the vertical lines.) Those members also directed the
IPCC to place the effects of the various emissions along a continuum of "scientific understanding." Note that
there is no bar for the "Aerosol Indirect Effect." That is the hypothesized cloud-brightening from sulfate
aerosols. The reason there is no bar? According to the IPCC, "A vertical line without a rectangular bar denotes a
forcing for which no best estimate can be given owing to large uncertainties." "Large" is an understatement
here. According to the IPCC, the indirect cooling effect ranges from zero to two Watts per square meter. That
translates roughly from zero to 1.5C for surface temperature. Superimposed upon this broad range of possible
effects is a "Level of Scientific Understanding" rated as "very low." We have modified the IPCC's original
illustration to include the new calculation for the direct effect of sootof the same magnitude, but opposite in
sign, to the direct cooling effect of sulfates. Parenthetically, it is worth noting that the IPCC even lists the
understanding of the direct sulfate effect as "low." The upshot of the addition of Jacobson's findings is that the
amount of warming we should currently be observing increases. Using the estimates of NASA climatologist
James Hansen, if there were no indirect sulfate cooling, and if the oceans weren't holding back warming, the
total rise in temperature of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) should be around 2.3 to 3.3C by now, with

241
Warming Core
the majority in recent decades. Yet according to surface, satellite and weather balloon records, the observed
warming averaged over the troposphere since the three histories became concurrently available (since January
1979), is only around 0.07Cor about one-tenth of what should have happened. Something has got to give
here. The ocean isn't holding back that muchHansen says he believes about 60 percent of the ultimate
warming for today's atmospheric changes should already have been realized. The only way a person can explain
the profound difference between observations and projections is to assume that the sulfate cooling effect is
massive. Rational folks would think that something so large as this putative cloud enhancement would be
pretty darned obvious by now. The fact that it is not most likely means it is not very big. Think about it: We
have had weather satellites circling the globe for decades. Under the hypothesis that sulfate cooling
balances greenhouse warming, the amount of sulfates has to have increased dramatically in
this period; otherwise there would be a profound and obvious acceleration in the rate of
warming. And despite a new Science paper that shows major increases in south Asian aerosol
emissionscorroborating the notion that sulfates are risingno one can find evidence for cloud brightening in
the satellite data! Summing up: Jacobson finds that soot causes more warming and cancels the cooling from
sulfates. Even after making liberal assumptions about oceanic thermal inertia, the planet should have warmed
tremendously, unless cooling from the sulfate-induced brightening of clouds is massive. And yet no one can
find those brightened clouds. That leaves one other excuse for the dearth of warming, and it is the one that
scares the pants off of just about every climate scientist who has banged the gong of disastrous global warming:
We may simply have overestimated the sensitivity of tropospheric temperature to changes in atmospheric
carbon dioxide. That's the bottom line. By process of elimination, we have smoked out the truth behind the
U.N.'s melodramatic "storyline" entertaining an 11F warming in this century.
Attempts to reduce air pollution will cause global warming by eliminating the cooling effects of
sulfate aerosols
Health and Energy 7 (Sulfur Dioxide cuts may allow Increased Global Warming, February 20,
http://healthandenergy.com/sulfur_dioxide.htm)

Warming Core
242
Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air
to form sulfate aerosols;
acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the

form of acid rain. Global warming and acid rain are two
environmental problems the world will be forced to reckon with
in the 21st century. Unfortunately, efforts to mitigate acid rain may actually increase
regional warming, according to a university professor . "It is ironic, in a sense, that in working
to solve one environmental problem you exacerbate another problem", said Michael
Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and

oil react with water and oxygen in the air to form sulfate aerosols
acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the form of acid rain,
wreaking havoc on the worlds forests and streams. Sulfate aerosols
also reflect sunlight back into space . "This acts as a negative radiative forcing which partially
compensates for the positive radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases", said Schlesinger. Take
away the sulfur dioxide a gas that doesnt stray too far from its source of emission and all
of a sudden something that used to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide is lost, resulting in
"In recent studies, we found that decreasing the

sulfur dioxide emissions led to significant regional warming in
North America, Europe and Asia", said Schlesinger. Schlesinger
and his colleagues based their study on four scenarios for
emissions of greenhouse gases that are being produced by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the panels Third
Assessment Report scheduled for completion in 2001. In these
scenarios, sulfur dioxide emissions have been de-coupled from
carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the burning of coal and
oil produces both carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions,
technologies exist that allow for both low-sulfur fuels and
"scrubbers" placed in smoke stacks that clean emissions of sulfur
dioxide. Therefore, in each of the scenarios that Schlesinger and
his colleagues examined, sulfur dioxide emissions either leveled
off early in the next century or decreased while carbon dioxide
emissions continued to rise. "Thus it appears that mitigation of the acid-rain
regional warming.
problem by future reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions exacerbates the greenhouse-warming

problem by enhancing the warming in and near the regions where the sulfur dioxide emissions
are reduced",
he said.2NC Links Coal
Tropospheric sulfate aerosols from coal combustion cancel out anthropogenic global warming
Hartmann and Mouginis, NASA Earth Observation Systems Group, EOS Science Plan #339, 96
(D. L. Hartmann and P. Mouginis, , Volcanoes and Climate Effects of Aerosols,
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/science_plan/Ch8.pdf)
Aerosols in the troposphere are also important for global climate. A wide variety of aerosol types

243
Warming Core
exist, including sea salt and dust carried from the surface into the atmosphere by wind, and aerosols formed by
chemical transformation from gaseous compounds to molecules that exist in solid or liquid form. In the upper
troposphere, a significant fraction of the aerosol burden can come from advection or sedimentation from the
stratosphere. The sources of aerosols can be natural, directly associated with industrial activity, or a
combination. Although the lifetime of aerosols in the troposphere is only a few weeks, the sources
are strong enough to maintain a significant aerosol burden. The aerosols contributed by
humans have been increasing, particularly those associated with SO2 released during the
combustion of coal, petroleum, and biomass. It is estimated that the anthropogenic source of sulfuric
acid aerosols in the troposphere is currently greater than the natural source. The primary effect of these
aerosols is to cool Earth by reflecting solar radiation, either directly, or by becoming
incorporated into small cloud droplets or ice crystals. It is estimated that the direct effect of
sulfate aerosols produced by humans on Earths energy balance is currently about 0.5 W m-2,
compared to the forcing associated with the change in greenhouse gases during the industrial age of about 2 W
m-2. The indirect effect of human-produced aerosols on the properties of clouds may be of the same order,
making tropospheric aerosols one of the major uncertainties in understanding climate change.
Coal-fired power plants are uniquely powerful sources of sulfate aerosol emissions
Schnapp Department of Energy, Environmental Aspects, Electric Power Industry Overview
no date given (Robert, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/chapter6.html)
When fossil fuels are burned in the production of electricity, a variety of gases and particulates
are formed. If these gases and particulates are not captured by some pollution control
equipment, they are released into the atmosphere. This section provides a brief summary of the
gaseous emissions from U.S. electric utilities and the methods employed to reduce or eliminate their release
into the atmosphere. Among the gases emitted during the burning of fossil fuels are sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Coal-fired generating units produce
more SO2 and NOx than other fossil-fuel units for two reasons. First, because coal generally
contains more sulfur than other fossil fuels, it creates more SO2 when burned. Second, there
are more emissions from coal-fired plants because more coal-fired capacity is used compared
with other fossil-fueled capacity.

Warming Core
244
AFF 2AC SO2 Screw

Warming outpaces cooling
Y.J Kaufman, et al, USRA resident scientist at NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, 1991, (Y.J
Kaufman Fossil Fuel and Biomass Burning Effect on ClimateHeating or Cooling? Journal of
Climate, 4, 578588, http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=getabstract&doi=10.1175%2F15200442(1991)004%3C0578%3AFFABBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1).
Emission from burning of fossil fuels and biomass (associated with deforestation) generates a
radiative forcing on the atmosphere and a possible climate chaw . Emitted trace gases heat the
atmosphere through their greenhouse effect, while particulates formed from emitted
SO2 cause cooling by increasing cloud albedos through alteration of droplet size distributions .
This paper reviews the characteristics of the cooling effect and applies Twomey's theory to cheek whether
the radiative balance favors heating or cooling for the cases of fossil fuel and biomass burning. It is also
shown that although coal and oil emit 120 times as many CO2 molecules as SO2 molecules, each
SO2molecule is 501100 times more effective in cooling the atmosphere (through the effect of
aerosol particles on cloud albedo) than a CO2 molecule is in heating it. Note that this ratio
accounts for the large difference in the aerosol (310 days) and CO 2 (7100 years) lifetimes. It is
concluded, that the cooling effect from coal and oil burning may presently range from 0.4 to 8 times the
heating effect. Within this large uncertainty, it is presently more likely that fossil fuel burning
causes cooling of the atmosphere rather than heating. Biomass burning associated with
deforestation, on the other hand, is more likely to cause heating of the atmosphere than cooling since its
aerosol cooling effect is only half that from fossil fuel burning and its heating effect is twice as large.
Future increases in coal and oil burning, and the resultant increase in concentration of cloud condensation
nuclei, may saturate the cooling effect, allowing the heating effect to dominate. For a doubling in the
C02 concentration due to fossil fuel burning, the cooling effect is expected to be 0.1 to 0.3 of the heating
effect.
Black aerosols outweigh reflective particles
Science Daily, Breaking science news and articles on global warming, extrasolar planets, stem
cells, bird flu, autism, nanotechnology, dinosaurs, evolution -- the latest
10 (Best Hope for Saving Arctic Sea Ice Is Cutting Soot Emissions, Say Researchers, July 30,
2010, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100728092617.htm)
The quickest, best way to slow the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is to reduce soot emissions
from the burning of fossil fuel, wood and dung, according to a new study by Stanford
researcher Mark Z. Jacobson. His analysis shows that soot is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing
to global warming. But, he said, climate models to date have mischaracterized the effects of soot in the
atmosphere. Because of that, soot's contribution to global warming has been ignored in national and
international global warming policy legislation, he said. "Controlling soot may be the only method of
significantly slowing Arctic warming within the next two decades," said Jacobson, director of
Stanford's Atmosphere/Energy Program. "We have to start taking its effects into account in planning
our mitigation efforts and the sooner we start making changes, the better." To reach his conclusions, Jacobson
used an intricate computer model of global climate, air pollution and weather that he developed over the last
20 years that included atmospheric processes not incorporated in previous models. He examined the effects of
soot -- black and brown particles that absorb solar radiation -- from two types of sources. He analyzed the
impacts of soot from fossil fuels -- diesel, coal, gasoline, jet fuel -- and from solid biofuels, such as wood,
manure, dung, and other solid biomass used for home heating and cooking in many locations. He also focused
in detail on the effects of soot on heating clouds, snow and ice. What he found was that the combination of both
types of soot is the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide. That ranks the effects of
soot ahead of methane, an important greenhouse gas. He also found that soot emissions kill

245
Warming Core
more than 1.5 million people prematurely worldwide each year, and afflicts millions more with
respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and asthma, mostly in the developing world where
biofuels are used for home heating and cooking. Jacobson's study will be published in Journal of
Geophysical Research (Atmospheres). Reducing soot could have immediate impact It is the magnitude of soot's
contribution, combined with the fact that it lingers in the atmosphere for only a few weeks before being washed
out, that leads to the conclusion that a reduction in soot output would start slowing the pace of global warming
almost immediately. Greenhouse gases, in contrast, typically persist in the atmosphere for decades -- some up
to a century or more -- creating a considerable time lag between when emissions are cut and when the results
become apparent. Mark Jacobson found that eliminating soot produced by the burning of fossil
fuel and solid biofuel could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle in the next 15 years
by up to 1.7 degrees Celsius. Jacobson found that eliminating soot produced by the burning of
fossil fuel and solid biofuel could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle in the next 15
years by up to 1.7 degrees Celsius. For perspective, net warming in the Arctic has been at least 2.5 degrees
Celsius during the last century and is expected to warm significantly more in the future if nothing is done. The
most immediate, effective and low-cost way to reduce soot emissions is to put particle traps on vehicles, diesel
trucks, buses, and construction equipment. Particle traps filter out soot particles from exhaust fumes. Soot
could be further reduced by converting vehicles to run on clean, renewable electric power. Jacobson found that
although fossil fuel soot contributed more to global warming, biofuel-derived soot caused about eight times the
number of deaths as fossil fuel soot. Providing electricity to rural developing areas, thereby reducing usage of
solid biofuels for home heating and cooking, would have major health benefits, he said. Soot from fossil fuels
contains more black carbon than soot produced by burning biofuels, which is why there is a difference in
impact. Black carbon is highly efficient at absorbing solar radiation in the atmosphere, just like a
black shirt on a sunny day. Black carbon converts sunlight to heat and radiates it back to the air
around it. This is different from greenhouse gases, which primarily trap heat that rises from
the Earth's surface. Black carbon can also absorb light reflecting from the surface, which helps
make it such a potent warming agent. First model of its type Jacobson's climate model is the first global
model to use mathematical equations to describe the physical and chemical interactions of soot particles in
cloud droplets in the atmosphere. This allowed him to include details such as light bouncing around inside
clouds and within cloud drops, which he said are critical for understanding the full effect of black carbon on
heating the atmosphere. "The key to modeling the climate effects of soot is to account for all of its effects on
clouds, sea ice, snow and atmospheric heating," Jacobson said. Because of the complexity of the processes, he
said it is not a surprise that previous models have not correctly treated the physical interactions required to
simulate cloud, snow, and atmospheric heating by soot. "But without treating these processes, no model can
give the correct answer with respect to soot's effects," he said. Jacobson argues that leaving out this scale of
detail in other models has led many scientists and policy makers to undervalue the role of black carbon as a
warming agent. The strong global heating due to soot that Jacobson found is supported by recent findings of
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of climate and atmospheric science at the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography, who measures and models the climate effects of soot. "Jacobson's study is the first time that a
model has looked at the various ways black carbon can impact climate in a quantitative way," said
Ramanathan, who was not involved in the study. Black carbon has an especially potent warming effect over the
Arctic. When black carbon is present in the air over snow or ice, sunlight can hit the black
carbon on its way towards Earth, and also hit it as light reflects off the ice and heads back
towards space. "It's a double-whammy over the ice surface in terms of heating the air," Jacobson
said. Black carbon also lands on the snow, darkening the surface and enhancing melting. "There is a big concern
that if the Arctic melts, it will be a tipping point for the Earth's climate because the reflective sea ice will be
replaced by a much darker, heat absorbing, ocean below," said Jacobson. "Once the sea ice is gone, it is really
hard to regenerate because there is not an efficient mechanism to cool the ocean down in the short term."
Global dimming causes millions of deaths prevents rainfall
Ramanathan, : Professor of Applied Ocean Sciences, Distinguished Professor of Climate and
Atmospheric Sciences, Director, Center for Clouds, Chemistry & Climate (C4), Chief Scientist,
Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment (Veerabhadran Ramanathan 1-15-2005, Global
Dimming, BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

Warming Core
246
Basically the Global Dimming we saw in the North Indian Ocean, it was contributed on the one
hand by the particles themselves shielding the ocean from the sunlight, on the other hand making
the clouds brighter. So this insidious soup, consisting of soot, sulphates, nitrates, ash and what have you, was
having a double whammy on the Global Dimming. NARRATOR: And when he looked at satellite images,
Ramanathan found the same thing was happening all over the world. Over India. Over China, and extending
into the Pacific. Over Western Europe... extending into Africa. Over the British Isles. But it was when scientists
started to investigate the effects of Global Dimming that they made the most disturbing discovery of all. Those
more reflective clouds could alter the pattern of the world's rainfall. With tragic consequences.
NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER: Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of
night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers
here is the closest thing to hell on earth. NARRATOR: The 1984 Ethiopian famine shocked the world. It was
partly caused by a decade's long drought right across sub-Saharan Africa - a region known as the Sahel. For
year after year the summer rains failed. At the time some scientists blamed overgrazing and poor land
management. But now there's evidence that the real culprit was Global Dimming. The Sahel's lifeblood has
always been a seasonal monsoon. For most of the year it is completely dry. But every summer, the heat of the
sun warms the oceans north of the equator. This draws the rain belt that forms over the equator northwards,
bringing rain to the Sahel. But for twenty years in the 1970s and 80s the tropical rain belt consistently failed to
shift northwards - and the African monsoon failed. For climate scientists like Leon Rotstayn the disappearance
of the rains had long been a puzzle. He could see that pollution from Europe and North America blew right
across the Atlantic, but all the climate models suggested it should have little effect on the monsoon. But then
Rotstayn decided to find out what would happen if he took the Maldive findings into account. DR LEON
ROTSTAYN (CSIRO Atmospheric Research): What we found in our model was that when we allowed the
pollution from Europe and North America to affect the properties of the clouds in the northern
hemisphere the clouds reflected more sunlight back to space and this cooled the oceans of the
northern hemisphere. And to our surprise the result of this was that the tropical rain bands moved
southwards tracking away from the more polluted northern hemisphere towards the southern hemisphere.
NARRATOR: Polluted clouds stopped the heat of the sun getting through. That heat was needed to draw
the tropical rains northwards. So the life giving rain belt never made it to the Sahel. DR LEON
ROTSTAYN: So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the
1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting the
properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere. NARRATOR:
Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what
came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people
in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in
store. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system. Let me
take you to anther part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point six billion
people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the Global
Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about
few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people. NARRATOR: For Ramanathan the
implications are clear. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: There is no choice here we have to cut
down air pollution, if not eliminate it altogether.
SO2 isnt sufficient to offset increasing CO2

NewScientist.com, Weekly science and technology news magazine, considered by some to be
the world's best, with diverse subject matter, 2004, (2004 Climate Change,
www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp)
Right again. One of the nice ironies of this story is that burning coal and oil produces sulphate
particles - which make acid rain. These particles help to shield the more industrialised
countries from the full impact of global warming. In some places, such as central Europe and parts of
China, they may have overwhelmed the warming, producing a net cooling. Other aerosols, such as dust from
soil erosion and desertification, can also curb warming. But even if you find the idea of using one form of

247
Warming Core
pollution to protect us from another, there is a problem. Whereas the average C02 molecule in the
atmosphere lasts for about a century, sulphates and other aerosol molecules persist for only a
few days. This means two things. First, if you turned down the power stations, the world would get much
hotter within a few days. Secondly, aerosols do not accumulate in the atmosphere in the way that C02 does. If
you carry on burning a given amount of fossil fuel, the cooling effect of the sulphates will
remain constant, while the warming effect of C02 will keep on increasing. So sulphates are not
a solution.
Volcanoes solve aerosols
United States Geological Survey June 11, 2o1o Volcanic Gases and their effects ( 6/11/10
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)
Magma contains dissolved gases that are released into the atmosphere during eruptions. Gases
are also released from magma that either remains below ground (for example, as an intrusion) or is rising
toward the surface. In such cases, gases may escape continuously into the atmosphere from the soil, volcanic
vents, fumaroles, and hydrothermal systems. At high pressures deep beneath the earth's surface, volcanic gases
are dissolved in molten rock. But as magma rises toward the surface where the pressure is lower, gases held in
the melt begin to form tiny bubbles. The increasing volume taken up by gas bubbles makes the magma less
dense than the surrounding rock, which may allow the magma to continue its upward journey. Closer to the
surface, the bubbles increase in number and size so that the gas volume may exceed the melt volume in the
magma, creating a magma foam. The rapidly expanding gas bubbles of the foam can lead to explosive eruptions
in which the melt is fragmented into pieces of volcanic rock, known as tephra. If the molten rock is not
fragmented by explosive activity, a lava flow will be generated. Together with the tephra and entrained air,
volcanic gases can rise tens of kilometers into Earth's atmosphere during large explosive eruptions. Once
airborne, the prevailing winds may blow the eruption cloud hundreds to thousands of kilometers from a
volcano. The gases spread from an erupting vent primarily as acid aerosols (tiny acid droplets), compounds
attached to tephra particles, and microscopic salt particles. Volcanic gases undergo a tremendous increase in
volume when magma rises to the Earth's surface and erupts. For example, consider what happens if one cubic
meter of 900C rhyolite magma containing five percent by weight of dissolved water were suddenly brought
from depth to the surface. The one cubic meter of magma now would occupy a volume of 670 m3 as a mixture
of water vapor and magma at atmospheric pressure (Sparks et. al., 1997)! The one meter cube at depth
would increase to 8.75 m on each side at the surface. Such enormous expansion of volcanic
gases, primarily water, is the main driving force of explosive eruptions. The most abundant gas
typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by
carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of
others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He). The volcanic gases that pose
the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide,
and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a
volcano. Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols
into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the
Earth's ozone layer. Because carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air, the gas may flow into in low-lying areas
and collect in the soil. The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in these areas can be lethal to people, animals,
and vegetation. A few historic eruptions have released sufficient fluorine-compounds to deform or kill animals
that grazed on vegetation coated with volcanic ash; fluorine compounds tend to become concentrated on finegrained ash particles, which can be ingested by animals. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) The effects of SO2 on people and
the environment vary widely depending on (1) the amount of gas a volcano emits into the atmosphere; (2)
whether the gas is injected into the troposphere or stratosphere; and (3) the regional or global wind and
weather pattern that disperses the gas. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that irritates
skin and the tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat. Sulfur dioxide chiefly affects upper
respiratory tract and bronchi. The World Health Organization recommends a concentration of no greater than
0.5 ppm over 24 hours for maximum exposure. A concentration of 6-12 ppm can cause immediate irritation of

248
Warming Core
the nose and throat; 20 ppm can cause eye irritation; 10,000 ppm will irritate moist skin within minutes.
Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from <20 tonnes/day to >10 million
tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved.
For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3
of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The
sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern
Hemisphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with the increased
stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led
to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere.

Warming Core
249
AFF 1AR SO2 Aerosols increase warming

Anthropogenic aerosols offset cooling from natural aerosols
Allen and Sherwood, Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Steven C.
Sherwood, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 10 (Robert J.
Allen, , The impact of natural versus anthropogenic aerosols on atmospheric circulation in the Community
Atmosphere Model, Clim Dyn (2011) 36:19591978)
Due to the predominance of northern-hemisphere sources for both aerosol types considered,
anthropogenic aerosols warmed the troposphere (and natural aerosols cooled it) more in the
northern hemisphere than in the southern, with changes of order 0.10.3 K in the lower
troposphere. Anthropogenic aerosols consequently shifted the ITCZ northward while natural aerosols shifted it
southward. The northward shift is associated with a weakening of the DJF mean meridional mass circulation
and strengthening of the JJA one, with opposite changes for the southward shift; all are consistent with the
radiatively forced changes to inter-hemispheric temperature gradients. This behavior is consistent with other
aerosol studies focusing on the direct effects of BC aerosols (Roberts and Jones 2004; Wang 2004, 2007;
Chung and Seinfeld 2005; Yoshimori and Broccoli 2008), and the direct (Yoshimori and Broccoli 2008) and
indirect (Rotstayn et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2001) effects of sulfate aerosols. Changes in Hadley cell strength
were smaller in the xed-SST experiments because inter-hemispheric temperature gradients were not able to
change as much. These results support previous ndings that aerosols affect the variability of
precipitation at low latitudes, for example in the Amazon (Cox et al. 2008) and the Sahel (Rotstayn and
Lohmann 2002). Aerosol forcing is also associated with meridional shifts of the subtropical jets. In the slabocean experiments, anthropogenic aerosols move the subtropical jets poleward by 0.20.3 each, leading to
expansion of the tropics. Natural aerosols produce the opposite effect. Global emissions of black carbon
have generally increased over the latter half of the twentieth century, although they remain
quite uncertain and have probably fallen somewhat since 1990 (Novakov et al. 2003; Ito andym
Penner 2005; Bond et al. 2007). Global emissions of sulfate aerosols, however, have been declining since the
1970s (van Aardenne et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2004). Our results indicate that both of these trends should have
contributed to poleward migration of the subtropical jet in the NH, and possibly in the SH, hence contributing
to the observed widening of the tropics from the 1970s through 1990 or so. In fact such widening has been
observed (or inferred from stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming trends), and is larger than
predicted by models forced with GHGs and other forcings (Fu et al. 2006; Seidel et al. 2008; Johanson and Fu
2009). Although some of these models include aerosol forcing, aerosol absorption is likely
underestimated (Sato et al. 2003; Koch et al. 2009). The observed widening of 2.04.8 over 25 years,
however, is much larger than reported here for either aerosol forcing (*0.5) and does not appear to have
stopped in the last decade or two. Nonetheless, aerosols may have contributed non-negligibly to this widening
and, as discussed above, impacts from past changes in anthropogenic aerosol composition could exceed those
simulated here for the current composition. Arctic oscillation-like changes result from altered tropospheric
temperature gradients, which affect the vertical propagation of wave activity. We argue that this is because
anthropogenic aerosols decrease temperature gradients between low and mid-latitudes,
decreasing the vertically propagating wave activity and increasing equatorward refraction, with
opposite impacts from natural aerosols. The increased refraction causes acceleration of the stratospheric
zonal winds, which eventually propagates back down through the troposphere (Haynes et al. 1991; Shindell et
al. 2001; Stenchikov et al. 2002; Song and Robinson 2004) where it manifests itself at the surface as sealevel
pressure and temperature anomalies. The result is zonal winds near 60N increasing by*1 m s -1 , temperatures
in the high-latitude stratosphere decreasing by (*1 K) and high-latitude sea-level pressure decreasing by*2 hPa,
with anthropogenic aerosol forcing. Similar impacts occur in the simulation of Chung and Ramanathan (2003)
for absorbing aerosols over India only. We found that changes were signicant only with xed SSTs, apparently
because longer wavelength planetary waves which are better able to penetrate into the stratosphereare
preferentially excited by the imposed net aerosol forcing in this case due to the landocean distribution in the
northern hemisphere. Regionally restricted forcings could excite a similar response even with interactive
oceans. Because the high-latitude AO impacts are strong only with xed SSTs, they do not appear to be robust
to variations in ocean behavior, and xed-SST results are unlikely to represent very well the impacts of trends

250
Warming Core
in aerosols where the ocean has plenty of time to respond to ux changes at the surface. Moreover, the observed
changes are signicantly larger than those reported here even with xed SST: from 1965 to 1995, mean sea-level
pressure north of 45N dropped by 2.5 hPa relative to that from 45N to the equator (Gillett 2005), compared
with a peak response here of 0.4 hPa. Similarly, zonal wind increased by 7 m s-1 at 60N and 50 hPa (Scaife et al.
2005), compared to roughly 1ms-1 here. Thus, we nd wind and pressure changes that occur in roughly the
same ratio as those of recent hard-toexplain trends, but at much smaller magnitudes. Nonetheless, the decadal
variability in aerosol forcing (e.g., SE Asian haze Ramanathan et al. 2001b; e.g., Chung and Ramanathan 2003)
as opposed to, say, the more monotonically changing forcing by greenhouse gases makes it an interesting
possibility for explaining variations in the AO, which also have a strong decadal nature (Feldstein 2002). Given
the cancellation found here between absorbing and scattering aerosol impacts, it is possible
that decadal changes in the ratio of black carbon to sulfate could have exerted large effects. It is
also possible that shifts of emissions from one region to another (Streets et al. 2009) may have affected the AO
by inuencing rTand the wavelength of perturbations to the midlatitude ow. It would appear worthwhile to
include more realistic aerosol forcing changes in climate models, or at least to consider more seriously the
possible impacts of unknown variations in the distribution and type of aerosols as an additional source of
forcing uncertainty in model experiments.

More Warming Ev (Both Sides)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Warming Ev (Both Sides)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Warming Real Generic

legitimate scientists on the other

and not at any one particular study, not any

wasnt buying a lot of climate change theory. He

Warming now-Laundry list

Gonzaga Debate Institute

warming represents a rapidly worsening threat to the world's wildlife and

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Warming Real Anthropogenic

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Laundry list of indicators prove warming anthropogenic

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

these "problems" with scientific jargon, criticizing unscientific interpretations, and

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Uncertainty and limitation on tech prevent short-term adaptation

(Nicholas, Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change, p.

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: But its cold

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: CO2 from oceans

Gonzaga Debate Institute

(John, March 18, Skeptical Science, http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-tomclean-el-nino-paper.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Holocene warm period

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Inevitable/too late to solve

Slowing the rate of climate change buys us time to adapt

(Gwynne, Jan. 1, Climate Wars, CBC)

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Medieval Warm Period

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Natural Cycle

(Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?,

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Sun Variance

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

AT: Urban heat island effect

(Richard, Nov. 8, BBC, Climate change skeptics wrong,

Warming over oceans disprove narrow urban heat island theory

Gonzaga Debate Institute

The Urban Heat Island Effect is not relevant to warming trends

(David, Oct. 6, The Long Thaw, pg. 32, CBC)

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute

Gonzaga Debate Institute