304 GT Warming 3.0

Warming 3.
0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming Never Ends

**Positive Feeback**.............................................................................................................................................4
1NC Positive Feedback..........................................................................................................................................5
Feedback – Phytoplankton, Peat, Forests............................................................................................................6
Positive Feedback – Runaway Warming.............................................................................................................7
Runaway Warming – Permafrost.........................................................................................................................8
Runaway Warming – Permafrost.........................................................................................................................9
Positive Feedback – El Niño................................................................................................................................10
Positive Feedback = Albedo.................................................................................................................................11
Positive Feedback = Albedo................................................................................................................................12
Positive Feedback = North Atlanta Oscillations ...............................................................................................13
Positive Feedback – Water Vapor.......................................................................................................................14
...............................................................................................................................................................................14
Positive Feedback – Water Vapor.......................................................................................................................15
...............................................................................................................................................................................15
Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback......................................................................................................16
**AT: Positive Feedback**.................................................................................................................................17
Timeframe = 10 years..........................................................................................................................................18
A2: Carbon Sinks.................................................................................................................................................19
A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth........................................................................................................................20
A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth – Prefer Our Models....................................................................................21
A2: Anthropogenic...............................................................................................................................................22
A2: Permafrost....................................................................................................................................................23
A2: Clouds............................................................................................................................................................24
**Negative Feedback**.......................................................................................................................................25
Negative Feedback – Clouds...............................................................................................................................26
Negative Feedback – El Niño..............................................................................................................................27
Negative Feedback - Aerosols ...........................................................................................................................28
Negative Feedbacks O/W Positive Feedbacks...................................................................................................29
A2: Forest = Negative Feedbacks.......................................................................................................................30
**Warming Impacts**.........................................................................................................................................31
1
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming = Population Shifts..............................................................................................................................32

Warming = Nuclear War.....................................................................................................................................33
Warming = Flooding (TF)...................................................................................................................................34
Warming = Coral Bleaching/Runaway Warming.............................................................................................35
Turn – Carbon Emissions = Amazon 2NC.........................................................................................................36
**Satellites**........................................................................................................................................................37
Satellites = Warming............................................................................................................................................38
Satellites = Warming............................................................................................................................................39
...............................................................................................................................................................................39
A2: Satellites = No Warming...............................................................................................................................40
A2: Satellites = No Warming...............................................................................................................................41
Satellites = No Warming......................................................................................................................................42
31,000 Petition = No Warming............................................................................................................................43
Polar Caps Prove Spending.................................................................................................................................44
Alternate Causality – China................................................................................................................................45
No Solvency – Zero Emissions Key....................................................................................................................46
**CO2**................................................................................................................................................................47
C02 Key.................................................................................................................................................................48
C02 Key.................................................................................................................................................................49
...............................................................................................................................................................................49
CO2 key to Plant Growth....................................................................................................................................50
CO2 key Water Vapor..........................................................................................................................................51
...............................................................................................................................................................................51
**AT: CO2 Good**..............................................................................................................................................52
AT: Weeds.............................................................................................................................................................53
AT: Plants..............................................................................................................................................................54
AT: Soil..................................................................................................................................................................55
**AT: SO2 Impacts**..........................................................................................................................................56
SO2  Acid Rain.................................................................................................................................................57
SO2  Acid Rain.................................................................................................................................................58
................................................................................................................................................................................58
SO2  Global Dimming....................................................................................................................................59
2
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
AT: SO2 Cooling Good........................................................................................................................................60

**AT: Ice age**....................................................................................................................................................61
No Ice Age Now....................................................................................................................................................62
Ice Age Models Wrong.........................................................................................................................................63
Ice age  GW......................................................................................................................................................64
Ice Age Doesn’t  Extinction.............................................................................................................................65
**Models**...........................................................................................................................................................66
Models Bad...........................................................................................................................................................67
Models Bad...........................................................................................................................................................68
Models Bad...........................................................................................................................................................69
...............................................................................................................................................................................69
IPCC Models Bad/Satellites Good......................................................................................................................70
...............................................................................................................................................................................70
IPCC Models Bad................................................................................................................................................71
Models Bad = Urban Heat Island.......................................................................................................................72
...............................................................................................................................................................................74
A2: IPCC Models Bad.........................................................................................................................................75
A2: Urban Heat Effect.........................................................................................................................................76
A2: Models Bad....................................................................................................................................................77
...............................................................................................................................................................................77
**Author Indicts**..............................................................................................................................................78
A2: Idso.................................................................................................................................................................79
A2: Warming Good Authors...............................................................................................................................80
3
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Positive Feeback**
4
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
1NC Positive Feedback

Warming triggers multiple positive feedbacks – causing runaway warming. We
must take action now or risk extinction
Thomas Homer-Dixon, a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto, 10/4/07 (“A Swiftly Melting Planet”
The New York Times – Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg. 29. Lexis)
A big reason such change happens is feedback -- not the feedback that you'd like to give your boss, but the feedback that creates a
vicious circle. This type of feedback in our global climate could determine humankind's future prosperity and even survival. The
vast expanse of ice floating on the surface of the Arctic Ocean always recedes in the summer, reaching its lowest point sometime in
September. Every winter it expands again, as the long Arctic night descends and temperatures plummet. Each summer over the past
six years, global warming has trimmed this ice's total area a little more, and each winter the ice's recovery has been a little less
robust. These trends alarmed climate scientists, but most thought that sea ice wouldn't disappear completely in the Arctic summer
before 2040 at the earliest. But this past summer sent scientists scrambling to redo their estimates. Week by week, the National Snow
and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., reported the trend: from 2.23 million square miles of ice remaining on Aug. 8 to 1.6 million
square miles on Sept. 16, an astonishing drop from the previous low of 2.05 million square miles, reached in 2005. The loss of Arctic
sea ice won't be the last abrupt change in earth's climate, because of feedbacks. One of the climate's most important destabilizing
feedbacks involves Arctic ice. It works like this: our release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases around the planet causes
some initial warming that melts some ice. Melting ice leaves behind open ocean water that has a much lower reflectivity (or
albedo) than that of ice. Open ocean water absorbs about 80 percent more solar radiation than sea ice does. And so as the sun
warms the ocean, even more ice melts, in a vicious circle. This ice-albedo feedback is one of the main reasons warming is
happening far faster in the high north, where there are vast stretches of sea ice, than anywhere else on Earth.
There are other destabilizing feedbacks in the carbon cycle that involve the oceans. Each year, the oceans absorb about half the
carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere. But as oceans warm, they will absorb less carbon dioxide, partly because
the gas dissolves less readily in warmer water, and partly because warming will reduce the mixing between deep and surface
waters that provides nutrients to plankton that absorb carbon dioxide. And when oceans take up less carbon dioxide, warming
worsens. Scientists have done a good job incorporating some feedbacks into their climate models, especially those, like the ice-albedo
feedback, that operate directly on the temperature of air or water. But they haven't incorporated as well feedbacks that operate on the
atmosphere's concentrations of greenhouse gases or that affect the cycle of carbon among air, land, oceans and organisms. Yet these
may be the most important feedbacks of all. Global warming is melting large areas of permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. As
it melts, the organic matter in the permafrost starts to rot, releasing carbon dioxide and methane (molecule for molecule,
methane traps far more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide). Warming is also affecting wetlands and forests around the
world, helping to desiccate immense peat bogs in Indonesia, contributing to more frequent drought in the Amazon basin, and
propelling a widening beetle infestation that's killing enormous tracts of pine forest in Alaska and British Columbia. (This
infestation is on the brink of crossing the Canadian Rockies into the boreal forest that extends east to Newfoundland.) Dried peat and
dead and dying forests are vulnerable to wildfires that would emit huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. This summer's loss
of Arctic sea ice indicates that at least one major destabilizing feedback is gaining force quickly. Scientists have also recently
learned that the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica, appears to be absorbing less carbon, while Greenland's ice sheet
is melting at an accelerating rate. When warming becomes its own cause, we might not be able to stop extremely harmful
climate change no matter how much we cut our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a far more aggressive global response to
climate change. In the 1960s, mothers learned that the milk they were feeding their children was laced with radioactive material from
atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons and that this contamination could increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Soon women
organized themselves in the tens of thousands to demand that nuclear powers ban atmospheric testing. Their campaign largely
succeeded. In response to the new dangers of climate change, we need a similar mobilization -- of mothers, of students and of
everyone with a stake in the future -- now.
5
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Feedback – Phytoplankton, Peat, Forests

Warming triggers multiple feedbacks – phytoplankton, peat, forest sinks
Ian Sample, Science correspondent, 2/3/07 (“National: IPCC report: Why the news about warming is worse than we thought:
feedback: Oceans, soil and trees will become worse at absorbing carbon dioxide as temperatures rise: Evidence for warming: what the
scientists found” The Gaurdian. Lexis)
"The oceans and the soils and trees absorb a half of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from human activity. With
climate change, they will get worse and worse at doing that, so more of our human emissions of carbon dioxide will remain in
the atmosphere," said Corinne Le Quere, an IPCC author and expert on the carbon cycle at the University of East Anglia Climatic
Research Unit. As the world warms up the oceans become less able to dissolve carbon dioxide. Warmer oceans are also having
an adverse effect on carbon-absorbing marine phytoplankton, the organisms that lie at the very bottom of the aquatic food chain. As
warming continues scientists fear that phytoplankton will begin to die off, creating a positive feedback cycle where warmer
oceans release more carbon which in turn leads to more warming. At the same time carbon dioxide which now fertilises soils and
boosts the growth of forests and other plants will reach saturation point, so the land's ability to soak up carbon dioxide will
stall. As temperatures rise even further many plants will become stressed by drought conditions and microbes in the soil will
start breaking down organic matter from dead plants faster, meaning large areas of land will begin emitting carbon dioxide
instead of acting as an overall sink for the gas. Signs that soils were beginning to become part of the problem of global warming
emerged in 2005 when researchers discovered that a vast expanse of western Siberia was undergoing an unprecedented thaw. The
region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, covering an area the size of France and Germany combined, had begun to melt for the
first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The team, from Tomsk State and Oxford universities believe
the million square kilometre peat bog could begin to release billions of tonnes of methane locked up in the soils. Methane is a
greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The team found that even if methane seeped from the peat bog over the
next 100 years it would add 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, roughly the same that is released annually from
the world's wetlands and agriculture. It would effectively double the atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase
in global warming. Last year Peter Cox, a climate modeller at Exeter University, found a similar feedback mechanism and warned
that warmer temperatures could force soils around the world to release their stocks of carbon into the atmosphere, potentially driving
temperatures up by a further 1.5C. He called for poorer countries to be paid not to cut down their forests as a possible solution. Earlier
this month Jim Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the first scientists to warn of climate
change in 1988, said greenhouse gas emissions were beginning to trigger dangerous positive feedbacks. "Previously these feedback
mechanisms weren't well known about, and they have only recently been taken into account," said Dr Le Quere. "We are very likely to
find more of these feedbacks because now we are looking for them. At the moment we are not seeing their effects too strongly, but
these are going to become a big part of the picture."
6
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback – Runaway Warming

Inaction will trigger runaway warming – multiple feedback scenarios.
Thomas Homer-Dixon, political scientist at the University of Toronto, 12/1/07 (“Don't accentuate positive feedbacks - not in this
neighbourhood; With cracks and holes in the Greenland ice sheet, we may well have to 'geo-engineer' the climate” The Globe and
Mail. Lexis)
Water is not white, like ice
A positive feedback is a causal cycle - essentially a vicious circle - in which warming causes a series of changes that reinforces
warming. One feedback of special importance to Canada is the ice-albedo feedback in the Arctic. The sea ice floating on the Arctic
Ocean is white, so it reflects a large proportion of the sun's radiation back into space. As this ice melts from global warming, it
leaves behind open water that absorbs about 80 per cent more of the sun's radiation. This ocean water becomes warmer. Then,
after the summer passes and fall comes, the water releases its heat back into the atmosphere, which impedes refreezing. So
winter generates thinner ice, which melts more easily the next summer. This feedback is one of the reasons why the planet is
warming, and will continue to do so, much more rapidly in its northern reaches. The IPCC predicts about 3 C average warming by
2100, and in the neighbourhood of 6 C to 7 C across much of Canada. Some people say we will benefit. Well, we may have lower
heating bills in the winter for a few years, but because we're a northern country, warming here will be about twice as fast and the
ultimate magnitude will be twice as great as the planet's average. The consequences will be immense for our flora and fauna, for our
forests that can't adapt and die en masse, for our grain-growing regions that could turn to desert, for the Great Lakes as their levels fall,
for transportation in the St. Lawrence Seaway and for northern permafrost that melts. This summer, melting of Arctic sea ice sharply
diverged from the trend of the past decade - which suggests feedbacks in the north are gaining enormous force. By mid-
September, we'd lost about a third of the Arctic ice cap compared to the 1979-2000 average and about 50 per cent compared to the
1950s. Scientists now expect a completely ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by the end of the next decade, perhaps as early as 2013.
The ice-albedo feedback is an example of one of two main kinds of positive feedback: the kind that operates more or less directly on
energy flows and temperature. Feedbacks of this kind are reasonably well built into current climate models. But there's another kind
that operates on the carbon cycle. In these cases, warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon
cycle feedbacks are not so well understood, but it's becoming increasingly clear that they could literally be deal-breakers for
humanity. We may be quite close to creating circumstances in which the biosphere releases huge quantities of carbon into the
atmosphere. At that point, warming could become its own cause; it would no longer really matter what we do to mitigate our
emissions of carbon dioxide. The global ecosystem would take over. One worrying carbon feedback involves the permafrost in
Siberia, Alaska and northern Canada. As the permafrost melts, it emits large quantities of methane, a very powerful greenhouse
gas that, in turn, causes more warming. And then there's the matter of pine bark beetles. As the climate warms, they reproduce
through two generations during the summer, and their mortality is lower during the winter. Both these changes mean that
beetle populations become much larger overall. We've already lost swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska to bark-
beetle infestation. If they cross the Rockies into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland, and kill much of it,
the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. When I asked Stephen Schneider,
a leading climate scientist at Stanford, about the implications, he just shrugged and said, "Well, we're talking about billions of
tonnes of carbon." Our climate has many positive and negative feedbacks. The positive ones are self-reinforcing, while the negative
ones counteract the warming tendency. The big question for climate scientists then is: What is the balance is between the positive and
negative feedbacks? A consensus appears to have emerged over the past two years - not yet reflected in the recent IPCC reports -
that the positive feedbacks are much stronger and more numerous than the negative ones. Melting that outpaces warming
7
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Runaway Warming – Permafrost

Permafrost melting will emit billions of methane, triggering runaway warming,
must take action now
Ian Sample, science correspondent, 8/11/05 (“Warming hits 'tipping point'” The Guardian,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1/print>)
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres -
the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the
last ice age. The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and
scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon
dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate
thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a
far greater increase in global temperatures. The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western
Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today. The researchers found that what was until
recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Dr
Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected
to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years. Climate scientists yesterday
reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.
"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no
brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. "This is a
big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up
temperatures even more than our emissions are doing." In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate
change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global
warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. "These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They
had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner. Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in
the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost,
because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the
permafrost thaws. Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the
gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west
Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. The
permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in
one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter. But calculations by Dr Sitch and his
colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon
into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture. It would
effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said. Tony Juniper,
director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We
knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of
greenhouse gases. "If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control
and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not
much.
8
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Runaway Warming – Permafrost

Permafrost is wildcard – it triggers runaway, irreversible warming
United Nations Enviromental Programme 08 (“UNEP Yearbook 2008 – An Overview of Warming Environment
< http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2008/report/UNEP_YearBook2008_Full_EN.pdf>)
Methane release due to thawing permafrost in the Arctic is a global warming wildcard. The balance of evidence suggests that
Arctic feedbacks that amplify warming, globally and regionally, will dominate during the next 50 to 100 years (McGuire and
others 2006) (Box 5). As warming continues, these feedbacks will likely intensify. We may be approaching thresholds that are
difﬁcult to predict precisely, but crossing such thresholds could have serious global consequences (see Global Overview). This
highlights the urgent need for policy responses to reduce future warming—to avoid crossing such thresholds (Box 6). Our
understanding of the interactions, relative importance, and projected net balance among the various feedbacks at work in the Arctic is
far from complete. In light of these uncertainties and vulnerabilities, it is important that we improve our understanding of how changes
in the Arctic will influence global climate. An important step will be to map the locations and to determine the quantities of methane
hydrates, their possible responses to further climate change, and the routes and rates by which they could enter the ocean or
atmosphere. It is already clear that the global climate is vulnerable to Arctic feedbacks and that the consequences of those feedbacks
could be disastrous. The only way to reduce the magnitude of these consequences is to dramatically reduce and stabilze
concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. In addition to long-term reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and the other
longlived greenhouse gases, a near-term focus on reducing emissions of methane and soot, which have shorter atmospheric lifetimes,
could be of particular value. The potential consequences of large amounts of methane entering the atmosphere, from thawing
permafrost or destabilized ocean hydrates, would lead to abrupt changes in the climate that would likely be irreversible. We
must not cross that threshold. Reversing current human induced warming will help us avoid such outcomes entirely (Hansen and
others 2007).
9
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback – El Niño

El Nino acts as a positive feedback – models prove
G. J. Boer et al, B. Yu, S.-J. Kim,1 and G. M. Flato, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, 3/16/04 (“Is there
observational support for an El Nin˜ o-like pattern of future global warming?” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31.
<http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/papers/gboer/PDF/Obs_ElNino.pdf>)
[14] This positive feedback in the central tropical Pacific supports the El Nino-like response seen in the global warming
simulations of the CCCma (and other) coupled models (Figure 1a) in the sense that the local temperature response to positive
radiative forcing is amplified rather than damped away. It also supports the La Nina-like response to negative radiative forcing in
the LGM case of Figure 1b. Thus, the patterns of temperature response in the tropical Pacific in both cases are a consequence of the
same feedback processes operating in the coupled system. [15] While we cannot observe the future, there is a considerable effort to
observe the past as evidenced in the CLIMAP reconstructions of Figure 2 and other analyses which support a La Nina-like pattern of
temperature change in the tropical Pacific. Thus the modeling results are internally consistent, reflect the feedback processes operating
in the current climate system, and are supported by the results of observational-based paleoclimate reconstructions. The result is that
the three streams of evidence, namely simulations with coupled models, the feedback analysis in the tropical Pacific, and the
paleoclimate reconstructions, all support the expectation of a future mean El Nino-like temperature response to the positive
radiative forcing resulting from a continued increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. It is in this sense that we suggest
that there is observational support for an El Nin˜o-like pattern of future global warming.
10
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback = Albedo

Albedo acts a feedback – amplifies warming
Amitabh Mitra, Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, 4/25/08 (“Impact of ice-albedo feedback on hemispheric scale
sea-ice melting rates in the Antarctic using Multi-frequency Scanning Microwave Radiometer data” Current Science Vol 94, No. 8
<http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr252008/1044.pdf>)
IN the polar regions, sea water freezes at the surface due to the seasonal cycle of insolation producing a thin and discontinuous
blanket of ice called sea-ice, having thickness of less than a few metres. The sea-ice acts as an effi- cient barrier to the free
exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum fluxes between the ocean and the atmosphere, substantially altering the radiative and
turbulent components of the surface-heat balance. Since the sea-ice layer is thin, its areal extent and thickness respond rapidly to
changes in the surface heat balance and modulate the interactions between the atmosphere and ocean on time- scales extending from
days to months and years. The thickness and areal extent of sea-ice has a major influence on the state of the ocean and the
atmosphere. They appear to play a key role in the weather and climate and are important components of research into the past,
present and future of the earth’s climate system . Sea-ice growth and melting are major factors in controlling the seasonal cycle
of the air temperature and the upper ocean salinity in the polar regions. Sea-ice influences the climate through various feedback
mechanisms. The most important feedback mechanism is the albedo-temperature feedback: an initial small warming (cooling)
implies a decrease (increase) in the sea-ice extent and, hence a smaller (larger) reflection and larger (smaller) absorption of
total incident solar energy over the region, which would be conducive to further enhancement of the initial warming (cooling).
The mean albedo (α) of sea-ice ranges roughly from 0.5 to 0.7, compared to 0.05–0.15 for the open water. As a result of the high
albedo of ice surfaces, only a small fraction (1 – α) of the energy is absorbed at the surface. Solar heating of the surface during
summer results in the increase of snow/ice wetness and development of melt ponds, which in turn, significantly reduce the regionally
averaged summer-time albedo. This reduction in albedo plays an important role in the polar regions. Any pertur- bation in the surface
energy balance resulting in a decrease of ice extent due to warming may spread and amplify, since the reduction of ice extent, in turn,
increases the amount of solar energy absorbed by the system. Another feedback mechanism is provided by sea-ice modifying the
evaporation rates: a decrease (increase) in the sea-ice compactness through melting (freezing) leads to higher (lower) water vapour
concentration in the lower atmosphere and to an enhancement (inhibition) of the atmospheric longwave radiative absorption, thus
supporting further ice ablation (accretion). Because of such feedback effects between the surface and the atmosphere, the climate
change signals are expected to be amplified in the polar regions.
11
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback = Albedo

Melting albedos act as a positive feedback, triggers more warming
Maggie Villiger, reporter, 6/15/04 (“The Arctic – Our Global Thermostat” PBS <
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/features/thermostat.htm>)
Snow and ice are white and very reflective. They have what scientists call a very high albedo - that's a measure of how much light
a surface reflects. Between 70 and 80 percent of the sun's rays that hit this kind of frozen surface are bounced right back out
into space. So the land or water beneath the snowy blanket doesn't get a chance to absorb much of that solar radiation. Now imagine
that a little bit of heat is added to the system. That's exactly what is happening in the real world; scientists say that the average
temperature in Alaska has risen 4 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950s. With warmer temperatures, some of the snow and ice melts,
exposing the darker land or water underneath. These surfaces have much lower albedos - open water reflects less than 10
percent of the solar energy that hits it, for example. So more heat is absorbed by the landscape. Then a feedback loop kicks in. More
heat is absorbed by the darker surface, so more snow and ice melt. More of the darker surface is exposed, leading to the
absorption of even more heat, more snow and ice melt, and so on. Just a small temperature rise can set this feedback cycle into
motion. The opposite effect is possible too; a small temperature decrease would lead to more snow and ice, would lead to more solar
radiation being bounced back to space, would lead to colder temperatures, would lead to more snow and ice, and so on. Scientists
describe the onset of past ice ages in this way. The very fact that the Arctic is frozen a good part of the year makes it fragile and easy
to be drastically affected by global warming. Adding freshwater to the oceans as it melts from glaciers on the land surface will
change the salinity of the seas, which can affect global ocean circulation patterns. Ecosystems are very different when frozen or
thawed. Current conditions in many parts of the Arctic are fairly waterlogged, with water held close to the surface of the land. That's
because just below ground level lies frozen soil, the so-called permafrost layer. But as permafrost thaws, water drains more
easily and the landscape becomes more productive. The treeline migrates northward. As temperatures warm, the undecomposed
peat in the landscape will begin to breakdown and emit the carbon that has been locked in the ground for millennia. It's another
feedback system; warming will lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere where it can act as a greenhouse
gas and lead to more warming. The cycle is complex, though, and scientists aren't sure how the variety of factors involved will
interact.
12
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback = North Atlanta Oscillations

North Atlanta Oscillations cause positive feedbacks –melts the Arctic
New Scientist 8/24/03 (“Satellite data reveals rapid Arctic warming” < http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn431
0>)
The retreating summer sea ice has knock-on effects. The exposure of more open water, which absorbs more solar energy than ice,
means further warming is likely. More ocean open ocean also means winds can build up stronger waves that are eroding Arctic
coasts. "There are communities in Alaska that are having to move their villages" to escape erosion of low-lying coasts, says Michael
Steele, an oceanographer at the University of Washington in Seattle. One push behind the warming is a natural cycle called the
North Atlantic Oscillation. For the past 20 years, it has been stuck in a phase where low pressure over the Arctic is increasing heat
transport from middle latitudes. Part of the effect may be natural, but Serreze adds that there is growing evidence that human-
caused changes in greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone concentrations may shift the oscillation into the Arctic-warming
mode.
13
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback – Water Vapor
Europe proves water vapor feedback

Terra Daily 11/8/05 (“Water Vapor Feedback Is Rapidly Warming Europe” <
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Water_Vapor_Feedback_Is_Rapidly_Warming_Europe.html>)
A new report indicates that the vast majority of the rapid temperature increase recently observed in Europe is likely due to an
unexpected greenhouse gas: water vapor. Elevated surface temperatures due to other greenhouse gases have enhanced water
evaporation and contributed to a cycle that stimulates further surface temperature increases, according to a report in Geophysical
Research Letters. The research could help to answer a long-debated Earth science question about whether the water cycle could
strongly enhance greenhouse warming. Swiss researchers examined surface radiation measurements from 1995 to 2002 over the Alps
in Central Europe and show strongly increasing total surface absorbed radiation, concurrent with rapidly increasing temperature. The
authors, led by Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos, show experimentally that 70 percent of the rapid
temperature increase is very likely caused by water vapor feedback. They indicate that remaining 30 percent is likely due to
increasing manmade greenhouse gases. The researchers analyzed temperature and humidity changes over Europe, which jumped
nearly three times above the levels predicted by general circulation models in the past two decades. They provide observational
evidence that large-scale weather patterns in Europe influence annual average temperatures uniformly, but weakly. They suggest that
their combined observations indicate that the region is experiencing an increasing greenhouse effect and that the dominant part
of the rising heat emitted from the Earth's atmosphere (longwave radiation) is due to water vapor increase. After examining
increased cloud cover to the north of the Alps and decreased cover to the south, the authors report that both sides of the mountain
range experienced clear warming over the 1995-2002 period. While clouds are not entirely responsible for the warming, such findings
correspond with previous cloud investigations showing that for midlatitudes, annual mean cloud cooling from the Sun (shortwave
radiation) is roughly canceled by cloud warming caused by heat emitted by longwave radiation from the surface. The strong
increase of longwave radiation is shown in the study to be due to increasing cloudiness, rising temperature, rising water vapor, and
above all to long-lived manmade greenhouse gases. The scientists' radiation measurements in the Alps show that the various
inputs, or forcings, can be separated and that manmade greenhouse forcing is measurable at Earth's surface. Above all, their
measurements demonstrate strong water vapor feedback that rapidly warms Central and Northeastern Europe, where sufficient
water is available from plants and the surface, known as evapotranspiration.
14
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback – Water Vapor

Water vapor acts as a positive feedback – it accounts for 70 percent of the
greenhouse effect\
Brendan I. Koerner, contributing editor at Wired and a columnist for Gizmodo, 1/22/08 (“Is Global Warming Caused by Water
Vapor?” Slate < http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/>)
It's unassailably true that water vapor is the gas most responsible for the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases let shortwave solar
radiation through the atmosphere, but impede the escape of long-wave radiation from the Earth's surface. This process keeps
the planet at a livable temperature: Without a suitably balanced mixture of water vapor, CO2, methane, and other gases in the
atmosphere, the planet's average surface temperature would be somewhere between -9 and -34 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the
balmy 59 degrees it is today. By mass and volume, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to
both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water vapor accounts for somewhere between 60
percent and 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. (The 98-percent figure, much beloved by global-warming skeptics, seems to have
been first used in a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen. He cites a 1990 IPCC report as his source, but the report doesn't appear to contain
that number.) The skeptical argument thus goes something like this: Since water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and since
this vapor is created through natural evaporation rather than human activity, the current warming trend is nothing to worry about—just
the Earth going through a normal climatic cycle. But this viewpoint ignores the reactive nature of water vapor—in other words, the
gas doesn't cause warming all by its lonesome. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is almost purely a function of
temperature—the warmer the air gets, the more vapor it's able to glean from the planet. We know, for example, that the
atmospheric water content over the oceans has increased (PDF) by 0.41 kilograms per square meter every 10 years since 1988. So,
what's causing the temperature rise that's resulted in greater evaporation? Well, over that same time period, global emissions of carbon
dioxide have soared. And unlike water vapor, which returns to Earth as precipitation within a week of entering the atmosphere, CO2
sticks around for between 50 and 200 years. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse effect, so it's
pretty clear that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is playing a significant role in recent warming. (This warming might have
been even greater if not for the ability of the planet's oceans to absorb heat.) Warmed by CO2, the atmosphere is thus able to
absorb more water vapor. And that water vapor, in turn, causes further warming—it amplifies the effects of carbon dioxide. So
anthropogenic CO2 serves as the chief engine of global warming, with water vapor playing a crucial secondary role. According
to the IPCC, if CO2 emissions were to double, water vapor would amplify the resulting temperature change by another 60
percent. Furthermore, a 2005 article in the journal Science forecast that the amount of water vapor in the upper troposphere will
double by the end of this century, as a result of higher temperatures caused in part by the vapor itself. (Scientists refer to this situation
as positive feedback.)
15
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback

Positive feedback outweighs negative feedback – must take action now
The Independent 2/11/06 (“Why flutter of butterfly's wings explains global warming; ANALYSIS” Lexis)
We know that the global climate is influenced by complex interactions between the weather systems of the oceans and those of the
atmosphere. Land, too, plays its part, whether it is the effect of snow and ice reflecting sunlight and hence heat due to the "albedo
effect", or mountain ranges that influence the direction of prevailing winds. Scientists have also come to understand the nature of
some of the "feedbacks" that can influence both the speed and the direction of climate change. Some of these are positive feedbacks,
which accelerate the rate of warming, and some are negative, which tend to keep global warming in check by cooling things down.
Unfortunately it appears that positive feedbacks threaten to exert a stronger influence than the known negative feedbacks.
Perhaps we can hope that there are still some little-understood negative feedbacks that could kick in. Scientists for instance
have only just understood how the winter snow in the forests of the Rocky Mountains acts like a thermal blanket, causing soil
microbes to remain warm and so breathe out more carbon dioxide in the winter months. Less snow cover actually means colder
soil temperatures and hence the release of less carbon dioxide. Nobody, least of all the climate scientists, would say we know all there
is to know about climate change. And however bleak the outlook, there is still every reason we should take action now to
minimise carbon dioxide emissions. Although we can expect matters to get worse, how much worse they eventually get relies
largely on what we as a global community are prepared to do now. That's why we have no time to lose.
16
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**AT: Positive Feedback**
17
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Timeframe = 10 years
We have 10 years before runaway warming – top scientist
Steve Connor, staff writer, 1/3/07 (“Less than 10 years to save Earth: expert” Canberra Times – A; Pg. 1. Lexis)
Dr James Hansen, one of the first scientists to warn of climate change in scientific testimony to the US Congress in 1988, claims
that we have less than 10 years to begin to curb carbon dioxide emissions before global warming runs out of control and
changes the landscape forever. His frightening prediction coincided with international warnings that a combination of global warming
and the "El Nino" weather system is set to make 2007 the warmest year on record with far- reaching consequences for the planet.The
World Meteorological Organisation said the weather pattern was already having "early and intense" effects, including
drought in Australia and dramatically warm seas in the Indian Ocean, which could affect monsoons. Director of the NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr Hansen said there were already worrying signs that global warming was beginning to
trigger dangerous "positive feedbacks" within the climate, which could accelerate the rate of climate change. "We just cannot
burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet," he said in an interview. "I mean a planet with
no ice in the Arctic, and a planet where warming is so large that it's going to have a large effect in terms of sea level rises and the
extinction of species." Positive feedbacks in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere were already starting. One was the loss of
sea ice, which meant less sunlight and heat was reflected back into space, making the Arctic even warmer. Another was the release of
methane from the frozen tundra. Methane gas was 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, Dr Hansen said.
"The greatest concern is that positive feedbacks at high latitudes do in fact seem to be coming into play. We can't just let those
feedbacks get out of control or we will have passed a tipping point," he said. "If we go another 10 years, by 2015, at the current
rate of growth of Co2 emissions, which is about 2 per cent per year, the emissions in 2015 with be 35 per cent larger than they
were in 2000. But if we want to get on a scenario that keeps global temperature in the range that it's been in for the last million years
we would need to decrease the emissions by something of the order of 25 per cent by the middle of the century and by something like
75 per cent by the end of the century," he said. The continuing rise in carbon dioxide emissions and average global temperatures
was on schedule to cause the eventual collapse of the ice sheets on both Greenland and the West Antarctic, with a catastrophic rise
in sea levels. "If we follow business as usual, and we don't get off this course where year by year we're getting larger and larger
emissions of Co2, then we'll have large sea-level rises this century and I think that will become more apparent over the next decade or
two," Dr Hansen said. "The last time it was 3C warmer, sea levels were 25m higher, plus or minus 10m. You'd not get that in one
century, but you could get several metres in one century," he said. "Half the people in the world live within 15 miles of a coastline.
A large fraction of the major cities are on coastlines. And the problem is that once you get the process started and well on the
way, it's impossible to prevent it. That's why we need to address the issue before it gets out of control," he said.
18
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Carbon Sinks

Carbon sinks are saturated
Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, 5/18/07 (“Earth's natural defences against climate change 'beginning to fail'” The
Independent. Lexis)
The increased winds are believed to be caused by altered atmospheric temperature regimes produced by two separate processes - the
depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica by chlorofluorocarbon gases from aerosol spray cans (now phased out), and global
warming. It is thus a positive feedback - an effect of climate change which itself makes climate change worse. Some researchers fear
that feedbacks may make global warming happen much faster, and harder to control, than generally appreciated. The
pessimism of scientists such as James Lovelock is largely based on the fact that most feedbacks in the earth's system are likely to
work against us. "This is the first unequivocal detection of a carbon sink weakening because of recent climate change," said the
lead author of the study, Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia. "This is serious. Whenever the world has greatly
warmed in the past, the weakening of CO2 sinks has contributed to it."
Carbon sinks cant solve warming – they are reaching saturation points
Robert Sanders, Media Relations, 8/2/05 “Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and ocean to absorb
carbon” UC Berkley News < http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml>)
"If we maintain our current course of fossil fuel emissions or accelerate our emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to
slow the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're doing now," said Inez Y. Fung at the University of California,
Berkeley, who is director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center, co-director of the new Berkeley Institute of the
Environment, and professor of earth and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and management. "It's all about
rates. If the rate of fossil fuel emissions is too high, the carbon storage capacity of the land and oceans decreases and climate
warming accelerates." Fung is lead author of a paper describing the climate model results that appears this week in the Early Online
Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Fung was a member of the National Academy of Sciences
panel on global climate change that issued a major report for President Bush in 2001 claiming, for the first time, that global
warming exists and that humans are contributing to it. Currently, the land and oceans absorb about half of the carbon dioxide
produced by human activity, most of it resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, Fung said. Some scientists have suggested that the
land and oceans will continue to absorb more and more CO2 as fossil fuel emissions increase, making plants flourish and the
oceans bloom. Fung's computer model, however, indicates that the "breathing biosphere" can absorb carbon only so fast.
Beyond a certain point, the planet will not be able to keep up with carbon dioxide emissions. "The reason is very simple," Fung
said. "Plants are happy growing at a certain rate, and though they can accelerate to a certain extent with more CO2, the rate is
limited by metabolic reactions in the plant, by water and nutrient availability, et cetera."
19
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth

Turn – increase carbon dioxide emissions destroy plant growth and carbon
sinks
In addition, increasing temperatures and drought frequencies lower plant uptake of CO2 as plants breathe in less to conserve
water. A second study she and colleagues published last week in PNAS report evidence for this temperature and drought effect. Since
1982, a greening of the Northern Hemisphere has occurred each spring and summer (except for 1992 and 1993, after Mt. Pinatubo
erupted) as the climate has steadily warmed. As a result, there is a small but steady decline in atmospheric CO2 each growing season
due to increasing photosynthesis at temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. When Fung and a team of her former and current
post-doctoral fellows took a detailed look at this phenomenon, however, they discovered that since 1994, enhanced uptake of CO2 as
photosynthesis revved up in the warm wet springs was offset by decreasing CO2 uptake during summers, which became increasingly
hot and dry - an unsuspected browning in the past 10 years. "This negative effect of hot, dry summers completely wiped out the
benefits of warm, wet springs," Fung said. "A warming climate does not necessarily lead to higher CO2 growing-season uptake,
even in temperate areas such as North America." In the climate modeling study published this week in PNAS, she and colleagues
found that similar water stress could slow the uptake of CO2 by terrestrial vegetation, and at some point, the rate of fossil fuel
CO2 emissions will outstrip the ability of the vegetation to keep up, leading to a rise in atmospheric CO2, increased greenhouse
temperatures and increased frequency of droughts. An amplifying loop leads to ever higher temperatures, more droughts and
higher CO2 levels. The oceans exhibit a similar trend, Fung said, though less pronounced. There, mixing by turbulence in the ocean
is essential for moving CO2 down into the deep ocean, away from the top 100 meters of the ocean, where carbon absorption from the
atmosphere takes place. With increased temperatures, the ocean stratifies more, mixing becomes harder, and CO2 accumulates
in the surface ocean instead of in the deep ocean. This accumulation creates a back pressure, lowering CO2 absorption. In all,
business as usual would lead to a 1.4 degree Celsius, or 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, rise in global temperatures by the year 2050. This
estimate is at the low range of projected increases for the 21st century, Fung said, though overall, the model is in line with others
predicting large ecosystem changes, especially in the tropics. With voluntary controls that flatten fossil fuel CO2 emission rates by
the end of the century, the land and oceans could keep up with CO2 levels and continue to absorb at their current rate, the model
indicates. "This is not a prediction, but a guideline or indication of what could happen," Fung said. "Climate prediction is a work
in progress, but this model tells us that, given the increases in greenhouse gases, the Earth will warm up; and given warming, hot
places are likely to be drier, and the land and oceans are going to take in carbon at a slower rate; and therefore, we will see an
amplification or acceleration of global warming." "The Earth is entering a climate space we've never seen before, so we can't
predict exactly what will happen," she added. "We don't know where the threshold is. A two degree increase in global
temperatures may not sound like much, but if we're on the threshold, it could make a big difference."
20
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth – Prefer Our Models

Prefer our ev – our models take into account thousands of factors and are
backed by qualified organizations
Fung and colleagues have worked for several decades to produce a model of the Earth's carbon cycle that includes not only
details of how vegetation takes up and releases carbon, but also details of decomposition by microbes in the soil, the carbon
chemistry of oceans and lakes, the influence of rain and clouds, and many other sources and sinks for carbon. The model takes
into account thousands of details, ranging from carbon uptake by leaves, stems and roots to the different ways that forest litter
decomposes, day-night shifts in plant respiration, the salinity of oceans and seas, and effects of temperature, rainfall, cloud cover and
wind speed on all these interactions. "This is a very rough schematic of the life cycle of the ecosystem," she said. Five years ago, she
set out with colleagues Scott C. Doney of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, Keith Lindsay of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., and Jasmin John of UC Berkeley to integrate the carbon cycle model
into one of the standard climate models in use today - NCAR's Community Climate System Model (CCSM). All of today's climate
models are able to incorporate the climate effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but only with concentrations of CO2 specified
by the modelers. Fung's model does not specify atmospheric CO2 levels, but rather predicts the levels, given fossil fuel emissions. The
researchers used observations of the past two centuries to make sure that their model is "reasonable," and then used the model to
project what will happen in the next 100 years, with the help of supercomputers at NCAR and the National Energy Research Scientific
Computer Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). The climate model coupled with the carbon cycle has been her
goal for decades, as she tried to convince climate modelers that "whether plants are happy or not happy has an influence on climate
projections. To include interactive biogeochemistry in climate models, which up to now embrace primarily physics and dynamics, is
new." She admits, however, that much work remains to be done to improve modeling. Methane and sulfate cycles must be included,
plus effects like changes in plant distribution with rising temperatures, the possible increase in fires, disease or insect pests, and even
the effects of dust in the oceans. "We have created a blueprint, in terms of a climate modeling framework, that will allow us to go
beyond the physical climate models to more sophisticated models," she said. "Then, hopefully, we can understand what is going on
now and what could happen. This understanding could guide our choices for the future." The studies were supported by the
National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, LBNL and the Ocean and Climate Change
Institute of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
21
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Anthropogenic
Warming is not anthropogenic and runaway warming is empirically denied
James A. Marusek, Nuclear Physicist & Engineer at the U.S. Department of the Navy, 3/9/04 (“Is The Global Warming Theory
Defective?”
The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to
compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early
history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not
produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today? Many studies have shown that plant life is
actually responding to an uptick in carbon dioxide levels. Plant life thrives under enriched carbon dioxide levels. As
atmospheric carbon dioxide increases toward 0.10% level, plant life explodes becoming more productive and stronger, better
able to ward off disease and insects. Over the long run this should bring stability and reduction in carbon dioxide levels.
Another component of the theory is that mankind is responsible for the elevated carbon dioxide levels. Most of this element of
the theory is focused on the destruction of forest and polluting the atmosphere from factories and automobiles. Carbon dioxide levels
have risen slightly over the past few decades and this points to an imbalance in the carbon cycle. But to understand the cause of this
rise, it is important to look at the complete picture. After all in the United States, the forest acreage has been expanding and
pollution levels have been declining. The carbon cycle consists of two parts. Through photosynthesis, plants, bacteria and plankton
uptake carbon dioxide, releasing oxygen and producing organic carbon (life). But this organic carbon will revert back to carbon
dioxide when this life dies. But another type of life, marine & terrestrial animals can convert this organic carbon and sequester this
carbon for long-term storage. Animals can consume organic carbon and transform it into calcium carbonate in the exoskeletons
(shells) or internal skeletons (bones). When animals die, this carbon is buried in the earth for long-term storage. This is a two-part
process, a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals, and two forms of life that naturally locks down carbon dioxide levels
resulting in a balanced system. A large portion of the lock down of carbon dioxide takes place in the oceans. Phytoplanktons are the
most abundant photosynthetic organism on the Earth and account for approximately three fourths of the Earth’s oxygen supply.
Twenty thousand of these microscopic organisms can be found in one drop of seawater. Satellite and shipping data shows there has
been a very dramatic decline in phytoplankton. The imbalance in the ocean ecosystem is the primary cause of the rising
carbon dioxide levels. I suspect this is due to invasive species transported by the shipping industry in ballast water. There is 10 billion
tons of ballast water carried around the world each year. The hitchhiking marine life contained in this water invades new
environments and alters ecosystems.
Warming is not anthropogenic, it’s a natural cycle and other planets prove
Brad Knickerbocker, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 9/20/07 (“Global-warming skeptics: Might warming be
'normal'?” Christian Science Monitor – FEATURES, CURRENTS; Pg. 14. Lexis)
But unlike most climate scientists, he does not believe that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases - mainly from coal-
fired power plants and motor vehicles spewing carbon dioxide - are the main culprits. In fact, he says, "It's my belief that in the
last 100 years or so natural variations have played a bigger role." Among the forces of nature he cites are changes in solar
radiation, "very significant influences" of the tropical Pacific (El Nino and La Nina events in decades-long cycles), as well as
changes in Earth's tilt and orbit over cycles lasting thousands of years. Above all, says Mr. Taylor, who is past president of the
American Association of State Climatologists, "The climate system is very, very complex, and the more we learn, the more we see that
we really don't understand it." Taylor may be in the minority among climate experts, but he is not alone. Other planets in our solar
system have expanding and contracting ice caps, too, other skeptics point out, and those worlds have no people as far as we know -
certainly no gas-guzzling muscle cars and trucks. Antarctica and Greenland at times have been warm and green before humankind
inÂ-Â-vented machines, indicating to these skeptics that this is just a natural cycle. In Phoenix, where it's been very hot indeed this
summer, Warren Meyer has written "A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming." He is not a professionally
trained climate scientist, but he studied physics and engineering at Princeton University, then earned an MBA at Harvard University
before entering the business world. Like Taylor, Mr. Meyer cites other possible factors - ocean oscillations and currents, sunspot
cycles, and recovery from the "Little Ice Age" (which ran for roughly three to four centuries, up to the mid-19th century) - to argue
that "we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man-made carbon dioxide." He says he's carefully
studied the official reports and assertions about global warming and come to the conclusion that "it's a funny sort of anthropomorphic
hubris to say that we know what 'normal' is or even know what the cycles are. "Look, there's a lot going on here that we've observed
for a very short time," Mr. Meyer says. "We have all these complicated cycles happening, and many of them last for thousands or
millions of years. And we've observed them carefully for - what? - 30 years?"
22
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Permafrost
Ultraviolet radiation and lifespan mitigate methane’s effect
Mongobay 2/21/08 (“Melting of permafrost could trigger rapid global warming warns UN” <
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-methane.html>)
Most methane emissions never reach the atmosphere -- they are broken down by ultraviolet radiation. For methane that does
reach the atmosphere, the gas has a lifetime of about eight years. In contrast, carbon dioxide can last a century in the atmosphere. As
such, atmospheric methane levels can be quickly reduced, while carbon dioxide accumulates and presents a long-term
problem. Still, methane levels have more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, and
annual emissions have again begun to creep up after declining in the 1990s. Further, when methane oxidizes, its carbon element still
affects the climate as carbon dioxide. The U.N. report notes "the consequences of increased amounts of methane entering the
atmosphere depend on whether it is released instantaneously or at a slow, chronic pace."
23
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Clouds
Clouds don’t block radiation –its outweighed by elevated greenhouse gases –
studies prove
Brendan I. Koerner, contributing editor at Wired and a columnist for Gizmodo, 1/22/08 (“Is Global Warming Caused by Water
Vapor?” Slate < http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/>)
A common skeptical rebuttal to these assertions cites the role of water vapor in forming clouds; those clouds, the argument goes,
will help block solar radiation and therefore compensate for the greenhouse effect. But a 2005 report by Swiss researchers
concluded that this wasn't the case in the Alps, where they monitored climactic conditions over a seven-year period. Even though
the mountains' northern slopes experienced increasing cloud cover over this span, temperatures nevertheless rose steadily; the
clouds' cooling effects couldn't compensate for the warming associated with elevated greenhouse-gas levels.
Turns – Clouds act as positive feedbacks – NASA satellites prove

CNN 10/9/2K (“Clouds' role in global warming studied” <
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/10/09/clouds.warming.enn/index.html>)
However, after three years of observations of low stratus, cumulus and stratocumulus clouds over land, Anthony Del Genio of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies discovered that when air temperatures were higher, clouds were thinner and thus less
capable of reflecting sunlight. These thinner clouds occurred regardless of weather conditions, season or time of day. "The bottoms
of the clouds rise with warmer temperatures, while the top of the cloud stays the same so the clouds become thinner," explained Del
Genio. "When low clouds are present, warmer air flowing over land tends to be drier. As a parcel of dry air rises, it has to rise farther
before it saturates with enough water to form the cloud base." And, Del Genio disputes a theory that rising carbon dioxide levels
would have only a slight impact on global temperatures because the theory doesn't take into account real world cloud behavior. "The
minimum amount of warming predicted by scientists - 3 degrees Fahrenheit - should be increased by at least 1 F as a result of the new
findings," said Del Genio. The current range of 21st century warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
is 3-8 F. The IPCC will release its updated global warming assessment early next year. Del Genio studied more than 3,000
individual cloud "snapshots" collected between 1994 and 1997 at the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
Southern Great Plains field station. Using a unique system of ground-based and satellite instruments, each snapshot recorded
the air temperature, the height of the bottom and top of the cloud, and the amount of liquid water in the cloud. The more liquid
water in a cloud and the thicker the cloud, the more opaque it is and the more sunlight it reflects. "We concluded that over more than
half of the world, when the temperatures were warmer, the low-level clouds reflect less sunlight, which will only exacerbate
global warming," said Del Genio. The link between cloud thinning and temperature was initially observed in 1992 over much of the
world with long-term satellite observations. George Tselioudis, William Rossow and David Rind of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies published the observation using the NASA-funded International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project database, a global
composite of cloud observations from international weather satellites. "In the larger context of the global warming debate I'd say
we shouldn't look for clouds to get us out of this mess," said Del Genio. "This is just one aspect of clouds, but this is the part people
assumed would make global warming less severe."
24
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Negative Feedback**
25
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Negative Feedback – Clouds

Clouds act as a negative feedback
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2/97 (“Earth’s Annual Global Mean
Energy Budget” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2,)
For clear skies, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 60% of the total. The second most important
greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s
(1993) estimate of 50 W m-2. The re n sults in the column for combined effects were obtained by splitting the overlap effects among
the gases. This is approximate but enables us to arrive at representative percent contributions for each absorber. Because there is
strong overlap between clouds and water vapor, the radiative forcing of water vapor is significantly different (22 W m-2)
between clear and cloudy conditions. The longwave radiative forcing by other gases is less affected by the presence of clouds, but
cloud influence is still important since the total radiative forcing for clear and cloudy conditions differs by 39 W m-2, a value that is as
large as the longwave cloud forcing. Thus, clouds have a direct effect on the longwave flux escaping to space due to their
absorption and emission, and they have an indirect effect on the flux by shielding absorption and emission by gases (mainly
water vapor). Our cloudy radiative forcing calculations are in good agreement with the results of Ramanathan and Coakley (1978),
who also provided results for c2loudy conditions.
Clouds would reduce warming by 75 percent – their models are outdated

Steven Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 11/1/07 (“Clouds Mitigate Global Warming, New Evidence
Shows” Heartland Institute < http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22205>)
As opposed to the hypothesized positive feedback of the climate models, the UAH data show a strong negative feedback. As the
tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease, allowing infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space. "To give
an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce [climate model-
based] estimates of future warming by 75 percent," said UAH researcher Roy Spencer in a media release. "The role of clouds in
global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify
warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would
substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."
Clouds reflect radiation – satellites prove

Jeff Hecht, staff writer, 1/22/94 (“Science: Clouds hold the key to global warming theory” New Scientist
< http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119092.800-science-clouds-hold-the-key-to-global-warming-theory-.html>)
NASA scientists claim to have worked out why climatologists have failed to predict the pattern of global warming over the past
century. According to George Tselioudis at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, no one has taken account of
the varying amounts of sunlight that clouds reflect back into space. Current climate models predict that most of the warming
caused by the greenhouse effect should occur at the Earth's poles. However, this trend is not borne out by observations. Tselioudis
and his colleagues have studied new satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and found that
variations in sunlight reflected by low clouds may offset greenhouse warming. The reflection of sunlight into space was already
known to affect global temperatures, but no one understood the details of the process. Climate modellers have built in the degree of
cloud cover into their models, but they have always ignored variations in reflectivity, assuming that higher temperatures increase
the reflectivity by the same amount everywhere. Such a 'negative feedback' would put the brakes on temperature rise.
26
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Negative Feedback – El Niño

El Nino acts as a negative feedback
CNN 4/15/99 (“Scientists: El Niño may slow global warming” < http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9904/15/el.nino.warming/)
Finally, someone has something nice to say about El Niño. Researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
found that from 1991 to 1994 -- years when El Niño warmed the Pacific -- the ocean released 30 percent to 80 percent less carbon
dioxide, a gas that is believed to trap heat in the atmosphere. The finding was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
Scientists commonly estimate how much carbon dioxide should be in the atmosphere by calculating how much fossil fuel is burned.
But some 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide go unaccounted for each year. According to the NOAA research, reduced carbon dioxide
releases in the Pacific during El Niño could account for about 16 percent to 36 percent of this "missing" CO2. "Obviously, we are
very, very interested in where the CO2, which we are releasing every year during fossil fuel burning, ends up," said Rik Wanninkhof,
an NOAA oceanographer. Understanding the year-to-year changes in CO2 levels is key to explaining how the oceans, the land and the
atmosphere regulate Earth's climate. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been rising for decades, a phenomenon blamed on
increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Some scientists say this has contributed to this century's global warming trend.
Previously, episodes of El Niño -- the naturally occurring, cyclical warming of the Pacific blamed for causing uproars in
weather patterns -- were shown to spur more plant growth, which in turn sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The
NOAA research shows yet another way El Niño helps reduce CO2 levels. Usually, the equatorial waters of the Pacific are the source
of three-quarters of the carbon dioxide released by the world's tropical oceans. The northern Pacific sucks up all of that carbon and
more each year, making it one of the biggest "carbon sinks," or areas that absorb carbon dioxide. El Niño intensifies that process:
The trade winds along the equator die down, so the upwelling of cold, carbon-rich waters decreases and less CO2 is sent into
the atmosphere.
27
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Negative Feedback - Aerosols

Turn – plan cuts down aerosol – they are a key negative feedback
Ian Sample, Science correspondent, 12/22/05 “Pollutants ward off global warming, study finds: Research prompts rethink into
effect of aerosols: Particles reflect more heat than previously assumed” pg 8. Lexi
Cutting air pollution could trigger a greater surge in global warming than previously thought, suggesting future rises in sea level
and other environmental consequences have been underestimated, climate scientists report today. The warning comes after
researchers investigated the effect of fine particles known as aerosols on climate change. Aerosols - particles smaller than one
hundredth of a millimetre - are churned out from factory chimneys, from the burning of fossil fuels and forest fires, although sea
salt and dust particles swept up by desert storms add to levels detected in the atmosphere. Because the particles are so light, they
remain aloft for long periods, where they cool the Earth by reflecting radiation from the sun back out to space. Higher levels of
aerosols lead to the formation of brighter clouds made up of smaller water droplets, which reflect still more of the sun's
warming radiation. Cutting down on aerosols by improving air quality means that the Earth will in future be less shielded
against the sun's rays. Writing in the journal Nature today, scientists at the Meteorological Office and the US government's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that climate models used to predict future global warming have badly
underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols.
28
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Negative Feedbacks O/W Positive Feedbacks

Negative feedbacks dominate positive feedbacks – physics proves
Brad Knickerbocker, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 9/20/07 (“Global-warming skeptics: Might warming be
'normal'?” Christian Science Monitor – FEATURES, CURRENTS; Pg. 14. Lexis)
Meyer contends that in physics (and in nature) the tendency is just the opposite: a "negative feedback" will occur as CO2 levels
rise - in other words, cooling mechanisms will set in. In the case of carbon dioxide and global temperature, "future CO2 has less
impact on temperature than past CO2," he says. One bit of recent research may give some weight to Meyer's argument.
Researchers at the University of Alabama's Earth System Science Center in Huntsville studied heat-trapping tropical clouds thought
to result from global warming. They found an apparent decrease in such clouds as the atmosphere warms, allowing more infrared
heat to escape from the atmosphere. The cloud decrease appears to be "negative feedback," meaning that as warming continues
it sets off another process that counters its effects.
29
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Forest = Negative Feedbacks

Turn – forest act as positive feedbacks
Sarah Graham, Senior Producer at The New York Times, 4/22/03 “Rain Forests Release Carbon Dioxide in Response to Warmer
Temperatures” Scientific America < http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rain-forests-release-carb>
Because forests can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by the burning of fossil fuels, they have been labeled carbon sinks.
But as the global atmospheric burden of CO2 continues to rise, scientists are realizing that the situation may not be quite so cut-
and-dried. According to a report published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, increasing
temperatures could cause rain forests to release unusually high levels of CO2, thereby amplifying the effects of future
warming. Deborah A. Clark of the University of Missouri-St. Louis and her colleagues measured the annual growth of six species of
trees in an old-growth rain forest in La Selva, Costa Rica, between 1984 and 2000. The researchers also used data from global climate
monitoring stations to calculate CO2 emissions from tropical lands over the same time period. Tree growth and the amount of carbon
dioxide exchange both varied greatly over the 16-year period, and both were correlated with temperature. In addition, during the
warmest years--particularly the record-breaking 1997-1998 El Nino episode--the rain-forest trees experienced the least growth
and expelled the most carbon dioxide, the scientists report. They conclude that the carbon balance of the La Selva rain forest is
remarkably sensitive to increasing temperatures. Tropical rain forests could thus potentially induce a large positive feedback for
global CO2 atmospheric accumulation. Note the authors: "Such a feedback in future years would accelerate global warming."
30
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Warming Impacts**
31
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming = Population Shifts

Ice melting triggers rapid population shifts
Thomas Homer-Dixon, political scientist at the University of Toronto, 12/1/07 (“Don't accentuate positive feedbacks - not in this
neighbourhood; With cracks and holes in the Greenland ice sheet, we may well have to 'geo-engineer' the climate” The Globe and
Mail. Lexis)
The second issue that particularly concerns climate scientists is ice-sheet dynamics. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass
of ice in the world, after Antarctica's. If we melt Greenland entirely, the sea level rises by seven metres. The recent IPCC estimate of
sea-level rise by 2100 was only 20 to 60 centimetres, because the report assumed Greenland's melting would take many centuries. In
the past two years, though, two studies using very different methods have suggested that the ice sheet is now melting much faster
than expected - at a rate of 200 to 250 cubic kilometres a year. According to the most recent study, which used satellite
measurements of Earth's gravity to estimate changes in Greenland's mass of ice, that rate has doubled in the past 10 years.
Climate scientists now recognize that the ice-sheet melting models in the IPCC reports were radically inadequate. These models were
"static"; they assumed that atmospheric warming melts the ice, and the resulting water then runs off the surface of the ice sheet into
the ocean. Scientists now know that these ice sheets have cracks in them. In the summer, melt water runs down the cracks, and
as these expand into wide gaps, millions more tonnes flow downward. This water takes heat to the bottom of the ice sheets and
also lubricates the movement of glaciers into the ocean. Commenting on the Ilulissat glacier in northwest Greenland just a few
weeks ago, Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said, "We have seen a massive acceleration of the
speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at two metres an hour on a front five kilometres long
and 1,500 metres deep." He had flown over the glacier and seen "gigantic holes in it through which swirling masses of melt water
were falling. I first looked at this glacier in the 1960s and there were no holes. These so-called moulins, 10 to 15 metres across, have
opened up all over the place. There are hundreds of them." The consensus now emerging is that oceans will rise by a metre this
century and perhaps even two. A two-metre rise would have enormous effects on coastal areas of Canada - on places where people
live in Victoria and Vancouver (especially on Delta and Richmond in the Lower Mainland) and on the ports of Vancouver, St John's
and Halifax. With such a rise, concerns about rebuilding infrastructure and moving people inland will - in a few decades -
become real, even urgent.
32
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming = Nuclear War

Warming is the equivalent of nuclear war and leads to multiple scenarios of
instability and conflict
Jeremy Lovell, writer for Reuters, 9/12/07 “Global Warming Impact Like ‘Nuclear War’” Common Dreams <
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/12/3791/>
Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on
Wednesday. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields
and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife. While everyone had now
started to recognize the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective leadership to tackle it and no one could tell
precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it added. “The most recent international moves towards combating global warming
represent a recognition … that if the emission of greenhouse gases … is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be
catastrophic — on the level of nuclear war,” the IISS report said. “Even if the international community succeeds in adopting
comprehensive and effective measures to mitigate climate change, there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the
environment, economies and human security,” it added. Scientists say global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0
degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport. The IISS report said the effects would cause a host of
problems including rising sea levels, forced migration, freak storms, droughts, floods, extinctions, wildfires, disease epidemics, crop
failures and famines. The impact was already being felt — particularly in conflicts in Kenya and Sudan — and more was expected in
places from Asia to Latin America as dwindling resources led to competition between haves and have nots. “We can all see that
climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas,” said IISS transnational
threat specialist Nigel Inkster. “What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them.” The report, an annual survey of the impact
of world events on global security, said conflicts and state collapses due to climate change would reduce the world’s ability to
tackle the causes and to reduce the effects of global warming. State failures would increase the gap between rich and poor and
heighten racial and ethnic tensions which in turn would produce fertile breeding grounds for more conflict.
33
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming = Flooding (TF)

Global warming can cause flooding in ten seconds.
Fred Pearce, environment consultant and leading contributor to New Scientist magazine, 11/18/2006,
Melting ice turns up the heat,
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)NEWS AND FEATURES; Comment; Pg. 35,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ze7G1STG1vAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA463&dq=prevent,+acid+
rain,+SO2,+nuclear+power,+warming+&ots=yDKuInXkXx&sig=wA013MGGh_wpoRjtmyu_1-
9JAwI#PPP1,M1
RICHARD ALLEY's eyes glint as we discuss how fast global warming could cause sea levels to rise. The scientist sums up the
state of knowledge: "We used to think that it would take 10,000 years for melting at the surface of an ice sheet to penetrate down
to the bottom. Now we know it doesn't take 10,000 years, it takes 10 seconds."
That highlights why scientists are panicky about the sheer speed and violence with which climate change could take hold. They
are realising that their old ideas about gradual change - the smooth lines on graphs showing warming and sea-level rise and
gradually shifting weather patterns - are not how the world's climate system works.
The conventional view holds that sea levels will start to rise as a pulse of warming works its way gradually from the surface
through the two kilometre- and three kilometre-thick ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and melts them. The ice is thick and
the heat will penetrate slowly. So we have hundreds, probably thousands, of years to make our retreat to higher ground.
Recent research, however, shows that idea is wrong. Glaciologists forgot about crevasses. What is actually happening is that ice
is melting at the surface and forming lakes that drain down into the crevasses. In 10 seconds, the water is at the base of the ice
sheet, where it lubricates the join between ice and rock. Then the whole ice sheet starts to slide downhill towards the ocean.
"These flows completely change our understanding of the dynamics of ice sheet destruction," says Alley. "Even five years ago
we didn't know about this."
34
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Warming = Coral Bleaching/Runaway Warming

Warming causes coral bleaching – threatens marine eco-systems and
unleashes runaway warming
Peter Pockley, Nature staff writer, 7/8/99 “Global warming 'could kill most coral reefs by 2100” Nature <
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6740/full/400098b0.html>
An Australian scientist has identified global warming as the most likely culprit for last year's widespread coral bleaching, and
predicts that similar events are likely to occur annually in most tropical oceans within 30-50 years. The warning came this week
from Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Sydney, who has studied for the past 15 years how the normally brilliant colours of
coral turn white. He predicts that coral reefs "could be eliminated from most areas by 2100". The potential impact on economic
activity on reefs, especially fishing and tourism, is substantial. There are also implications for policies to curb global warming. The
prediction is likely to have particular impact in Australia, where the government remains sceptical of a link between increasing
temperatures and environmental degradation. Corals obtain foods through the algae that live symbiotically within them. Bleaching
occurs when the algae are expelled owing to damage by light at higher than normal temperatures, leaving stark, white
skeletons. Hoegh-Guldberg and Sandra Ward of the University of Sydney, and Peter Harrison of Southern Cross University, obtained
results from six tanks placed on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Corals were studied as the temperature of the seawater was artificially
increased. Once above the ambient 26-28 °C, there was a 10 per cent decrease in the rate of fertilization. At 32 °C, the rate of
reproduction dropped dramatically to 40 per cent, and at 34 °C there was almost none. Other evidence linking warming with
bleaching came from satellite measurements of the temperature of the sea surface, gathered by the US National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. During last year, the worst on record for bleaching, wherever the temperature
was only one degree above ambient, mass death of corals occurred. Now, in what is claimed to be the first application of computer
models to coral reef research, Hoegh-Guldberg has projected how the climate will change in regions where corals grow. He claims to
have shown that, unless global warming is arrested, coral bleaching will occur more frequently, and more intensely, until by 2030
it will appear every year. Every coral reef examined showed the same drastic trend, with consistency between the major oceans,
although the rate of bleaching onset differs. Caribbean and Southeast Asian reefs would be hit first with annual bleaching by 2020,
whereas central Pacific reefs would not be affected for another two decades, it is predicted. The Great Barrier Reef sits between the
two extremes, with annual bleaching being predicted by 2030. "The rapidity and extent of the changes, if realized, spell
catastrophe for tropical marine ecosystems everywhere, and suggest that unrestrained warming cannot occur without the
complete loss of coral reefs on a global scale," says Hoegh-Guldberg.
35
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Turn – Carbon Emissions = Amazon 2NC

Carbon emissions cause Amazon extinction
Nature 5/8/08 “Abstractions” < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/full/7192xiib.html>
In 2000, researchers predicted that warming equatorial oceans would cause permanent El Niño conditions, which would shift tropical
rainfall patterns away from the Amazon rainforest. In 2005, the rainforest did experience severe drought, but El Niño was not to
blame. On page 212, climate modeller Peter Cox from the University of Exeter and his colleagues reveal that in recent years an
interplay between two types of pollutant — sulphate aerosols and greenhouse gases — balanced global climate. But, Cox tells Nature,
if aerosol pollution continues to decline without concomitant carbon dioxide abatement, the Amazon may not survive another
50 years. You made an early career switch from physicist to climate modeller. Why? In the 1980s, I worked on nuclear fusion in the
effort to find a replacement energy source for declining coal and oil reserves. But as we began to realize that burning existing fossil
fuels damaged the environment, I became interested in the more pressing issue of predicting future climate change. Why did you
initially include aerosols in climate models? You can't reproduce the last century's observed climate warming, including the brief mid-
century period of global cooling, without taking aerosols and greenhouse gases into account. Sulphate aerosols cause cooling both
by reflecting sunlight themselves and by making clouds brighter, and so more reflective. But for the past couple of decades, the
combined effect of reduced aerosol pollution and increasing greenhouse gases has led to accelerated global warming. Are you
suggesting that aerosol pollution could stave off climate change? No. To improve air quality we need to reduce sulphur emissions.
The key is to reduce CO2 emissions. Our model suggests that the Amazon rainforest won't dry significantly if we can keep
atmospheric CO2 levels below about 500 parts per million. Rather perversely, one way to slow CO2 increases is to reduce the rate of
deforestation in Amazonia.
Amazon key to survival

Stuart Winter, Environment Editor, 8/16/05 “Prepare for hottest year ever; As the polar icecaps melt away, even climate-change
sceptic George Bush may be jolted by the latest forecast” Sunday Express, Lexis
The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the planet, its billions of trees recycling the atmosphere and producing the
oxygen vital for all animal life. But parts of this lush carpet of greenery are drying up as the river basin suffers its worst drought
for 40 years. The life-giving rains are still months away and vast swathes of forest are drying out. Researchers at a forest
monitoring station in Santarem, where the Amazon and Tapajos rivers meet, report that water levels are some 50ft lower than usual.
Rising sea temperatures could have triggered a cycle with global implications. The warm waters fuelled the hurricane season
that devastated North America and triggered a high pressure system that reduced the seasonal rains vital for the Amazon. Rain
forest communities dependent on fishing are suffering and the threat of disease has increased, but scientists fear an even greater
impact. Astronomical numbers of trees could dry out and become tinder for one of the biggest forest fires in history. If the
Amazon burned it would generate vast amounts of carbon, only adding to the greenhouse gases that already imperil the
planet.
36
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Satellites**
37
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Satellites = Warming
Satellite models prove warming – previous studies were measuring the wrong
atmosphere – the DOE and NASA prove
University of Washington News 5/04 (“Some Like It Hot: Satellite Measurements Confirm Global Warming”
<http://www.washington.edu/alumni/uwnewslinks/200405/article_warming.html>)
But a team led by a University of Washington atmospheric scientist has used satellite data in a new and more accurate way to
show that, for more than two decades, the troposphere has actually been warming faster than the surface. The new approach
relies on information that better separates readings of the troposphere from those of another atmospheric layer above, which
have disguised the true troposphere temperature trend. "This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is,
and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface," said Qiang Fu, a UW associate professor of atmospheric
sciences. He is lead author of a paper documenting the work published in the May 6 edition of the journal Nature. Co-authors are
Celeste Johanson, a UW research assistant and graduate student in atmospheric sciences; Stephen Warren, a UW professor of
atmospheric sciences and Earth and space sciences; and Dian Seidel, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Air Resources Laboratory in Silver Spring, Md. The team examined measurements from devices called
microwave-sounding units on NOAA satellites from January 1979 through December 2001. The satellites all used similar equipment
and techniques to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen in the atmosphere and determine its temperature. Different
channels of the microwave-sounding units measured radiation emitted at different frequencies, thus providing data for different layers
of the atmosphere. In the case of the troposphere -- which extends from the surface to an altitude of about 7.5 miles -- it was believed
there was less warming than what had been recorded at the surface. The troposphere temperature was measured by channel 2 on
the microwave sounding units, but those readings were imprecise because about one-fifth of the signal actually came from a
higher atmospheric layer called the stratosphere. "Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the
stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided
us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere," Fu said. Stratosphere temperatures are measured by
channel 4 on the microwave units. Fu's team used data from weather balloons at various altitudes to develop a method in which the
two satellite channels could be employed to deduce the average temperature in the troposphere. The scientists correlated the
troposphere temperature data from balloons with the simulated radiation in the two satellite channels to determine which part of the
channel 2 measurement had come from the cooling stratosphere and should be removed. What remained indicated that the
troposphere has been warming at about two-tenths of a degree Celsius per decade, or nearly one-third of a degree Fahrenheit per
decade. That closely resembles measurements of warming at the surface, something climate models have suggested would result if
the warmer surface temperatures are the result of greenhouse gases. The previous lack of demonstrable warming in the troposphere
has prompted some to argue that climate models are missing unrecognized but important physical processes, or even that human-
caused climate change is not happening. One reason previous data have not shown enough warming in the troposphere, Fu said, is
because the stratosphere influence on the channel 2 temperature trend has never been properly quantified, even though there
have been attempts to account for its influence. Those attempts had large uncertainties, so many researchers had simply used the
unadjusted channel 2 temperature trends to represent the temperature trends in the middle of the troposphere. Fu's work is
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
New satellite data proves warming

New Scientist 8/24/03 (“Satellite data reveals rapid Arctic warming” < http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn431
0>)
A NASA satellite survey of the Arctic has revealed just how rapidly the region is warming. The overall trend of rising
temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century. The
satellite observations are vital because they can cover the whole Arctic, not just the regions accessible to researchers on the
surface. The data also shows that summer sea ice cover is continuing its retreat." Climate is changing, the Arctic is changing rapidly,
and it has significant effects on lower latitudes," said Mark Serreze, of the University of Colorado in Boulder, at a press conference on
Thursday.
38
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Satellites = Warming
Satellites prove that warming exists and is caused by humans – consensus of
reports agree
Andrew C. Revkin, environmental reporter, 11/18/03 (“New View of Data Supports Human Link to Global Warming” New York
Times, Section F; Column 2; Science Desk; Pg. 2, lexis)
One of the last gaps in the evidence pointing to a human cause for global warming appears to be closing. A re-examination of 24
years of data from weather satellites has found that temperatures are rising in the lower layer of the atmosphere, called the
troposphere, at a rate that is consistent with what has been measured at the earth's surface. The finding is subtle but significant,
experts say, particularly because previous studies of the same data, showing no warming, have been highlighted by opponents of curbs
on heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions linked to recent warming. The difference between the two analyses also now has
a clear explanation, with most of the divergence resulting from the way data were adjusted to account for a transition from one
weather satellite to a successor in the mid-1980's. The result is more consensus than ever that emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are noticeably altering climate. But at the same time, the new research is showing that, at
least so far, the influence of greenhouse gases appears to have been more modest than some climate experts once predicted. The
findings, after a year of review and debate at workshops, appear in the current issue of The Journal of Climate. Dr. Thomas R. Karl,
the director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., called the new work "a significant step forward," but stressed that
more work would be necessary to reconcile the persistent differences between computer models of the climate and the real thing. The
new study, done by private satellite experts at Remote Sensing Systems for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Commerce Department, has not quelled doubters. But several experts not associated with the work said it had pushed the satellite
record of recent warming more in line with what computer simulations had projected.
39
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Satellites = No Warming

The group who did your study conceded that satellite data was faulty and that
warming is occurring
Andrew C. Revkin, environmental reporter, 11/18/03 (“New View of Data Supports Human Link to Global Warming” New York
Times, Section F; Column 2; Science Desk; Pg. 2, lexis)
Initially, Dr. Christy and his group found that the lower troposphere was actually cooling, and not warming, drawing strong
interest in their work from companies and elected officials questioning whether global warming was happening. More recently,
as Dr. Christy and his team took into account factors that could distort the readings, they concluded that there had been a
slight, but inconsequential warming. The new analysis was begun several years ago by Remote Sensing Systems and the two groups
have increasingly shared data over the past year. The rate of warming calculated by the new group is higher than the old analysis by
just a sixth of a degree per decade. But that adds up over time to a trend that is consistent with what some computer simulations say
would occur under the influence of building greenhouse-gas concentrations, Dr. Wentz said. Dr. Christy says his work matches up
much better with readings taken by an independent method, instrument-laden balloons launched from hundreds of weather stations.
But other scientists said the balloon-gathered data were spotty and inconsistent as well, and did not provide a useful yardstick. Some
scientists said the most valuable result of the new analysis of the satellite record was to take it out of the realm of politicized science.
Now, they said, it is simply one more data set in the broader body of evidence pointing in a generally warmer direction in years
to come. The only way to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of warming, Dr. Karl said, will be to look for
clues in many places at once -- melting glaciers, ocean temperatures and satellites, among others -- and not rely on a lone line of
evidence. "The whole issue of global climate change is weighing evidence," he said. "Any conclusion will ultimately have to look
like the results of a 100-question test. If you get a 90, you're probably on track."
Their satellite study is faulty – new data proves warming is happening, and
other indicators outweigh satellite data
Toronto Star 6/20/04 (“Consider all the evidence on global warming” Lexis)
But according to the satellites, it hasn't (it has been much less) and skeptics point to this discordance as one of the major pieces
of evidence that the world isn't warming as much as is being claimed. However, in the May 6 issue of Nature, arguably the
premier science journal in the world, researchers at the University of Washington and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the United States show that the problem with the satellite measurements is that they have inadvertently
sampled not just the troposphere but also the stratosphere above it - the much cooler stratosphere. When the stratospheric
component is factored out, the atmosphere appears to have been warming at a rate that agrees with the measurements from the
Earth's surface. This finding sheds a much different light on Michaels' and McKitrick's article. Suddenly, their link to the original
satellite data isn't nearly as significant and their admission that their socioeconomic effects require "more precise estimation" looms
much larger. Of course, given the weight that skeptics have assigned to the anomalous satellite temperatures in the past, it was
inevitable that they would attack the paper in Nature, and at least one already has, arguing that it is flawed research, published only
because the journal is in the global-warming camp. I'd sure like to see some actual evidence that this is true. On the other hand, much
of the pro-Kyoto crowd likely will ignore the M&M paper in Climate Research, and I think that is unfortunate. However, they will
know that this is the journal that published a skeptical article in 2003 that was judged to be so inadequate that several editors
of the journal resigned in protest. They also will recognize the names of several vocal global-warming skeptics among the current
team of editors. This begins to look like a "he says, she says" go-round. But when I say it depends what you read, I'm referring not
just to the journal of your choice but also to the sheer breadth of data. Ground-based versus satellite measurements of temperature
are just one piece of the evidence. Scrutinize them if you will, but don't ignore the other indicators - including the warming of
the oceans and the imbalance between energy absorbed and lost by the Earth. To hold a credible point of view on Kyoto and
global warming, all the evidence must be taken into account.
40
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Satellites = No Warming

Their satellite data is false – drifted off course and calculation error
USA Today 8/12/05 (“Scientists find errors in global warming data” NEWS; Pg. 3A. Lexis)
Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming,
researchers say. Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little
atmospheric heating -- and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions
have been made to that atmospheric data. Climate expert Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead
author of one of the papers, says that those fairly steady measurements in the tropics have been a key argument "among people asking,
'Why should I believe this global warming hocus-pocus?'" After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa
Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the
satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also
found a math error in the calculations. "Our hats are off to (them). They found a real source of error," says atmospheric scientist
John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, whose team produced the lower temperature estimates. When examining the
balloon data, Yale University researchers found that heating from tropical sunlight was skewing the temperatures reported by sensors,
making nights look as warm as days. Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper-
atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models, Santer says. Global warming's pace over the past 30 years has actually
been quite slow, a total increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit. It is predicted to accelerate in this century.
New satellite data proves warming and that’s its anthropogenic – prefer it its
from the US government
The Stateman 5/8/04 “NEW EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING STUMPS SCEPTICS” Lexis
Powerful new evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US government, demolishing the
chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real. A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures
in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the
world is warming at an unnatural rate. The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has
often been invoked by the Bush administration to questions whether man-made global warming is happening. While it is generally
accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17 degrees Centigrade per decade, satellites have been unable to
detect a parallel trend in the troposphere - the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 10 km above the ground, in which most
weather occurs. This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate
change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global
temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has now been explained by a team led by Dr Qiang Fu, of the University of
Washington in Seattle. His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about
0.2 degrees Centigrade per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder
temperatures in the atmospheric layer above. The findings, details of which were published yesterday in the journal Nature,
provide one of the final pieces of proof that global warming is taking place, and that it is a human-induced phenomenon.
Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges
from a "little Ice Age".
41
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Satellites = No Warming
City heat skews surface measurements, satellite data proves no warming
The Herald 8/13/03 “Satellites tell a different story on climate change” Lexis
One explanation may be that the surface record gives an uneven coverage of the planet's surface and is heavily biased towards
weather stations located in or near cities and heavily-populated areas. These have their own climates generated by asphalt,
concrete, internal combustion engines, air conditioners in summer and central heating in winter, all of which radiate heat and
make cities warmer than the surrounding countryside. When readings began at Kew in the 1850s it was in open country: now it is
surrounded by miles of building. It is hardly surprising that London appears to be getting warmer. Those who create the surface
record state that temperatures are adjusted downwards to take account of this so-called "urban heat island" effect, to which the retort
is that such an adjusted record is not a basis for far-reaching decisions on economic and energy infrastructure. Can they be sure that
the adjustment made is sufficient? Although we have had what used to be called a splendid summer, the Southern Hemisphere has
been having an exceptionally cold winter. Would you believe that the NOAA satellite record for June (the most recent month
available) shows that the global temperature is actually a little below the average for the past 24 years?
42
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
31,000 Petition = No Warming

Your petition is construed – not peer reviewed and a small proportion
Colin Macilwain, news editor for Nature, 4/16/98 (“Petition strengthens hand of global warming skeptics” Nature
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6677/full/392639b0.html>)
About 15,000 US science graduates, including 6,000 PhDs, have signed a petition that rejects the Kyoto agreement on global
warming and argues that increases in carbon dioxide levels benefit Earth, according to the petition's organizers. The petition is
likely to be released by the George Marshall Institute in Washington DC in the near future, and opponents of the Kyoto agreement are
expected to use it to back up their arguments about a lack of scientific consensus on the issue. But the mass-mailing of the petition
to scientists — accompanied by a lengthy review article that had not been peer-reviewed or published — has angered some of
those who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are a serious problem. They also argue that the number of signatories is a relatively
small proportion of those who were mailed. "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics
at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to
the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million
individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to
have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response
was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. The Union of Concerned Scientists has branded the exercise as "a deliberate attempt to
deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change". And prominent members of the National
Academy of Sciences, whose past-president, Frederick Seitz, wrote a cover letter for the mailing, are also upset, according to a
spokesperson for the academy, partly because the article in the mailing looks exactly like a paper from the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
43
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Polar Caps Prove Spending

Polar caps prove warming – it’s a litmus test for the rest of the world
The National Post 9/30/05 “Earth is thinning on top: New satellite images show a dramatic reduction in the size of the northern
polar ice cap” Lexis
The white wastes at the poles are often called the planet's sentinels: They provide an early warning system that will reveal what is
in store for the rest of the world. For decades, scientists have predicted that if the effects of global warming took hold, they
would first be measurable at the frozen extremes, where the impacts would be felt with a rapidity and intensity unlike anywhere
else. The reason the poles are a litmus of climate change is simple: When ice melts, the surface of the water or land that lies
beneath is darker and accumulates even more heat from the sun, an example of "positive feedback" that alters local climate and
accelerates global warming. This week, U.S. scientists said new satellite data revealed a dramatic retreat of sea ice in the Arctic,
marking the fourth consecutive year there has been a stunning shrinkage in sea ice at the close of the northern summer.
44
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Alternate Causality – China

China prevents solvency
Michael Hanlon, science editor, 1/22/07 “BIGGEST THREAT TO THE PLANET?” Daily Mail. lexis
The new Chinese golden age, predicted ever since Nixon took tea with Chairman Mao in 1972, may finally be upon us. But there is
a problem. Not just the problem of managing a vast totalitarian dictatorship which seems to have managed the unlikely feat of
combining Marxism with an uncanny ability to make money. No, the real problem is what we are going to do when China gets
really rich. For when it does, its effect on the planet will be gargantuan. CONSIDER those cities, for a start. There is a building
boom in China the like of which the world has never seen before. Vast quantities of concrete - millions of tonnes a week - are being
poured and set into the new skyscrapers. And concrete is bad news for global warming. Concrete production causes about 8 per
cent of greenhouse gas production worldwide. But it is energy and transport in which China threatens to overwhelm any of our
attempts to combat climate change. It is true, as Green fundamentalist George Monbiot points out in his book Heat, that compared
to the Chinese, we in the West are monsters of profligacy. Each American emits a staggering 19.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into
the atmosphere (not personally; these figures take into account the nation's CO2 production, much of which is accounted for by
industry)- making the United States by far the world's highest per-capita greenhouse gas production. By comparison, Chinese people
so far emit 'just' 2.5 tonnes each. For China, despite those statistics, is still poor. Most Chinese people have yet to drive a car.
Hundreds of millions of Chinese people live in homes without proper electricity or telephones. The Chinese do not fly en masse to
their southern regions and to the neighbouring tropics for some winter sun. Blaming them as individuals for global warming does, as
Monbiot says, invoke old irrational fears about 'the yellow peril'. But there are two things that should make us think again, not about
individual Chinese people, but about the nation as a whole. Firstly, there are an awful lot of them. China's annual CO2 production is
about 3.51 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. America's is about 5.8billion tonnes. Worldwide the figure is 24 billion tonnes. Each
Chinese person may punch below his or her weight when it comes to producing CO2, but the sheer numbers push China as a nation
into the Premier league of polluters. That alone might not matter, but China is growing. Consider the status of the car in China.
Ten years ago, most private cars on China's roads were taxis or owned by one of the arms of the state. At the turn of the century there
were probably just four million or so cars in the entire country. That figure has grown Smoke city: China is urbanising fast
fivefold.This means that, with just one car for every 60 people, China is still a long way from being an automotive society. Outside the
cities, the bicycle is still king. Yet this will not be the case for long. The history of all modern countries that have made the
transition from poverty to wealth shows that private car ownership is one of the first things to rocket, once the middle class
starts to grow. People whose parents and grandparents were poor, even starving (there were famines in China as recently as the
1960s), are not interested in green public transport when they get rich. The car is one of the first items on the shopping list for this
emerging consumer class. By 2020, there are predicted to be 140million automobiles on China's roads, and by 2040 maybe a quarter
of a billion (about the same number of cars as there are in the U.S. today). If China eventually attains American levels of
prosperity, which it might, it could easily double that number. And take energy. China is not hugely endowed with natural
resources, but it does have a lot of coal. Chinese demand for electricity is insatiable, and growing as rapidly as car ownership.
China's use of energy, as journalist Will Hutton points out in his book The Writing On The Wall, is extremely inefficient. 'To generate
every dollar of GDP, China uses three times more energy than the global average, four times more than the U.S. and eight times
more than Japan.' This causes problems on two levels. Firstly, as most of China's electricity is produced by burning dirty coal in
old-fashioned power stations, there is terrible air pollution. A staggering 400,000 Chinese people are killed by smog every year.
Then there is the carbon dioxide. China now produces more electricity than any country except the U.S. Some 75 per cent of it is
generated by coal and capacity is growing at an almost unbelievable rate. In just one year - 2005 - China added the equivalent of
all the power plants in Norway and Sweden to its electricity-generating capacity - and its remarkable demand growth shows no
sign of abating. Currently, Chinese power plants produce about two-thirds of the carbon dioxide produced by all of the world's cars.
It is tempting, after considering all this, to give up in despair. Whatever we do, however much we try to avoid driving and flying,
however much we lag our lofts and install those funny new lightbulbs, the harsh reality is that within a generation any savings made
by the current rich West will be swamped by the growth of China. Add the increasing prosperity of India and the tempting
conclusion is that we will simply have to rely on hopes that the doom-mongers have got it all wrong.
45
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
No Solvency – Zero Emissions Key

No chance of solving – must reduce emissions to zero
Pierre Friedlingstein, Institute Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratory of Climate and Environment Sciences, 1/17/08 “A steep road to
climate stabilization” Nature <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06593.html#a1>
The only way to stabilize Earth's climate is to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but future changes in the carbon cycle might make this
more difficult than has been thought. The present dependence on fossil fuels for energy means that as the demand for energy increases, so
does the emission of greenhouse gases. The increasing concentration of these gases in the atmosphere has caused most of the warming observed worldwide
over the twentieth century. Moreover, the global average surface temperature is projected to rise by as much as 6.4 °C by the end of the
twenty-first century if emissions are not curbed1. To avoid the potentially dangerous consequences of such climate changes, the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere must be stabilized at a level that is 'safe' for society and for the environment — a goal that will require a marked reduction in anthropogenic
emissions. Industrialized countries are currently focusing on 'climate mitigation' policies that, when implemented, will result in reduced emission of greenhouse gases.
It was recently proposed that by 2020 each of these countries should reduce emissions to 60–75% of the amount that they emitted in 1990; and by 2050, to 25–50% of
1990 levels2. However, no such agreement was reached at the last UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties, held in Bali in December
2007. Nevertheless, these proposals, if acted on soon, are good news. But, to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, that's one giant leap for policy-makers, but one small step for
the global environment. For a start, industrialized countries produce only about 50% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and the proportion produced by
industrializing countries such as China and India is growing. If it is assumed, optimistically, that industrializing countries will not increase their emission rates soon and
if industrialized countries follow the above proposal, then global emissions in 2020 will be only 12–20% less than in 1990. From a glance at the global carbon cycle, it
is clear that this reduction will not come close to stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At present, deforestation and the
combustion of fossil fuels release almost 10 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year in the form of CO2 — the main
greenhouse gas. Of this amount, about 4.5 billion tonnes accumulate in the atmosphere, and the rest is absorbed by the ocean and by land-based ecosystems1. To
stabilize atmospheric CO2 at the current concentration, emissions would need to be reduced to the amount that is taken up by the
ocean and land — about 5.5 billion tonnes, which equates to an immediate 45% reduction in global emissions of CO2. This roughly
matches the objective proposed for the industrialized countries for 2050, by which time considerably more CO2 will have accumulated in the atmosphere. Moreover,
such an immediate reduction would need to be reinforced over time, even if it were achieved. When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
increases, the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere is greater than the concentration in the upper ocean, creating a net flux of CO2 from the air to the ocean. But, if
atmospheric CO2 concentrations stabilized, the average concentration in the ocean would slowly increase to match the concentration in the atmosphere, so uptake by
the ocean would eventually cease. Thus, the immediate 45% reduction in global emissions would no longer be enough to keep CO2 concentrations constant. In fact,
climate stabilization might be even more complex. Recent observations and simulations indicate that the current uptake of atmospheric CO2 might be adversely affected
by climate change. Careful measurements of the airborne proportion of anthropogenic emissions (that is, the proportion that remains in
the atmosphere) show a small increasing trend in the past 50 years3. Therefore, the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the
ocean and the land is becoming smaller. The Southern Ocean might be responsible for this reduction, because changes in ocean-surface winds seem to have
decreased the amount of CO2 taken up by surface waters in this region in recent years4. Furthermore, simulations carried out with coupled climate and
carbon-cycle models indicate that changes in climate will result in even greater reductions in the ability of land and the ocean to
absorb anthropogenic CO2 by the end of the twenty-first century5. These simulations suggest that the combination of warming and
drying will limit photosynthesis by plants and stimulate the decomposition of organic matter in soil, reducing the capacity of land-
based ecosystems to store carbon (see page 289). In addition, it is widely thought that global warming will result in slower ocean circulation,
leading to a decrease in the amount of carbon that is exported from the surface to the deep ocean and thereby reducing the flux of
carbon from the air to the ocean. So it seems that future warming will reduce carbon sinks, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere and
leading, in turn, to greater warming. This positive-feedback loop has implications for the pathway to stabilizing the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse
gases. If land-based and ocean ecosystems store less carbon than is expected in the future, then a greater effort will be needed, in terms
of reducing anthropogenic emissions, to achieve a given concentration of atmospheric CO2. The potential importance of this effect is illustrated by simulations
carried out for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These simulations indicate that to stabilize atmospheric CO2
concentrations at 450 parts per million (generally accepted as 'safe') by 2100, cumulative emissions in the twenty-first century need to be reduced by a further 30%
when this feedback is taken into account (Fig. 1). Future policies aimed at stabilizing climate at a safe level will have to take many factors into consideration: the risks
and associated financial costs of adapting to climate change; the risks of positive climate and carbon-cycle feedbacks reducing the efficiency of emission-reduction
strategies; and the financial costs of reducing emissions. With the aim of informing such policies, the next assessment by the IPCC will explore various scenarios in
which emissions are mitigated, including trajectories of emissions over time that result in stabilization of greenhouse-gas concentrations. These scenarios will be used
by the climate research community to estimate the extent of future climate change, as well as its impact and the adaptations that might be required. This process differs
fundamentally from past assessments by the IPCC, for which climate projections were based on non-mitigated emissions scenarios involving steady increases in
greenhouse-gas concentrations over the twenty-first century. This environmentally concerned view needs to be taken up and followed through by a succession of post-
Kyoto regulations in the coming decades that lead to larger and larger reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and eventually to stabilization of Earth's climate in a state
that is safe for society and the environment. There is, unfortunately, no mystery: to stabilize climate, the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere must be stabilized, and to do so — given the limited capacity of the natural environment to absorb these gases —
anthropogenic emissions will eventually need to be reduced to zero.
46
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**CO2**
47
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
C02 Key
Carbon Dioxide acidifies oceans and leads to massive species extinction –
empirically proven and multiple studies prove
Rhett A. Butler, creator of mongabay.com, 3/8/07 “Carbon dioxide levels threaten oceans regardless of global warming” <
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0308-oceans.html>
Rising levels of carbon dioxide will have wide-ranging impacts on the world's oceans regardless of climate change, reports a
study published in the March 9, 2007, issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters The study, authored by Ken Caldeira from
the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University and Long Cao and Atul Jain of the University
of Illinois, shows the increasing absorption of carbon dioxide is acidifying global oceans, putting sea life at risk. "Whether you
believe in global warming or not, CO2 is going to run havoc in the oceans if unabated, " warned coauthor Dr. Caldeira.
"Temperature increases from climate change affect salinity, circulation, and marine biology. When carbon dioxide dissolves in
the ocean, some of it becomes carbonic acid—a corrosive agent, which can eat away shells of important species in the global food
chain." Oceans worldwide absorbed approximately 118 billion metric tons of carbon between 1800 and 1994 according to a report
published last year by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and NOAA, resulting in increased ocean acidity,
which reduces the availability of carbonate ions needed for the production of calcium carbonate structures. In the past, changes in
ocean acidity have triggered mass extinction events. According to a study published in the September issue of Geology,
dramatically warmer and more acidic oceans may have contributed to the worst mass extinction on record, the Permian
extinction. During the extinction event, which occurred some 250 million years ago, about 95% of ocean's life forms became
extinct. The same fate could befall modern day marine life. Late last year a team of scientists writing in Nature warned that by
2100, the amount of carbonate available for marine organisms could drop by 60%. In surface ocean waters, where acidification starts
before spreading to the deep sea, there may be too little carbonate for organisms to form shells as soon as 2050. The loss of these
small organisms would have a disastrous impact on predators -- including salmon, mackerel, herring, cod -- that rely on them as
a food source and could spell trouble for other species. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of fossil fuels combustion. Scientists
estimate that the oceans have soaked up about half of all carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel emissions over the past 200 years.
Had oceans not absorbed this carbon, current atmospheric carbon dioxide would be much higher than the current 381 parts-per-million
(ppm)--probably closer to 500-600 ppm say climatologists. This absorption has made the world's oceans significantly more acidic
since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Research published last year by Mark Jacobson, an assistant professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford University, indicated that between 1751 and 2004 surface ocean pH dropped from
approximately 8.25 to 8.14. James Orr of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory further estimated that ocean pH levels
could fall another 0.3 - 0.4 units by 2100. The new Geophysical Research Letters paper confirms Orr's forecasts, projecting a 0.31
drop in pH units by the end of this century "if CO2 emissions continue on their current trajectory to stabilize at atmospheric CO2
concentrations at 1000 parts per million." Caldeira says their new model shows that overall temperature change won't have much
effect on ocean acidity. "Since surface temperature increases affect how carbon is broken down in seawater, we wanted to quantify
how the acidity of the water would be affected by temperature increases from CO2 emissions," he explained in a statement. "We found
that the pH, or acidity, of the water wasn't significantly affected regardless of how much warming occurs over the next decades and
centuries." Their model further showed that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would produce a pH decline of 0.48-0.51 units by the
year 2500. "Ocean acidification threatens all marine organisms that use calcium carbonate to make their shells," Caldeira added.
"However even as the planet warms, our study shows that we can help the ecological balance in the oceans by curbing CO2
emissions now by using wind, solar, nuclear power, and other alternative energy sources."
48
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
C02 Key
Carbon dioxide increases the acidity of oceans – destroys marine life
James E. Kloeppel, Physical Sciences Editor, 3/8/07 “Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life” News
Bureau at the University of Illinois < http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/07/0308oceans.html>
Like a piece of chalk dissolving in vinegar, marine life with hard shells is in danger of being dissolved by increasing acidity in the
oceans. Ocean acidity is rising as sea water absorbs more carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from power plants and
automobiles. The higher acidity threatens marine life, including corals and shellfish, which may become extinct later this century
from the chemical effects of carbon dioxide, even if the planet warms less than expected. A new study by University of Illinois
atmospheric scientist Atul Jain, graduate student Long Cao and Carnegie Institution scientist Ken Caldeira suggests that future
changes in ocean acidification are largely independent of climate change. The researchers report their findings in a paper accepted
for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and posted on its Web site. “Before our study, there was speculation in
the academic community that climate change would have a big impact on ocean acidity,” Jain said. “We found no such impact.” In
previous studies, increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere led to a reduction in ocean pH and carbonate ions, both
of which damage marine ecosystems. What had not been studied before was how climate change, in concert with higher
concentrations of carbon dioxide, would affect ocean chemistry and biology. To investigate changes in ocean chemistry that could
result from higher temperatures and carbon-dioxide concentrations, the researchers used an Earth-system model called the Integrated
Science Assessment Model. Developed by Jain and his graduate students, the model includes complex physical and chemical
interactions among carbon-dioxide emissions, climate change, and carbon-dioxide uptake by oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. The
ocean-surface pH has been reduced by about 0.1 during the past two centuries. Using ISAM, the researchers found ocean pH would
decline a total of 0.31 by the end of this century, if carbon-dioxide emissions continue on a trajectory to ultimately stabilize at 1,000
parts per million. During the last 200 years, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 275 parts per
million to about 380 parts per million. Unchecked, it could surpass 550 parts per million by mid-century. “As the concentration of
carbon dioxide increases, ocean water will become more acidic; which is bad news for marine life,” Cao said. “Fortunately, the effects
of climate change will not further increase this acidity.” There are a number of effects and feedback mechanisms built into the ocean-
climate system, Jain said. “Warmer water, for example, directly reduces the ocean pH due to temperature effect on the reaction
rate in the carbonate system. At the same time, warmer water also absorbs less carbon dioxide, which makes the ocean less acidic.
These two climate effects balance each other, which results in negligible net climate effect on ocean pH.” The addition of carbon
dioxide into the oceans also affects the carbonate mineral system by decreasing the availability of carbonate ions. Calcium
carbonate is used in forming shells. With less carbonate ions available, the growth of corals and shellfish could be significantly
reduced. “In our study, the increase in ocean acidity and decrease in carbonate ions occurred regardless of the degree of temperature
change associated with global warming,” Jain said. “This indicates that future changes in ocean acidity caused by atmospheric
carbon-dioxide concentrations are largely independent of climate change.”
49
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
CO2 key to Plant Growth

Increases in C02 fuels plant growth
Boonsri Dickinson, science writer for Cosmos, 8/23/06 “Experiment: could global warming actually be good for trees?” Cosmos
< http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/588/experiment-could-global-warming-actually-be-good-trees>
However, an increase in atmospheric CO2 could actually be a boon to plants, increasing vegetative growth in many areas around
the world, including Australia. "It is the first field-based carbon-dioxide enrichment study with trees in the Southern Hemisphere,"
said Jann Conroy researcher at the Hawkesbury Campus at the University of Western Sydney. Although the researchers are
mimicking the increasing carbon dioxide levels, they are unsure of how the trees will grow. Whether or not the water intake of the
trees will increase in the accelerated climate change conditions are questionable. "Theoretically, trees will grow bigger as the
carbon dioxide rises because, unlike animals, plants get all of their carbon for growth from the atmosphere. The theory has
been proven for crop plants, grasses and small trees growing in glasshouses and for forests, on fertile sites, in the Northern
Hemisphere," she said. Researchers predict the heightened carbon dioxide levels may reduce the amount of water need for trees
to grow.
50
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
CO2 key Water Vapor

Carbon dioxide emissions are the internal link to water vapor feedback –
models prove
Environmental Defense 11/8/06 (“Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor and Global Warming”
<http://www.edf.org/documents/5596_GlobalWarmingWaterVapor_onepager.pdf.>)
Some people have argued that because water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), it’s pointless to
regulate CO2 emissions. Water vapor does trap more heat than CO2, but because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and
climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2. If water vapor is so important, why don't we control its
concentration instead of CO2? Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by emissions (for example, from burning fossil fuels), as
well as by plant growth and ocean uptake. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, are determined by
temperatures because warmer air holds more water vapor. Humans can only “control” water vapor levels by changing air
temperature – and the best way to control temperature is to reduce CO2 emissions. Water vapor accelerates warming, Water
vapor is part of a vicious cycle. As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which
then traps more heat and accelerates warming. In fact, scientists calculate that changes in water vapor double the climate’s
temperature response to increasing CO2. Water vapor is part of a vicious warming cycle Model results match observations Scientists
are confident that the warming cycle involving water vapor is real because climate model simulations are very close to actual
water vapor and temperature measurements (see graph below). This also increases scientific confidence in model predictions of
future warming.
51
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**AT: CO2 Good**
52
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
AT: Weeds
Studies prove C02 doesn’t increase C3 or C4 weeds it affords non-weeds greater protection against weeds and increases their
competitiveness against them
All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 7, Number 23] 6/9/04
Dukes (2002) grew model serpentine grasslands common to California, USA, in competition with the invasive forb Centaurea
solstitialis at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm for one year, determining that elevated CO2 increased the biomass
proportion of this weedy species in the community by a mere 1.2%, while total community biomass increased by 28%. Similarly,
Gavazzi et al. (2000) grew loblolly pine seedlings for four months in competition with both C3 and C4 weeds at atmospheric CO2
concentrations of 260 and 660 ppm, reporting that elevated CO2 increased pine biomass by 22% while eliciting no response at all
from either type of weed. Likewise, in a study of pasture ecosystems near Montreal, Canada, Taylor and Potvin (1997) found that
elevated CO2 concentrations did not influence the number of native species returning after their removal (to simulate disturbance),
even in the face of the introduced presence of the C3 weed Chenopodium album, which normally competes quite effectively with
several slower-growing crops in ambient air. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment did not impact the growth of this weed in any
measurable way. Ziska et al. (1999) also studied the C3 weed C. album, along with the C4 weed Amaranthus retroflexus, in
glasshouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720 ppm. They determined that elevated CO2 significantly
increased the photosynthetic rate and total dry weight of the C3 weed, but that it had no effect at all on the C4 weed. Also, they found
that the growth response of the C3 weed to a doubling of the air's CO2 content was approximately 51%, which is about the same as
the average 52% growth response tabulated by Idso (1992), and that obtained by Poorter (1993) for rapidly-growing wild C3 species
(54%), which finding suggests there is no enhanced dominance of the C3 weed over other C3 plants in a CO2-enriched environment.
Wayne et al. (1999) studied another agricultural weed, field mustard (Brassica kaber), which was sewn in pots at six densities, placed
in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm, and sequentially harvested during the growing season. Early in stand
development, elevated CO2 increased aboveground weed biomass in a density-dependent manner; with the greatest stimulation of
141% occurring at the lowest density (corresponding to 20 plants per square meter) and the smallest stimulation of 59% occurring at
the highest density (corresponding to 652 plants per square meter). However, as stands matured, the density-dependence of the CO2-
induced growth response disappeared, and CO2-enriched plants exhibited an average aboveground biomass that was 34% greater than
that of ambiently-grown plants across a broad range of plant densities. Moreover, this final growth stimulation was similar to that of
most other herbaceous plants exposed to atmospheric CO2 enrichment (30 to 50% biomass increases for a doubling of the air's CO2
content), once again evidencing that atmospheric CO2 enrichment confers no undue advantage upon weeds at the expense of other
plants. In a study of a weed that affects both plants and animals, Caporn et al. (1999) examined bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), which
poses a serious weed problem and potential threat to human health in the United Kingdom and other regions, growing specimens for
19 months in controlled environment chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 370 and 570 ppm and normal or
high levels of soil fertility. They found that the high CO2 treatment consistently increased rates of net photosynthesis by 30 to 70%,
depending on soil fertility and time of year. However, elevated CO2 did not increase total plant dry mass or the dry mass of any plant
organ, including rhizomes, roots and fronds. In fact, the only significant effect of elevated CO2 on bracken growth was observed in
the normal nutrient regime, where elevated CO2 actually reduced mean frond area. Finally, in a study involving two parasitic species
(Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica), Watling and Press (1997) reported that total parasitic biomass per host plant at an
atmospheric CO2 concentration of 700 ppm was 65% less than it was in ambient air. And in a related study, Dale and Press (1999)
observed that the presence of a parasitic plant (Orobanche minor) reduced its host's biomass by 47% in ambient air of 360 ppm CO2,
while it only reduced it by 20% in air of 550 ppm CO2. These several studies suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content
likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants. In fact, it may well provide non-weeds greater
protection against weed-induced decreases in their productivity and growth. Thus, future increases in the air's CO2 content may
actually increase the competitiveness of non-weeds over weeds.
53
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
AT: Plants
CO2 decreases the protein is foods such as potatoes, barley, wheat, and rice. This is devastating to poor
countries.
The Lempert Report (Food, Nutrition and Science) 2/25/08. “The Affect of Rising CO2 Levels on Food Nutritional Content”
http://www.foodnutritionscience.com/index.cfm/do/monsanto.article/articleId/125.cfm
Last month, our Florida report demonstrated how rising temperatures on the Earth’s surface could be negatively affecting the
quality of certain crops. Now, a Southwestern University study confirms this notion. According to the study, rising CO2 levels in
the atmosphere could decrease the nutritional value of many major food crops in the years to come. “Various studies had reported
that CO2 has a large effect on crop protein concentration, or that it had little or no effect. The value of a meta-analysis such as ours
is that rather than focusing on the results of one or a few experiments, ours comprehensively addresses the totality of the research
literature. In this case, the literature as a whole clearly shows decreases in protein concentrations for several important crops,” says
Taub. The Southwestern study found that crops grown in atmospheres containing elevated levels of carbon dioxide had
significantly lower protein concentrations. Potatoes showed a 14% decrease in protein, barley showed a 15.3% decrease, rice was
down 9.9%, wheat down 9.8%, and soybeans showed reductions of 1.4%. Crops grown at higher temperatures have a shortened
life cycle, and that affects quality. Changes in taste can be frustrating to retailers and consumers, but changes in nutritional content
can be devastating – especially to poorer communities.
54
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
AT: Soil
Warming would reduce the ability of enchutraid worms to promote carbon loss from soil – allowing the
soil to absorb more carbon for longer periods of time.
Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and recipiant of The Authur S. Flemming award for
innovative research, Keith E. Idso is Vice President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Received his
B.S. in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his M.S. from the same institution with a major
in Agronomy and Plant Genetics, 2003, “Global Warming: Can It Be Slowed by Worms?”
http://co2science.org/articles/V5/N18/COM.php [E.Berggren]
In an intriguing research paper published in Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Cole et al. (2002) remind us that "it has been predicted
that global warming will influence the productivity of ecosystems indirectly by increasing soil biological activity, and hence
organic matter decomposition." They also note that "this release of CO2 is expected to be greatest from the organic soils and
peatlands of wetland, tundra and boreal zones." Getting even more specific, they report that "in the peatlands of northern
England, which are classified as blanket peat, it has been suggested that the potential effects of global warming on carbon and
nutrient dynamics will be related to the activities of dominant soil fauna, and especially enchytraeid worms." So what did the
researchers find? First of all, and contrary to their hypothesis, elevated temperature reduced the ability of the enchytraeid worms
to enhance the loss of carbon from the microcosms. At the normal ambient temperature, for example, the presence of the worms
enhanced DOC loss by 16%, while at the elevated temperature expected for a doubling of the air's CO2 content they had no
effect on DOC. In addition, Cole et al. noted that "warming may cause drying at the soil surface, forcing enchytraeids to burrow
to deeper subsurface horizons." Hence, since the worms are known to have little influence on soil carbon dynamics below a
depth of 4 cm (Cole et al., 2000), the scientists concluded that this additional consequence of warming would further reduce the
ability of enchytraeids to enhance carbon loss from blanket peatlands. In summing up their findings, Cole et al. say "the soil
biotic response to warming in this study was negative." That is, it was of such a nature that it resulted in a reduced loss of
carbon to the atmosphere, which would tend to slow the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, demonstrating once again
that nature is well equipped to maintain the mean upper temperature of the planet's surface at a level conducive to the
continued existence of life.
55
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**AT: SO2 Impacts**
56
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
SO2  Acid Rain

SO2 and NO causes acid rain harming the environment and even causing death
US EPA, 2007, “Reducing Acid Rain: Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act”, http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/peg/acidrain.html
You have probably heard of "acid rain." But you may not have heard of other forms of acid precipitation such as acid snow, acid fog or
mist, or dry forms of acidic pollution such as acid gas and acid dust. All of these can be formed in the atmosphere and fall to Earth
causing human health problems, hazy skies, environmental problems and property damage. Acid precipitation is produced when
certain types of air pollutants mix with the moisture in the air to form an acid. These acids then fall to Earth as rain, snow, or fog. Even
when the weather is dry, acid pollutants may fall to Earth in gases or particles. How Acid Rain is Formed Burning fuels release acid
pollutants. These pollutants are carried far from their sources by wind. Depending on the weather, the acid pollutants fall to Earth in
wet form (acid rain, snow, mist or fog) or in dry form (acid gases or dusts). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the
principal pollutants that cause acid precipitation. SO2 and NOx emissions released to the air react with water vapor and other
chemicals to form acids that fall back to Earth. Power plants burning coal and heavy oil produce over two-thirds of the annual SO2
emissions in the United States. The majority of NOx (about 50 percent) comes from cars, buses, trucks, and other forms of
transportation. About 40 percent of NOx emissions are from power plants. The rest is emitted from various sources like industrial and
commercial boilers. Heavy rainstorms and melting snow can cause temporary increases in acidity in lakes and streams, primarily in
the eastern United States. The temporary increases may last for days or even weeks, causing harm to fish and other aquatic life. The
air pollutants that cause acid rain can do more than damage the environment-they can damage our health. High levels of SO2 in the air
aggravate various lung problems in people with asthma and can cause breathing difficulties in children and the elderly. In some
instances, breathing high levels of SO2 can even damage lung tissue and cause premature death.
57
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
SO2  Acid Rain

SO2 causes acid rain
Naim H. Afgan et al, 2004, Sustainable Development of Energy, Water, and Environment Systems Volume III,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ze7G1STG1vAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA463&dq=prevent,+acid+rain,+SO2,+nuclear+power
,+warming+&ots=yDKuInXkXx&sig=wA013MGGh_wpoRjtmyu_1-9JAwI#PPP1,M1
58
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
SO2  Global Dimming

3. a. SO2 causes global dimming
Fiona Harvey, staff writer, 4/28/07, Financial Times The world on the edge Scientists are certain that our climate is changing. The
challenge now is to tell us what could tip us into catastrophe - and when
Although we are on course to double the amount of carbon dioxide that was present in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times, another
form of pollution may be saving us from the worst effects.
Particles in the atmosphere come from natural sources such as volcanoes, desert dust and forest fires, but also from fossil fuel
combustion. Burning coal, for instance, produces sulphur as well as carbon particles.
These particles may be reflecting some of the sun's radiance back into space. The effect of this is to counteract global warming,
earning the phenomenon the name "global dimming".
It is difficult to tell how much this effect, caused by industrialisation and changing land use, which creates dust, is diminishing the
heating effect of greenhouse gases. Estimates suggest it could account for as much as a 4 per cent reduction in the sun's heat reaching
the earth since the 1950s, although moves to clear up pollution in the past two decades could have lessened this.
Paradoxically, then, cleaning up air pollution could leave us open to more global warming. This has led some experts to suggest we
spray particles, such as sulphur, into the air as a way of cooling the earth.
It would be foolish to rely on global dimming to save us, however. Would acid rain really be such a great alternative to reducing
carbon dioxide production?
b. Global dimming already killed hundreds of thousands and may kill billions more- causes droughts
David Sington, 1/13/ 2005, (studied natural science at Cambridge, works for BBC, awarded the Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence
in Science Journalism, In 2000, he was made an Honorary member of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm, “Why the sun seems to be dimming”).
Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the
world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of
thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the
world's population. "My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor
Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "We are talking
about billions of people."
59
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
AT: SO2 Cooling Good

SO2 cooling can’t keep up with global warming
Kaufman, Y.J et al (USRA resident scientist at NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, 1991, “Fossil Fuel and Biomass Burning Effect
on Climate—Heating or Cooling?” Journal of Climate, 4, 578–588, http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-
abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(1991)004%3C0578%3AFFABBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1).
Emission from burning offossil fuels and biomass (associated with deforestation) generates a radiative forcing on the atmosphere and
a possible climate change. Emitted trace gases heat the atmosphere through their greenhouse effect, while particulates formed from
emitted S02 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 check 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 S02
molecules, each S02 molecule is 50-1 100 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 (3-10 days) and
CO2 (7-100 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 CO2 concentration due to fossil fuel burning, the cooling
effect is expected to be 0.1 to 0.3 of the heating effect.
60
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**AT: Ice age**
61
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
No Ice Age Now
No ice age coming now: high CO2 levels prevent another ice age for at least another 50,000 years
Andrew Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel, professor at the Canadian School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, and Canadian
geoscientist of great distinction and a world leader in Quaternary research. He is known for his groundbreaking research on the
environment, climate change, and oceanography. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Awarded the Logan Medal, the
Geological Association of Canada's highest honour, 4/16/2004, “Global warming and the next ice age,” Science,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=14&sid=362c0493-3619-4e43-b8b4-
09eaa15d2a36%40sessionmgr8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=12965894).
Several modeling studies provide outputs to support this progression. These studies show that with elevated levels of carbon dioxide,
such as those that exist today, no permanent snow can exist over land in August (as temperatures are too warm), a necessary
prerequisite for the growth of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere [e.g., ( 6)]. These same models show that if the AMO were to be
artificially shut down, there would be regions of substantial cooling in and around the North Atlantic. Berger and Loutre ( 7)
specifically noted that "most CO[sub2] scenarios led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000
years from now . . . with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO[sub2] concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an
early entrance into glaciation simulated." They further argued that the next glaciation would be unlikely to occur for another 50,000
years.
62
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Ice Age Models Wrong

Their models are wrong-Polar ice melting won’t lead to a new Ice age
Lorne Gunter (staff writer for the National Post and columnist with the Edmonton Journal, 2/25/08, “Forget global warming:
welcome to the New Ice Age,” http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289)
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.
63
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Ice age  GW
Turn: Global warming will lead to an ice age instead of delay it
Andrew C. Revkin, 11/11/2003, “When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6D61539F932A25752C1A9659C8B63
But many climatologists note that the complex interplay of greenhouse gases, orbital shifts and other influences on climate remain
poorly understood. In fact, some experts say, there is a chance that human-induced warming could shut down heat-toting ocean
currents that keep northern latitudes warmer than they otherwise would be. The result could be a faster descent into glacial times
instead of a delay.
64
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Ice Age Doesn’t  Extinction

Ice age doesn’t lead to extinction—trees will still survive.
Forestry & British Timber, A UK based monthly magazine publication offering up to date news and
information for the forestry industry, 12/3/07, Genetic variation in a changing climate,
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33502080_ITM
Many of our tree species are fairly adaptable, having migrated back and forth with repeated ice ages. Natural colonisation, a series of
chance events, governed what plants arrived, but in some cases particular lineages can be traced.
Molecular markers, which identify differences in the DNA, have greatly improved our understanding of the colonising history of our
tree species. Oak and ash for example re-colonised Britain from Spain and Portugal while beech and black poplar came from southeast
Europe.
Scots pine had two routes in: one from southwest Ireland colonising northwest Scotland and the other coming direct from continental
Europe. Molecular markers have also informed us on the extent of geneflow between populations. However, they cannot yet provide
information on adaptive variation; for that we still need provenance trials.
Within Britain however, our long-lived open-pollinated tree species are successful in dispersing their genes. Genetic variation within
populations remains relatively high compared with variation between local populations - so that overall we know there is good genetic
connectivity between populations.
Once material arrives at a site natural selection continues to operate over ensuing generations to favour the survival of the best suited
individuals.
Provenance trials, and the experience of importing seed from European populations, have helped to demonstrate aspects of local
adaptation which are linked to the environment. Flushing dates in oak, for example, change with latitude while hawthorn grown from
imported seed flower up to five weeks earlier than local trees, with consequences for the dependent insects and associated bird
activity.
65
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Models**
66
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Models Bad
Models are wrong, satellites and weather balloons disprove warming – new
studies prove
Physorgs 7/24/04 “Global Warming Models Come Under Physicist's Scrutiny” < http://www.physorg.com/news593.html>
Two University of Rochester studies published in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters underline how uncertain and
complex the understanding of global climate can be. Both reports emphasize some of the shortcomings in current weather models
that scientists use to determine the effect of carbon dioxide on the Earth's average temperature. The first paper compares temperature
data from several altitudes above the Earth’s surface with what the top three internationally used global weather models predict
happens at these altitudes when carbon dioxide is introduced. David Douglass, professor of physics at the University, used data
gathered from satellites, radio-born weather balloons and other sources recorded over the last 20 years. He shows that these global
weather models predict that as carbon dioxide increases, it should affect the temperatures of higher elevations more than it
does at ground level. Douglass’s analysis suggests that while the models do roughly match ground temperatures as carbon
dioxide increased over the last 20 years, the mid- to high-tropospheric levels of the atmosphere actually cooled. “The models are
relatively accurate at predicting the temperatures at the Earth’s surface, “says Douglass, “but when you go a few miles up, they
diverge dramatically. The models are really challenged to explain these results.” Though the study doesn’t suggest what might be
causing the discrepancy, it clearly shows an area of disagreement that today’s global models need to address in order to increase
their accuracy, especially in the time of such hot-button issues as carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming. Douglass’s second
paper in the same journal adds weight to the veracity of satellite temperature readings over the last two decades. Ever since satellites
have been equipped to read the Earth’s temperature from orbit, there has been a roughly one-degree disparity between the satellite
results and those observed directly from measurements taken at the surface itself. The cause of the disparity has been a source of
contention over the last 20 years. In the earlier years, many scientists assumed that the problem was due to satellite error, but newer
satellites continue to reinforce the earlier measurements. The Earth seems about a degree cooler when measured by the
satellites than it does when measured at ground or sea level. Douglass has turned to a third independent source for additional
temperature data, which includes temperatures recorded by weather balloons.
67
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Models Bad
Turn – Models are wrong – too conservative and overlook feedbacks
Erika Engelhaupt, Associate Editor, 5/30/07 (“Models underestimate global warming impacts” American Chemical Society <
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/may/science/ee_arcticice.html>)
Following the latest projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new research shows that
models in the report underestimate some changes that are already under way. Sea ice is melting and sea level is rising faster than
models had predicted, and one brake on warming, the uptake of CO2 by oceans, appears not to be working as well as scientists had
thought. Results published in Geophysical Research Letters in May show that ice-free summers could be even more likely this
century than estimated in February’s IPCC report. Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center led a group that
analyzed nearly 60 years of sea ice records from satellites, ships, and airplanes, concluding that ice has disappeared at an average rate
of 7.8% per decade since 1953, compared with 2.5% per decade in computer simulations. And the Southern Ocean is not exactly
doing its part, taking up less CO2—5–30% less per decade—than expected, according to a study published online May 17 in Science.
Models hadn’t accounted for increased winds that push currents to bring deep carbon to the surface, where it percolates back
into the atmosphere. Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist at Potsdam University (Germany), points out that models tend to
underestimate sea level rise, too. “As climatologists, we’re often under fire because of our pessimistic message, and we’re accused of
overestimating the problem,” he says. “But I think the evidence points to the opposite—we may have been underestimating it.”
Modelers don’t purposely err on the conservative side, says Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, but
some processes “are just not well understood, and because of that have not been incorporated into climate models.” Holland has
published model results on the fate of sea ice and coauthored the recent paper showing that ice is melting faster than models predicted.
There are many reasons for the underestimates, she says. For example, models don’t fully capture heat transport between ocean
and atmosphere, or faster warming as reflective ice gives way to darker, heat-absorbing waters. But Rahmstorf says that
modelers might unwittingly make models more conservative by applying “one-sided filters”, weeding out models that clearly
overestimate the changes seen so far, but hanging onto ones “where everything is too well behaved and stable.” In January, Rahmstorf
published sea-level-rise predictions in Science, noting that the actual rise tracks the uppermost limits of 2001 IPCC projections.
Despite the previous underestimate, this year’s IPCC report gave even smaller sea-level-rise projections, partly because authors
omitted any estimate of accelerating ice flow. “There’s absolutely no reason to assume sea level rise is going to be lower than
previously thought,” Rahmstorf says. The underestimates started to become clear last year, when Eric Rignot of NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory used new satellite techniques to track a decline in Greenland’s ice. Within months, satellite results showed
the Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, too. Before those data came out, scientists had assumed polar ice sheets were in balance for lack
of better information. In 2001, the IPCC said that loss of ice sheets, leading to faster sea level rise, was “very unlikely during the 21st
century.” The latest IPCC report abandons that position, concluding that the Antarctic ice sheet is already contributing to sea level
rise.
68
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Models Bad
Climate models rely on extreme predictions and warming fluctuations are not
anthropogenic – top scientist agree
Marc Morano, communications director on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 5/14/02 “Global
Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists” Cybercast News Service.
<http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=20467>
A team of international scientists Monday said climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer
projections. The scientists met on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about global warming.
Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from
the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) The IPCC climate projections have fueled
worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. Volz noted
that the IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines."
Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales." Monday's luncheon was sponsored by the Frontiers of Freedom
Institute and titled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol." S. Fred Singer,
an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called the IPCC's global warming
projections "completely unrealistic." "Prediction is a very difficult business, particularly about the future," he said. Singer accused
the IPCC of "assuming extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" and called on the Bush
administration to "assemble another team using the IPCC report -- using the same facts" to "write a different summary." Dr. Ulrich
Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's
history and are unrelated to human activity. "The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of
humans," Berner said. Berner also declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of
Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases. "There are numerous
temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," Berner explained. "Carbon Dioxide doesn't police climatic
changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added. Singer agreed, stating, "The
balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human
effects on climate must be quite small." Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for
most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said.
69
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
IPCC Models Bad/Satellites Good

IPCC models are skewed and ignore multiple factors, satellites are more
reliable and prove no anthropogenic warming
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, 3/08 “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules
the Climate <www.sepp.org/ publications/ NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf>
In this Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, we have presented evidence that helps provide answers to all
three questions. The extent of the modern warming-- the subject of the first question -- appears to be less than is claimed by the
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data,
affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations. Data from oceans, covering 70% of
the globe, are also subject to uncertainties. The only truly global observations come from weather satellites, and these have not
shown any warming trend since 1998, for the past 10 years. This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse-gas
contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well-established and generally agreed upon
"fingerprint" method. Using data published by the IPCC, we have shown that observed temperature-trend patterns disagree
sharply with those calculated from green-house models. It is significant that the IPCC has never made such a comparison, or it
would have discovered the same result: namely, that the current warming is primarily of natural origin rather than
anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion on circumstantial "evidence" that does not hold up under scrutiny. We
show that the 20th century is in no way unusual and that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past
-- without any catastrophic consequences. We also discuss the many shortcomings of climate models in trying to simulate what is
happening in the real atmosphere. If the human contribution to global warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases is
insignificant, why do greenhouse-gas models calculate large temperature increases, i.e., show high values of "climate sensitivity"? The
most likely explanation is that models ignore the negative feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere. New observations from
satellites suggest it is the distribution of water vapour that could produce such strong negative feedbacks. If current warming is
not due to increasing greenhouse gases, what are the natural causes that might be responsible for both warming and cooling episodes --
as so amply demonstrated in the historic, pre-industrial climate record? Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main
cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect
atmospheric cloudiness. According to published research, cosmic-ray variations are also responsible for major climate changes
observed in the paleo-record going back 500 million years. The third question concerns the effects of modest warming. A major scare
associated with a putative future warming is a rapid rise in sea level, but even the IPCC has been scaling back its estimates. We show
here that there will be little, if any, acceleration, and therefore no additional increase in the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds
true even if there is a decades-long warming, whether natural or man-made. Other effects of a putative increase in temperature and
carbon dioxide are likely to be benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and forests but also benefitting human health.
Ocean acidification is not judged to be a problem, as indicated by available data.
70
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
IPCC Models Bad

Multiple flaws in IPCC models – independent analysts prove
H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, 3/14/08 “Climate panel on the hot seat” Washington
Times < http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/14/climate-panel-on-the-hot-seat/>
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe
drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's
work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed. In a 2001 report,
the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D.
1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al
Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented
rise global warming. However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an
independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant
problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example,
the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with
recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual
and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted. Furthermore, the community of
specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original
authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming
"cannot be supported." The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread
catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature
statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the
Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other
heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
71
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
Models Bad = Urban Heat Island

Urban heat islands skew models
Thomas C. Peterson, National Climatic Data Center, 9/15/03 “Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in
the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found” Journal of Climate – Vol. 16, No. 18 < http://cfa-
www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Peterson03urbanvsruralT1.pdf>
All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the
data. The data used in this analysis were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously
evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural
metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters in the CONUS were compared using data from 1989 to
1991. Once biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting were
adjusted out of the data, contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization over the
contiguous United States could be found in the existing in situ temperature observation network. It is postulated that the reason for
this is due to microand local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well
be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands
than industrial regions. There are several clear implications from this research. The first is that ensuring that the observational data that
one uses in a variety of analyses are homogeneous is often crucial to getting an answer regarding which one has substantial
confidence. The homogeneity adjustments, therefore, need to be very carefully applied and documented. Simply saying that the
dataset is homogeneous after addressing only one of several problems is not sufficient. Toward that end, this analysis suggests that the
Quayle et al. (1991) adjustment for the transition from liquid-in-glass thermometers in cotton region shelters to the MMTS should be
reevaluated. The second implication has to do with adjustments to time series to account for the effects of urbanization. In the past,
U.S. time series have been adjusted to account for conditions other than different instrumentation, elevation, rooftop siting, etc., that
were thought to cause urban stations to be warmer than rural. However, since analysis of carefully homogenized data indicates that
CONUS urban in situ stations are not warmer than nearby rural stations, adjustments to account for urbanization in CONUS in situ
time series are not appropriate. How widely this finding should be interpreted cannot be determined by the research presented here, as
it focused solely on CONUS data. Urban design and station siting criteria are different in other parts of the world. However, these
results are in keeping with long-term global analyses of homogeneity adjusted GHCN data that found century-scale global
temperature time series from only the rural GHCN stations warming at a slightly higher rate than a time series from the full
GHCN dataset of both rural and urban stations (Peterson et al. 1999). Additionally, as a community, we need to update our
understanding of urban heat islands, to realize that this phenomenon is more complex than widely believed by those not immersed in
the field. We should not view all oddly warmer stations as indications of UHI. Some urban stations are indeed warmer than nearby
rural stations but almost the same number are colder.
72
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha

IPCC models overlook urban heat effect – significantly skews results
Ross McKitrick, associate professor and director of graduate studies, Department of Economics, 12/5/07 “Contaminated data”
Financial Post < http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=145245>
Many long-term weather records come from in or near cities, which have gotten warmer as they grow. Many poor countries have
sparse weather-station records and few resources to ensure data quality. Fewer than one-third of the weather stations operating in the
1970s remain in operation. Scientists readily acknowledged that temperature measurements are contaminated for the purpose
of measuring climate change. But they argue that adjustments fix the problem. To deal with a false warming generated by
urbanization, they have the "Urbanization Adjustment." To deal with biases due to changing the time of day when temperatures are
observed, they have the "Time of Observation Bias Adjustment." And so forth. How do we know these adjustments are correct? In
most studies, the question is simply not asked. A few studies argue that the adjustments must be adequate since adjacent rural and
urban samples give similar results. But closer inspection shows some of these papers don't actually give similar results at all, or
when they do they define "rural" so broadly that it includes partly urbanized places. Other studies say the adjustments must be
adequate because trends on windy nights look the same as trends on calm nights. But the long list of data problems includes issues just
as serious under both windy and calm conditions. The papers describing the adjustments aim to construct data showing what the
temperature would be in a region if nobody had ever lived there. If the adjustments are right, the final output should not be correlated
with the extent of industrial development and variations in socioeconomic conditions. But in a 2004 study with climatologist Patrick
Michaels, we found that the adjustment models were not removing the contamination patterns as claimed. If the contamination were
removed, we estimated the average measured warming rate over land would decline by about half. Dutch meteorologists using
different data and a different testing methodology had come to the same conclusions. In response to criticisms of our paper, I began
assembling a more complete database, covering all available land areas and a more extensive set of climatological and economic
indicators. Meantime, in 2005, I was asked to serve as an external reviewer for the IPCC report, which was released earlier this year. I
accepted, in part to address the data-contamination problem. Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their
climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. They then attribute it to greenhouse gases, since
(they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened,
however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the
large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main
surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had
before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.
73
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha

No warming – urban heat twists readings
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 12/27/07 " Not So Hot” < http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12492?>
Scientists have known for years that temperature records can be contaminated by so-called "urban warming," which results
from the fact that long-term temperature histories tend to have originated at points of commerce. The bricks, buildings, and
pavement of cities retain the heat of the day and impede the flow of ventilating winds. For example, downtown Washington is
warmer than nearby (and more rural) Dulles Airport. As government and services expand down the Dulles Access road, it, too, is
beginning to warm compared to more rural sites to the west. Adjusting data for this effect, or using only rural stations, the United
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states with confidence that less than 10% of the observed warming in long-term
climate histories is due to urbanization. That's a wonderful hypothesis, and Ross and I decided to test it. We noted that other types of
bias must still be affecting historical climate records. What about the quality of a national network and the competence of the
observers? Other factors include movement or closing of weather stations and modification of local land surfaces, such as replacing a
forest with a cornfield. Many of these are socioeconomic, so we built a computer model that included both regional climatic factors,
such as latitude, as well as socioeconomic indicators like GDP and applied it to the IPCC's temperature history. Weather equipment
is very high-maintenance. The standard temperature shelter is painted white. If the paint wears or discolors, the shelter absorbs
more of the sun's heat and the thermometer inside will read artificially high. But keeping temperature stations well painted
probably isn't the highest priority in a poor country. IPCC divides the world into latitude-longitude boxes, and for each of these we
supplied information on GDP, literacy, amount of missing data (a measure of quality), population change, economic growth and
change in coal consumption (the more there is, the cooler the area). Guess what. Almost all the socioeconomic variables were
important. We found the data were of highest quality in North America and that they were very contaminated in Africa and South
America. Overall, we found that the socioeconomic biases "likely add up to a net warming bias at the global level that may explain as
much as half the observed land-based warming trend." We then modified IPCC's temperature data for these biases and compared
the statistical distribution of the warming to the original IPCC data and to satellite measures of lower atmospheric
temperature that have been available since 1979. Since these are from a single source (the U.S. government), and they don't have any
urban contamination, they are likely to be affected very little by economic factors. Indeed. The adjusted IPCC data now looks a lot
like the satellite data. The biggest change was that the high (very warm) end of the distribution in the IPCC data was knocked off
by the unbiasing process.
74
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: IPCC Models Bad

IPCC models are too conservatives – growing consensus support rapid,
feedback warming
Eben Harrell, staff writer for the Scotsman, 4/5/07 “Climate change could be abrupt and catastrophic, expert warns” The Scotsman,
Lexis
WHILE the world prepares for gradual global warming over the next century, a growing number of scientists are beginning to
worry climate change might come much sooner - and be much more catastrophic - than previously thought. They point out that,
in the past, climate change has not been gradual. Europe's climate has switched from arctic to tropical in three to five years
and, they warn, it can happen again. Fred Pearce, of the New Scientist, has spent two years speaking to experts who are studying the
possibility of "type 2" climate change - abrupt, catastrophic and irreversible. He will present his findings as part of the Edinburgh
International Science Festival today. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have focused on "type
1" predictions, based on already observable warming patterns. But many experts say this method ignores the possibility of
"tipping points" at which the climate suddenly spirals out of control. "The IPCC is a very conservative body. It assumes global
warming will follow an already observable pattern - that it will be a straight line on a graph," Mr Pearce said. "But there are many
scientists increasingly worried about a sudden, catastrophic acceleration that could happen at any time." Sudden "type 2" climate
change will happen through a series of "positive feedback" cycles, in which each stage of warming sets off another, like
cascading dominoes. For example, the melting of the Arctic Ocean ice increases polar warming, triggering sea-temperature
rises that dry out the Amazonian rainforest, leading to forest fires, releasing more carbon, eventually leading to the melting of
at least one of the world's three major icecaps, with hundreds of cities swallowed by rising sea levels.
Prefer our models – the IPCC is peer reviewed and uses the scientific method.
Geoff Strong 6/16/08 “Just who is gullible, naïve on climate warming?”The Hill Times,
<http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/june/16/letter4/&c=1>
Complex numerical climate models today correctly simulate the effect using basic physics, while our climate data speak volumes for
the relation. It is therefore no longer just theory, but scientific fact, so where did Mr. Carroll go wrong in his meteorologist training?
He then goes on to brand the IPCC as alarmist propagandists, as if there was some mysterious conspiracy there. The IPCC does not
carry out climate research nor derive its own theories, nor does it spread alarmist propaganda as Carroll claims. IPCC is
sponsored by the WMO of the United Nations, and its reports are generated by respected climate experts from many disciplines
all over the world, including a number of Canada's leading scientists in this field. They use published material mainly from
scientific journal articles, all of which have previously been thoroughly refereed by their scientific peers throughout the world.
This process is part of the 'scientific method' used by all sciences for many centuries. Most of the so-called 'climate change
deniers', on the other hand, do not publish their opinions or research in refereed scientific journals, but choose instead to go
directly to media reports. Heaven forbid that anyone speculate that some of those people receive funding from the petroleum
industry
75
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Urban Heat Effect

No urban heat effect – weather readings are in cooler areas
John Cook, creator of Skeptical Science, 08 (“Urban Heat Island Effect Exaggerates Warming” Skeptical Science <
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm?)
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect.
They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The
process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001). They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell
within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather
stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it
when analysing temperature records. This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of
urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact
of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural
sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." Another
more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He
concluded "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall
warming is not a consequence of urban development".
76
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Models Bad

Model problems are resolved – new measurements account for discrepancies
Science Daily 5/30/08 “Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved”
< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm>
Yale University scientists reported that they may have resolved a controversial glitch in models of global warming: A key part of
the atmosphere didn't seem to be warming as expected. Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures
should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at
the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites
have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface. By measuring changes in winds,
rather than relying upon problematic temperature measurements, Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood of the Department of
Geology and Geophysics at Yale estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees
Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is
in line with predictions of global warming models. “I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts that the atmosphere really has
been warming up more or less as we expect, due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide,” Sherwood
said. Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood, have long argued that temperature data were flawed for many reasons such as
the change of instrument design over the years. “These systems were never designed for measuring climate change,” said Sherwood.
However, some global warming skeptics had argued that weather balloon temperatures were accurate—and models that predicted
global warming were wrong. Allen and Sherwood predicted that measuring thermal winds, which are tied to fluctuations in
temperatures, would be a more accurate gauge of true atmospheric warming than the thermometers. To measure the thermal
winds, they studied data on the motion of weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere. They then calculated
temperatures that would account for the wind velocity recorded.
77
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
**Author Indicts**
78
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Idso
Idso and their authors are in the minority – consensus studies prove warming
Steven Milloy, Special to the Financial Post, 8/2/06 “California tries to gag 'climate skeptics'” Financial Post. Lexis
In a pretrial discovery motion, California and the environmental groups asked for: "All documents relating to both global warming
and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels,
Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris
Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to: a. All
documents relating to any communications between you and these individuals, and b. All documents relating to your relationship (or
the relationship of any automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturers) with any of them, including but not
limited to payments directly or indirectly from you or any other automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturer to
any of them." The state then goes on to quote from Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On. "Ever since climate change took center
stage at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling,
together with Sherwood Idso, S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, and a few other high-profile greenhouse skeptics have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. They have made frequent pronouncements on radio and television
programs, including a number of appearances by some of them on the Rush Limbaugh Show; their interviews, columns, and letters
have appeared in newspapers ranging from local weeklies to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In the process they
have helped create a broad public belief that the question of climate change is hopelessly mired in unknowns. "The tiny group
of dissenting scientists have been given prominent public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion to their
standing in the scientific community on the issue of global warming. They have used this platform to pound widely amplified
drumbeats of doubt about climate change. These doubts are repeated by virtually every climate-related story in every newspaper
and every TV and radio news outlet in the country. "By keeping the discussion focused on whether there really is a problem, these
dozen or so dissidents -- contradicting the consensus view held by 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists -- have until now
prevented discussion about how to address the problem."
Discredit the Idsos – they receive their funding from the coal industry
Union of Concerned Scientists 07 (“Responding to Global Warming Skeptics—Prominent 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.
79
Warming 3.0
DDI 2008 GT
Rab/Sneha
A2: Warming Good Authors

Their authors are tied to petroleum interests, prefer our evidence
Jeff Nesmtih, writer for Cox news service, 6/2/03 “Foes of global warming theory have energy ties” Seattle Pi <
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html>
Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of
global warming are wrong. The scientists who wrote the study contend that the global warming of recent decades is not without
precedent during the past 1,000 years, as other scientists have claimed. In fact, they say the Earth was even warmer during what is
known as the "medieval warm period" between A.D. 900 and 1300. The paper has touched off a worldwide storm of e-mail among
climate scientists, some of whom have proposed organizing a research boycott of two journals that published the study. The links
among authors of the new study, the non-profit groups and the energy interests illustrate a three-way intersection of money, science
and policy. Energy interests underwrote the study and help finance the groups that are promoting it. The study also illustrates a
strategy adopted by some energy companies in the late 1980s to attack the credibility of climate science, said John Topping, president
of the Climate Institute and a former Republican congressional staffer who founded the institute in 1986. By relying on the news
media's inclination to include both sides of a story, the industries were able to create the impression that scientists were deeply
divided over climate change, Topping said. "It was all very shrewdly done," he said. The institute, which takes the position that
climate change threatens the global environment, promotes international cooperation to address the issue. Less than 1 percent of its
funding has come from oil industry sources, Topping said, with the rest coming from foundations. Most climate scientists think the
rise in global climate -- largely stable until the late 1980s, they say -- results from the atmospheric buildup of heat-trapping
"greenhouse gases," especially carbon dioxide released by the combustion of fossil fuels. Industry-backed groups claim their study
challenges the validity of this view by presenting evidence of global warming when fossil fuels were not being burned in appreciable
quantities. The study, "Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years: A Reappraisal," was published
several weeks ago in a British scientific journal, Energy and Environment. The authors contend in the 65-page paper that their
reanalysis of data from more than 200 climate studies provides evidence of global temperature shifts that are more dramatic than the
current one. The research was underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association of the world's largest
oil companies. Two of the five authors are scientists who have been linked to the coal industry and have received support from
the ExxonMobil Foundation. Two others, who are affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also have the title
of "senior scientists" with a Washington-based organization supported by ExxonMobil Corp. The organization, the George T.
Marshall Institute, is headed by William O'Keefe, a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute. He also was at one
time the president of the Global Climate Coalition, a now-defunct organization created by oil and coal interests to lobby
against U.S. participation in climate treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Prefer our evidence – The Idsos receive grants from Exxon Mobil
Jeff Nesmtih, writer for Cox news service, 6/2/03 “Foes of global warming theory have energy ties” Seattle Pi <
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html>
The energy industry provides significant funding for groups that employ some of the authors or promote their new study. Soon's
co-authors were Sallie Baliunas, also from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center; Sherwood Idso and his son, Craig Idso of Tempe,
Ariz., who are the former president and the current president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change; and David Legates, a climate researcher at the University of Delaware. The Idsos, who have been linked to Western coal
interests, do not reveal financial sources. But IRS records filed by ExxonMobil Foundation show that it provided a grant of
$15,000 to the center in 2000. These records and others show that ExxonMobil Foundation and ExxonMobil Corp. also have
contributed $160,000 to the George T. Marshall Institute in the past three years and more than $900,000 to the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. Soon declined to say how much he is paid to serve as a "senior scientist" with the Marshall Institute. Both he and Baliunas
have that title. Other board members include techno-suspense novelist Thomas Clancy Jr., newspaper columnist Charles
Krauthammer, Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Frederick Seitz of Rockefeller University.
Ross Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter and editor whose 1997 book, "The Heat is On," details industry efforts to discredit
climate change science, said conclusions that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up are the result of the "most rigorously
peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. "The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded
by big coal and big oil, represent a deliberate -- and extremely reckless -- campaign of deception and disinformation."
80

304 GT Warming 3.0

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

304 GT Warming 3.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Warming 3.

Warming Never Ends

Warming = Population Shifts..............................................................................................................................32

AT: SO2 Cooling Good........................................................................................................................................60

1NC Positive Feedback

Feedback – Phytoplankton, Peat, Forests

Positive Feedback – Runaway Warming

Runaway Warming – Permafrost

Runaway Warming – Permafrost

Positive Feedback – El Niño

Positive Feedback = Albedo

Positive Feedback = Albedo

Positive Feedback = North Atlanta Oscillations

Positive Feedback – Water Vapor

Europe proves water vapor feedback

Positive Feedback – Water Vapor

Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback

**AT: Positive Feedback**

A2: Carbon Sinks

A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth

A2: Carbon Sinks/Plant Growth – Prefer Our Models

Turns – Clouds act as positive feedbacks – NASA satellites prove

Negative Feedback – Clouds

Clouds would reduce warming by 75 percent – their models are outdated

Clouds reflect radiation – satellites prove

Negative Feedback – El Niño

Negative Feedback - Aerosols

Negative Feedbacks O/W Positive Feedbacks

A2: Forest = Negative Feedbacks

Warming = Population Shifts

Warming = Nuclear War

Warming = Flooding (TF)

Warming = Coral Bleaching/Runaway Warming

Turn – Carbon Emissions = Amazon 2NC

Amazon key to survival

New satellite data proves warming

A2: Satellites = No Warming

A2: Satellites = No Warming

31,000 Petition = No Warming

Polar Caps Prove Spending

Alternate Causality – China

No Solvency – Zero Emissions Key

CO2 key to Plant Growth

CO2 key Water Vapor

**AT: CO2 Good**

**AT: SO2 Impacts**

SO2  Acid Rain

SO2  Acid Rain

SO2  Global Dimming

AT: SO2 Cooling Good

**AT: Ice age**

No Ice Age Now

Ice Age Models Wrong

Ice Age Doesn’t  Extinction

IPCC Models Bad/Satellites Good

IPCC Models Bad

Models Bad = Urban Heat Island

Models Bad = Urban Heat Island

Models Bad = Urban Heat Island

A2: IPCC Models Bad

A2: Urban Heat Effect

A2: Models Bad

A2: Warming Good Authors

You might also like

AT: Positive Feedback

AT: CO2 Good

AT: SO2 Impacts

AT: Ice age