Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Global Warming
Warming Now: Global Warming ......................................................................................................................................................................................1

Global Warming ....................................................................................................................................................1
Brink – Must Act Now...........................................................................................................................................................................18

Brink – Must Act Now.........................................................................................................................................18
Warming Brink – 2 Degree ...................................................................................................................................................................19

Warming Brink – 2 Degree ................................................................................................................................19
CO2 Levels Increasing Now – Ice Cores ..............................................................................................................................................20

CO2 Levels Increasing Now – Ice Cores ...........................................................................................................20
Warming Now – Tree Rings .................................................................................................................................................................21

Warming Now – Tree Rings ...............................................................................................................................21
Warming Now – Ice Sheets ..................................................................................................................................................................22

Warming Now – Ice Sheets ................................................................................................................................22
Warming Now – Ice Sheets...................................................................................................................................................................23

Warming Now – Ice Sheets.................................................................................................................................23
Warming Now – General ......................................................................................................................................................................24

Warming Now – General ....................................................................................................................................24
Warming Now – Precipitation ..............................................................................................................................................................25

Warming Now – Precipitation ...........................................................................................................................25
Warming now—10 Degrees .................................................................................................................................................................26

Warming now—10 Degrees ...............................................................................................................................26
Warming Now – Average Temperature ................................................................................................................................................27

Warming Now – Average Temperature ...........................................................................................................27
Warming Now—Sea Level ...................................................................................................................................................................28

Warming Now—Sea Level .................................................................................................................................28
Warming Now – Sea Level Rises .........................................................................................................................................................29

Warming Now – Sea Level Rises .......................................................................................................................29
Warming Now – Glaciers Melting.........................................................................................................................................................30

Warming Now – Glaciers Melting......................................................................................................................30
Warming Now – Retreating Ice Shelves ...............................................................................................................................................31

Warming Now – Retreating Ice Shelves ...........................................................................................................31
Warming Now – AT: NASA Report.....................................................................................................................................................32

Warming Now – AT: NASA Report...................................................................................................................32
1

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
Warming Now – AT: Recent Cooling...................................................................................................................................................33

Warming Now – AT: Recent Cooling................................................................................................................33
Warming Now – AT: Gov Records/Reports..........................................................................................................................................34

Warming Now – AT: Gov Records/Reports......................................................................................................34
AT: Volcanoes/Sulfur/Aerosols – Variations in Temp .........................................................................................................................35

AT: Volcanoes/Sulfur/Aerosols – Variations in Temp ....................................................................................35
Warming Exists .....................................................................................................................................................................................36

Warming Exists ...................................................................................................................................................36
Warming Exists – Scientific Consensus ...............................................................................................................................................37

Warming Exists – Scientific Consensus ............................................................................................................37
Runaway Warming Now .......................................................................................................................................................................38

Runaway Warming Now ....................................................................................................................................38
Runaway Warming Now .......................................................................................................................................................................39

Runaway Warming Now ....................................................................................................................................39
Runaway Warming Now .......................................................................................................................................................................40

Runaway Warming Now ....................................................................................................................................40
Runaway Warming Bad ........................................................................................................................................................................41

Runaway Warming Bad .....................................................................................................................................41
Prefer Models .......................................................................................................................................................................................42

Prefer Models .....................................................................................................................................................42
At: Models Fail—Chaos Theory ...........................................................................................................................................................43

At: Models Fail—Chaos Theory ........................................................................................................................43
Satellites Accurate ................................................................................................................................................................................44

Satellites Accurate ...............................................................................................................................................44
Balloons and Satellites Reliable.............................................................................................................................................................45

Balloons and Satellites Reliable..........................................................................................................................45
At: Urban Heat island effect..................................................................................................................................................................46

At: Urban Heat island effect...............................................................................................................................46
AT: Urban Heat Island Effect................................................................................................................................................................47

AT: Urban Heat Island Effect............................................................................................................................47
AT: Urban Heat Island Effect .............................................................................................................................................................48

AT: Urban Heat Island Effect .........................................................................................................................48
Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback .........................................................................................................................................49

Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback .....................................................................................................49
2

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
Positive Feedback – MOC ....................................................................................................................................................................50

Positive Feedback – MOC ..................................................................................................................................50
Positive Feedback – Vapor ...................................................................................................................................................................51

Positive Feedback – Vapor .................................................................................................................................51
Positive Feedback—Albedo ..................................................................................................................................................................52

Positive Feedback—Albedo ................................................................................................................................52
Positive Feedback—Permafrost ............................................................................................................................................................53

Positive Feedback—Permafrost ........................................................................................................................53
Positive Feedbacks – Regional Clouds ................................................................................................................................................................................................................54

Positive Feedbacks – Regional Clouds ................................................................................................................................................................................54
Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun/Volcanic Activity ................................................................................................................................55

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun/Volcanic Activity .............................................................................................55
Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun – Night Temperatures...........................................................................................................................56

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun – Night Temperatures.....................................................................................56
Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun...............................................................................................................................................................57

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun............................................................................................................................57
Positive Feedback—AT: Clouds ...........................................................................................................................................................58

Positive Feedback—AT: Clouds ........................................................................................................................58
Warming = Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................................................................................59

Warming = Anthropogenic ................................................................................................................................59
warming is anthropogenic......................................................................................................................................................................60

warming is anthropogenic...................................................................................................................................60
Warming = Anthropogenic....................................................................................................................................................................61

Warming = Anthropogenic.................................................................................................................................61
Warming = Anthropogenic....................................................................................................................................................................62

Warming = Anthropogenic.................................................................................................................................62
Warming = Anthropogenic....................................................................................................................................................................63

Warming = Anthropogenic.................................................................................................................................63
Warming = Anthropogenic – Generic...................................................................................................................................................64

Warming = Anthropogenic – Generic................................................................................................................64
Warming = Anthropogenic – Ocean Temps..........................................................................................................................................65

Warming = Anthropogenic – Ocean Temps......................................................................................................65
Yes Anthropogenic – FF/Ag..................................................................................................................................................................66 3

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Yes Anthropogenic – FF/Ag................................................................................................................................66
Yes Anthropogenic – GHG in the Troposphere ...................................................................................................................................67

Yes Anthropogenic – GHG in the Troposphere ...............................................................................................67
Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus ..........................................................................................................................................68

Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus .......................................................................................................68
Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus...........................................................................................................................................69

Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus........................................................................................................69
Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Only IPCC Report.......................................................................................................................................70

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Only IPCC Report...................................................................................................70
Yes Anthropogenic – Their Authors Unqualified..................................................................................................................................71

Yes Anthropogenic – Their Authors Unqualified.............................................................................................71
CO2  Warming ..................................................................................................................................................................................72

CO2  Warming ................................................................................................................................................72
IPCC Quals ...........................................................................................................................................................................................73

IPCC Quals ..........................................................................................................................................................73
IPCC Quals – Scientific Concensus ......................................................................................................................................................74

IPCC Quals – Scientific Concensus ...................................................................................................................74
IPCC Quals – Scientific Review/Concensus.........................................................................................................................................75

IPCC Quals – Scientific Review/Concensus......................................................................................................75
IPCC Quals – All Models .....................................................................................................................................................................76

IPCC Quals – All Models ...................................................................................................................................76
AT: IPCC Sea Levels Low....................................................................................................................................................................77

AT: IPCC Sea Levels Low..................................................................................................................................77
***Warming Bad Impacts***...............................................................................................................................................................78

***Warming Bad Impacts***............................................................................................................................78
Warming Extinction ..........................................................................................................................................................................79

Warming  Extinction .......................................................................................................................................79
Warming  Extinction .........................................................................................................................................................................80

Warming  Extinction ......................................................................................................................................80
Warming – War: General ......................................................................................................................................................................81

Warming – War: General ..................................................................................................................................81
XTN: Warming – War: General ...........................................................................................................................................................82

XTN: Warming – War: General .......................................................................................................................82
XTN: Warming – War: General............................................................................................................................................................83 4

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao XTN: Warming – War: General........................................................................................................................83
................................................................................................................................................................................................................83

................................................................................................................................................................................83
XTN: Warming – War: General............................................................................................................................................................84

XTN: Warming – War: General........................................................................................................................84
warming causes war [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]................................................................................................................................85

warming causes war [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]...........................................................................................85
XTN: Warming  African Instability ..................................................................................................................................................86

XTN: Warming  African Instability .............................................................................................................86
Warming  Water Wars ......................................................................................................................................................................87

Warming  Water Wars ...................................................................................................................................87
XTN: Warming  Water Wars ............................................................................................................................................................88

XTN: Warming  Water Wars ........................................................................................................................88
Warming  China/India Conflict ........................................................................................................................................................89

Warming  China/India Conflict ....................................................................................................................89
Warming  Spratly Conflict ...............................................................................................................................................................90

Warming  Spratly Conflict ...........................................................................................................................90
Warming  Arctic Conflict .................................................................................................................................................................91

Warming  Arctic Conflict ..............................................................................................................................91
warming  Terrorism ..........................................................................................................................................................................91

warming  Terrorism .......................................................................................................................................91
XTN: Warming  Terrorism ...............................................................................................................................................................93

XTN: Warming  Terrorism ...........................................................................................................................93
Warming  Migration/Refugees .........................................................................................................................................................94

Warming  Migration/Refugees ......................................................................................................................94
Warming hurts Biodiversity...................................................................................................................................................................95

Warming hurts Biodiversity...............................................................................................................................95
XTN: Warming Hurts BioD ..................................................................................................................................................................95

XTN: Warming Hurts BioD ...............................................................................................................................95
XTN: Warming Hurts BioD ..................................................................................................................................................................97

XTN: Warming Hurts BioD ...............................................................................................................................97
XTN: Warming Hurts BioD .................................................................................................................................................................98 5

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao XTN: Warming Hurts BioD ..............................................................................................................................98
CO2 bad—Oceans ................................................................................................................................................................................99

CO2 bad—Oceans ...............................................................................................................................................99
CO2 bad—Coral .................................................................................................................................................................................100

CO2 bad—Coral ...............................................................................................................................................100
Warming Hurts Coral ..........................................................................................................................................................................101

Warming Hurts Coral ......................................................................................................................................101
XTN: Warming Hurts Coral ...............................................................................................................................................................102

XTN: Warming Hurts Coral ............................................................................................................................102
ext -- warming hurts coral....................................................................................................................................................................103

ext -- warming hurts coral.................................................................................................................................103
ext -- warming hurts coral....................................................................................................................................................................104

ext -- warming hurts coral.................................................................................................................................104
ext -- warming hurts coral....................................................................................................................................................................105

ext -- warming hurts coral.................................................................................................................................105
ext -- warming hurts coral....................................................................................................................................................................106

ext -- warming hurts coral.................................................................................................................................106
CACO3 internal link ...........................................................................................................................................................................107

CACO3 internal link .........................................................................................................................................107
ext – CORAL impact...........................................................................................................................................................................108

ext – CORAL impact.........................................................................................................................................108
At: INCREASED SEA LEVELS HELP REEFS.................................................................................................................................109

At: INCREASED SEA LEVELS HELP REEFS............................................................................................109
environment impact.............................................................................................................................................................................110

environment impact...........................................................................................................................................110
Warming hurts oceans..........................................................................................................................................................................111

Warming hurts oceans.......................................................................................................................................111
warming causes FLOODING..............................................................................................................................................................112

warming causes FLOODING............................................................................................................................112
ext -- warming causes flooding ..........................................................................................................................................................113

ext -- warming causes flooding ........................................................................................................................113
Warming causes sea level rise ............................................................................................................................................................114

Warming causes sea level rise ..........................................................................................................................114
Warming causes Monsoons ................................................................................................................................................................115 6

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Warming causes Monsoons ..............................................................................................................................115
warming causes draughts.....................................................................................................................................................................116

warming causes draughts..................................................................................................................................116
warming causes hurricanes..................................................................................................................................................................117

warming causes hurricanes...............................................................................................................................117
warming causes diseases [general]......................................................................................................................................................118

warming causes diseases [general]...................................................................................................................118
Warming causes diseases [general].....................................................................................................................................................119

Warming causes diseases [general]..................................................................................................................119
warming causes diseases [general]......................................................................................................................................................120

warming causes diseases [general]...................................................................................................................120
warming causes Diseases [malaria].....................................................................................................................................................121

warming causes Diseases [malaria]..................................................................................................................121
warming bad laundry list.....................................................................................................................................................................122

warming bad laundry list..................................................................................................................................122
warming hurts trade.............................................................................................................................................................................123

warming hurts trade..........................................................................................................................................123
warming hurts economy.......................................................................................................................................................................124

warming hurts economy....................................................................................................................................124
ext – warming hurts economy..............................................................................................................................................................125

ext – warming hurts economy...........................................................................................................................125
Warming Bad – Heg ...........................................................................................................................................................................126

Warming Bad – Heg .........................................................................................................................................126
Warming Bad – Most Probable War....................................................................................................................................................127

Warming Bad – Most Probable War...............................................................................................................127
Warming Bad – Water Wars................................................................................................................................................................128

Warming Bad – Water Wars............................................................................................................................128
Warming Bad – Northwest Passage/Sea Lanes Disputes....................................................................................................................129

Warming Bad – Northwest Passage/Sea Lanes Disputes...............................................................................129
Warming Bad – Malaria ......................................................................................................................................................................130

Warming Bad – Malaria ..................................................................................................................................130
Warming Bad – Disease.......................................................................................................................................................................131

Warming Bad – Disease.....................................................................................................................................131
warming causes blackouts....................................................................................................................................................................132 7

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao warming causes blackouts.................................................................................................................................132
warming causes wildfires.....................................................................................................................................................................133

warming causes wildfires..................................................................................................................................133
warming hurts plants............................................................................................................................................................................133

warming hurts plants.........................................................................................................................................133
ext – warming hurts plants...................................................................................................................................................................135

ext – warming hurts plants................................................................................................................................135
ext – warming hurts plants...................................................................................................................................................................136

ext – warming hurts plants................................................................................................................................136
warming causes food shortages...........................................................................................................................................................137

warming causes food shortages.........................................................................................................................137
warming hurts the barents sea .............................................................................................................................................................138

warming hurts the barents sea .........................................................................................................................138
Warming bad for asia...........................................................................................................................................................................139

Warming bad for asia........................................................................................................................................139
Warming Bad – Linear Impacts...........................................................................................................................................................140

Warming Bad – Linear Impacts.......................................................................................................................140
Warming Bad – Bio D (2 Degree Temp Rise).....................................................................................................................................141

Warming Bad – Bio D (2 Degree Temp Rise)..................................................................................................141
Warming Bad – Bio-D Collpase => Econ/Famine Impact..................................................................................................................142

Warming Bad – Bio-D Collpase => Econ/Famine Impact.............................................................................142
Warming Bad – Bio-D Collapse => Econ/Famine Impact .................................................................................................................143

Warming Bad – Bio-D Collapse => Econ/Famine Impact ............................................................................143
Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability..............................................................................................................................................144

Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability..........................................................................................................144
Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability .............................................................................................................................................145

Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability .........................................................................................................145
Warming Bad – Middle Eastern Instability.........................................................................................................................................146

Warming Bad – Middle Eastern Instability....................................................................................................146
Warming Bad – Southeast Asia Instability..........................................................................................................................................147

Warming Bad – Southeast Asia Instability.....................................................................................................147
Warming Bad – Chinese Instability.....................................................................................................................................................148

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability.................................................................................................................148
Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ....................................................................................................................................................149 8

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ................................................................................................................149
Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ....................................................................................................................................................150

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ................................................................................................................150
Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ....................................................................................................................................................150

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability ................................................................................................................150
Warming Bad – Terrorism...................................................................................................................................................................152

Warming Bad – Terrorism...............................................................................................................................152
Warming Bad – Terrorism...................................................................................................................................................................153

Warming Bad – Terrorism...............................................................................................................................153
AT: Warming Good ............................................................................................................................................................................154

AT: Warming Good ..........................................................................................................................................154
Solvency – US Key – Modeling .........................................................................................................................................................155

Solvency – US Key – Modeling ........................................................................................................................155
Solvency – China Models ...................................................................................................................................................................156

Solvency – China Models ..................................................................................................................................156
Solvency – US Key – Leadership .......................................................................................................................................................157

Solvency – US Key – Leadership .....................................................................................................................157
US Action Key – China Models .........................................................................................................................................................158

US Action Key – China Models .......................................................................................................................158
Solvency – Adaptation.........................................................................................................................................................................159

Solvency – Adaptation.......................................................................................................................................159
Solvency – Adaptation.........................................................................................................................................................................160

Solvency – Adaptation.......................................................................................................................................160
Solvency – Runaway Warming...........................................................................................................................................................161

Solvency – Runaway Warming.........................................................................................................................161
Feedback – Tundra Methane Bubbles..................................................................................................................................................162

Feedback – Tundra Methane Bubbles.............................................................................................................162
AT: Singer............................................................................................................................................................................................163

AT: Singer...........................................................................................................................................................163
AT: Aerosols .......................................................................................................................................................................................164

AT: Aerosols ......................................................................................................................................................164
***aff impact calculus***...................................................................................................................................................................166

***aff impact calculus***.................................................................................................................................166
Slight climate change has big impacts.................................................................................................................................................167 9

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Slight climate change has big impacts..............................................................................................................167
warming impact calculus [time frame]................................................................................................................................................168

warming impact calculus [time frame]............................................................................................................168
prefer warming impacts ......................................................................................................................................................................169

prefer warming impacts ...................................................................................................................................169
warming o/ws war................................................................................................................................................................................170

warming o/ws war..............................................................................................................................................170
**Negative**.......................................................................................................................................................................................171

**Negative**.......................................................................................................................................................171
warming is slow...................................................................................................................................................................................172

warming is slow..................................................................................................................................................172
warming inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................173

warming inevitable.............................................................................................................................................173
No warming.........................................................................................................................................................................................173

No warming........................................................................................................................................................173
No Warming ........................................................................................................................................................................................175

No Warming ......................................................................................................................................................175
No Warming – Cycles .........................................................................................................................................................................176

No Warming – Cycles .......................................................................................................................................176
Global Cooling ....................................................................................................................................................................................177

Global Cooling ...................................................................................................................................................177
Global Cooling Now – Cycles ............................................................................................................................................................178

Global Cooling Now – Cycles ...........................................................................................................................178
Global Cooling – Scientific Consensus ..............................................................................................................................................179

Global Cooling – Scientific Consensus ............................................................................................................179
Balloon/satelites prove no warming.....................................................................................................................................................180

Balloon/satelites prove no warming.................................................................................................................180
Models not reliable..............................................................................................................................................................................181

Models not reliable.............................................................................................................................................181
Models Inaccurate ...............................................................................................................................................................................182

Models Inaccurate .............................................................................................................................................182
IPCC models bad- urban heat..............................................................................................................................................................183

IPCC models bad- urban heat..........................................................................................................................183
IPCC Inaccurate ..................................................................................................................................................................................184 10

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao IPCC Inaccurate ...............................................................................................................................................184
IPCC Inaccurate/Biased ......................................................................................................................................................................185

IPCC Inaccurate/Biased ...................................................................................................................................185
IPCC Bad ............................................................................................................................................................................................186

IPCC Bad ...........................................................................................................................................................186
Scientists Biased – Funding ................................................................................................................................................................187

Scientists Biased – Funding ..............................................................................................................................187
Media Inaccurate .................................................................................................................................................................................188

Media Inaccurate ..............................................................................................................................................188
Negative Feedbacks – Clouds .............................................................................................................................................................189

Negative Feedbacks – Clouds ...........................................................................................................................189
Negative Feedbacks – Mysterious Forces ...........................................................................................................................................190

Negative Feedbacks – Mysterious Forces .......................................................................................................190
Not Anthropogenic...............................................................................................................................................................................191

Not Anthropogenic.............................................................................................................................................191
Not Anthropogenic ..............................................................................................................................................................................192

Not Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................................................192
Not Anthropogenic – Models ..............................................................................................................................................................193

Not Anthropogenic – Models ...........................................................................................................................193
CO2 =/= Warming...............................................................................................................................................................................194

CO2 =/= Warming.............................................................................................................................................194
CO2 =/= Warming ..............................................................................................................................................................................195

CO2 =/= Warming ............................................................................................................................................195
CO2 =/= Warming—Propaganda .......................................................................................................................................................196

CO2 =/= Warming—Propaganda ...................................................................................................................196
no consensus........................................................................................................................................................................................197

no consensus.......................................................................................................................................................197
No consensus.......................................................................................................................................................................................198

No consensus.......................................................................................................................................................198
No Consensus.......................................................................................................................................................................................199

No Consensus......................................................................................................................................................199
No Consensus.......................................................................................................................................................................................200

No Consensus......................................................................................................................................................200
IPCC inaccurate...................................................................................................................................................................................201 11

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao IPCC inaccurate.................................................................................................................................................201
Indict – RANDALL SCWATZ ...........................................................................................................................................................202

Indict – RANDALL SCWATZ ........................................................................................................................202
Skeptics Qualified................................................................................................................................................................................203

Skeptics Qualified..............................................................................................................................................203
AT: resource wars ...............................................................................................................................................................................204

AT: resource wars .............................................................................................................................................204
AT: Wars..............................................................................................................................................................................................206

AT: Wars............................................................................................................................................................206
At: Wars...............................................................................................................................................................................................207

At: Wars..............................................................................................................................................................207
AT: Marine Biodiversity......................................................................................................................................................................208

AT: Marine Biodiversity...................................................................................................................................208
AT: Economy ......................................................................................................................................................................................209

AT: Economy .....................................................................................................................................................209
AT: Storms...........................................................................................................................................................................................210

AT: Storms.........................................................................................................................................................210
AT: Flooding........................................................................................................................................................................................211

AT: Flooding.......................................................................................................................................................211
AT: Hurricanes.....................................................................................................................................................................................212

AT: Hurricanes..................................................................................................................................................212
AT: Coral.............................................................................................................................................................................................213

AT: Coral............................................................................................................................................................213
AT: Coral ...........................................................................................................................................................................................214

AT: Coral ..........................................................................................................................................................214
AT: warming hurts oceans...................................................................................................................................................................215

AT: warming hurts oceans................................................................................................................................215
1nc can’t solve warming......................................................................................................................................................................216

1nc can’t solve warming....................................................................................................................................216
1nc can’t solve warming......................................................................................................................................................................217

1nc can’t solve warming....................................................................................................................................217
1nc ice age da.......................................................................................................................................................................................218

1nc ice age da......................................................................................................................................................218
1nc ice age da.......................................................................................................................................................................................219 12

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao 1nc ice age da......................................................................................................................................................219
ice age now..........................................................................................................................................................................................220

ice age now..........................................................................................................................................................220
ice age now..........................................................................................................................................................................................221

ice age now..........................................................................................................................................................221
Warming solves Ice Age......................................................................................................................................................................222

Warming solves Ice Age....................................................................................................................................222
Warming solves Ice Age......................................................................................................................................................................223

Warming solves Ice Age....................................................................................................................................223
warming solves Ice age........................................................................................................................................................................224

warming solves Ice age......................................................................................................................................224
Warming solves Ice age.......................................................................................................................................................................225

Warming solves Ice age.....................................................................................................................................225
Warming stops ice age.........................................................................................................................................................................226

Warming stops ice age.......................................................................................................................................226
Ice age causes extinction......................................................................................................................................................................227

Ice age causes extinction....................................................................................................................................227
Ice age causes extinction......................................................................................................................................................................228

Ice age causes extinction....................................................................................................................................228
AT: warming causes cooling ..............................................................................................................................................................229

AT: warming causes cooling ............................................................................................................................229
AT: warming causes cooling ..............................................................................................................................................................230

AT: warming causes cooling ............................................................................................................................230
AT: warming causes cooling ..............................................................................................................................................................231

AT: warming causes cooling ............................................................................................................................231
AT: warming causes cooling ..............................................................................................................................................................232

AT: warming causes cooling ............................................................................................................................232
AT: US Key – China ...........................................................................................................................................................................233

AT: US Key – China .........................................................................................................................................233
AT: US Key – China/Other ................................................................................................................................................................234

AT: US Key – China/Other .............................................................................................................................234
***AFF AT ICE AGE***...................................................................................................................................................................235

***AFF AT ICE AGE***.................................................................................................................................235
Ice age not coming...............................................................................................................................................................................236 13

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Ice age not coming..............................................................................................................................................236
Ice melting won’t lead to ice age.........................................................................................................................................................237

Ice melting won’t lead to ice age.......................................................................................................................237
Ice Age =/= Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................................238

Ice Age =/= Extinction ......................................................................................................................................238
warming causes cooling.......................................................................................................................................................................239

warming causes cooling.....................................................................................................................................239
ext -- warming shuts down thc.............................................................................................................................................................240

ext -- warming shuts down thc..........................................................................................................................240
XTN: Warming Shuts Down THC......................................................................................................................................................241

XTN: Warming Shuts Down THC...................................................................................................................241
XTN: Thc shutdown  Ice Age..........................................................................................................................................................242

XTN: Thc shutdown  Ice Age.......................................................................................................................242
XTN: warming shuts down thc...........................................................................................................................................................243

XTN: warming shuts down thc........................................................................................................................243
XTN: THC Brink ................................................................................................................................................................................244

XTN: THC Brink ..............................................................................................................................................244
XTN: THC K Ocean ...........................................................................................................................................................................245

XTN: THC K Ocean .........................................................................................................................................245
THC Impact: Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................................................246

THC Impact: Fisheries .....................................................................................................................................246
THC Impact: Biodiversity ...................................................................................................................................................................247

THC Impact: Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................247
THC Impact: Starvation ......................................................................................................................................................................248

THC Impact: Starvation ..................................................................................................................................248
THC Impact: Coral .............................................................................................................................................................................249

THC Impact: Coral ...........................................................................................................................................249
North Atlantic Current Key.................................................................................................................................................................250

North Atlantic Current Key..............................................................................................................................250
North Atlantic Current Collapse  Extinction ..................................................................................................................................251

North Atlantic Current Collapse  Extinction .............................................................................................251
1NC SO2 DA.......................................................................................................................................................................................252

1NC SO2 DA.......................................................................................................................................................252
XTN: SO2  Cooling ........................................................................................................................................................................253 14

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao XTN: SO2  Cooling .......................................................................................................................................253
XTN: SO2  Cooling ........................................................................................................................................................................253

XTN: SO2  Cooling .......................................................................................................................................253
XTN: SO2  Cooling.........................................................................................................................................................................255

XTN: SO2  Cooling........................................................................................................................................255
XTN: SO2  Cooling ........................................................................................................................................................................256

XTN: SO2  Cooling .......................................................................................................................................256
XTN: SO2  Cooling ........................................................................................................................................................................257

XTN: SO2  Cooling .......................................................................................................................................257
XTN: SO2  Cooling ........................................................................................................................................................................258

XTN: SO2  Cooling .......................................................................................................................................258
AT: SO2 Hurts Plants..........................................................................................................................................................................259

AT: SO2 Hurts Plants........................................................................................................................................259
***AFF AT: sO2 da***.......................................................................................................................................................................260

***AFF AT: sO2 da***.....................................................................................................................................260
At: SO2 solves warming......................................................................................................................................................................261

At: SO2 solves warming....................................................................................................................................261
At: SO2 solves warming......................................................................................................................................................................262

At: SO2 solves warming....................................................................................................................................262
SO2 hurts ozone...................................................................................................................................................................................263

SO2 hurts ozone.................................................................................................................................................263
SO2  Acid Rain ...............................................................................................................................................................................264

SO2  Acid Rain ..............................................................................................................................................264
Impact: Acid Rain – Forests ...............................................................................................................................................................265

Impact: Acid Rain – Forests ............................................................................................................................265
***c02***............................................................................................................................................................................................266

***c02***............................................................................................................................................................266
1NC CO2 Ag DA.................................................................................................................................................................................267

1NC CO2 Ag DA................................................................................................................................................267
1NC CO2 Ag DA.................................................................................................................................................................................268

1NC CO2 Ag DA................................................................................................................................................268
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General .......................................................................................................................................................269

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General ....................................................................................................................269
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General .......................................................................................................................................................270 15

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General ....................................................................................................................270
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General .......................................................................................................................................................271

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General ....................................................................................................................271
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General .......................................................................................................................................................272

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General ....................................................................................................................272
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General .......................................................................................................................................................273

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General ....................................................................................................................273
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Peer Reviewed ............................................................................................................................................274

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Peer Reviewed ........................................................................................................274
XTN: CO2 K to Plants –Water Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................275

XTN: CO2 K to Plants –Water Efficiency .....................................................................................................275
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Drought Resistance ....................................................................................................................................276

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Drought Resistance ................................................................................................276
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Photosynthesis ............................................................................................................................................277

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Photosynthesis ........................................................................................................277
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Pollution Resistance ..................................................................................................................................278

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Pollution Resistance ..............................................................................................278
XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Adaptation ..................................................................................................................................................279

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Adaptation ..............................................................................................................279
XTN: CO2 Solves Species Extinction.................................................................................................................................................280

XTN: CO2 Solves Species Extinction...............................................................................................................280
Its try or die either increase CO2 for agriculture productivity or watch the extinction of millions of unique species........................280 Warming Good – Food .......................................................................................................................................................................281

Warming Good – Food .....................................................................................................................................281
Ag O/W Warming................................................................................................................................................................................282

Ag O/W Warming..............................................................................................................................................282
XTN: Impact—Starvation (Billions Die) ............................................................................................................................................283

XTN: Impact—Starvation (Billions Die) ........................................................................................................283
XTN: Sinks .........................................................................................................................................................................................284

XTN: Sinks ........................................................................................................................................................284
XTN: Sinks .........................................................................................................................................................................................285

XTN: Sinks ........................................................................................................................................................285
XTN: Sinks .........................................................................................................................................................................................286

XTN: Sinks ........................................................................................................................................................286
AT: weeds............................................................................................................................................................................................287 16

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao AT: weeds...........................................................................................................................................................287
AT: Weeds...........................................................................................................................................................................................288

AT: Weeds..........................................................................................................................................................288
AT: Soil Erosion..................................................................................................................................................................................289

AT: Soil Erosion.................................................................................................................................................289
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] .....................................................................................................289 ***aff AT: co2 ag da***.....................................................................................................................................................................290

***aff AT: co2 ag da***....................................................................................................................................290
CO2  Weeds ....................................................................................................................................................................................291

CO2  Weeds ...................................................................................................................................................291
XTN: CO2  Weeds ..........................................................................................................................................................................292

XTN: CO2  Weeds ........................................................................................................................................292
CO2  Cheatgrass .............................................................................................................................................................................293

CO2  Cheatgrass ...........................................................................................................................................293
CO2 Hurts Plant Protein ....................................................................................................................................................................294

CO2 Hurts Plant Protein .................................................................................................................................294

17

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Brink – Must Act Now
Failure to act now means climate change throws the world into chaos.
John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress and Peter Ogden, Senionr National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress, Winter, ‘7 The Security Implications of Climate Change, The Washington Quarterly 31.1 Consequently, even though the IPCC projects that temperature increases at higher latitudes will be approximately twice the global average, it will be the developing nations in the earth's low latitudinal bands, as well as sub-Saharan African countries, that will be most adversely affected by climate change. In the developing world, even a relatively small climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, destructive weather events, the spread of disease, human migration, and natural resource competition. These crises are all the more dangerous because they are interwoven and self-perpetuating: water shortages can lead to food shortages, which can lead to conflict over remaining resources, which can drive human migration, which can create new food shortages in new regions. Once underway, this chain reaction becomes increasingly difficult to stop. It is therefore critical that policymakers do all they can to prevent the domino of the first major climate change consequence, whether it be food scarcity or the outbreak of disease, from toppling. The most threatening first dominos, where they are situated, and their cascading geopolitical implications are identified in this essay.

18

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Brink – 2 Degree
Emissions must be reduced to avoid runaway warming after a 2 degree temperature rise
Ed Johnson, Associated Press, “Global Warming Nears Critical Point of No Return, Group Says,” 2005 http://www.livescience.com/environment/global_warming_050124.html, bchang) Global warming is approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sealevels would be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday. The report, "Meeting the Climate Challenge,'' called on the G-8 leading industrial nations to cut carbon emissions, double their research spending on green technology and work with India and China to build on the Kyoto Protocol. "An ecological time-bomb is ticking away,'' said Stephen Byers, who co-chaired the task force with U.S. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, and is a close confidant of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "World leaders need to recognize that climate change is the single most important long term issue that the planet faces.'' The independent report, by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and The Australia Institute, is timed to coincide with Blair's commitment to advance international climate change policy during Britain's G-8 presidency. Byers said it was vital Blair secured U.S. cooperation in tackling climate change. U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing that the carbon emission cuts it demands would damage the U.S. economy. "What we have got to do then is get the Americans as part of the G-8 to engage in international concerted effort to tackle global warming,'' said Byers. "If they refuse to do that then other countries will be reluctant to take any steps.'' According to the report, urgent action is needed to stop the global average temperature rising by 2 degrees Celsius above the level in 1750 -- the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution when mankind first started significantly polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Beyond a 2 degrees rise, "the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly'' the report said, adding there would be a risk of "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change.'' It warned of "climatic tipping points'' such as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream shutting down. No accurate temperature readings were available for 1750, the report said, but since 1860, global average temperature had risen by 0.8 percent to 15 degrees Celsius. The two degrees rise could be avoided by keeping the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 400 parts per million (ppm). Current concentrations of 379 ppm "are likely to rise above 400 ppm in coming decades and could rise far higher under a business-as-usual scenario,'' the report warned. The task force urges all G-8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and to shift agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels.

19

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 Levels Increasing Now – Ice Cores

CO2 levels are at unproportional levels – ice cores prove
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf For the past year or two, many of us within the scientific community have been commenting that climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is now an economic and national security issue. It is good, therefore, to see so many of you gathered here to explore this issue in depth. The purpose of this presentation is to provide some basic insights into the science of climate change so that the reader can better gauge what we do and do not know at this point in time. Let me start by elaborating a little further on some of the points made so well by Spencer Weart. First of all, a bit more should be said to underline the significance of the Vostok record. This dates back 650,000 years. It provides us with information about temperatures and CO2 concentrations over the past 400,000 years. It is important to note that, at no time in the course of this 650,000 year period, did the level of CO2 in the atmosphere reach the level at which it now stands. So, obviously, we are experiencing a slightly new condition. Second, scientists have an increasing ability to measure climate change. Dr. Weart mentioned the use of ice cores. Why can we use these? When slowly deposited snow freezes, it freezes into tiny hollow spheres which capture the atmosphere as it was in the first few years of the snowfall. The air bubbles in ice contain samples of this past atmosphere. They contain CO2 and methane and nitrous oxide and all the other gases. We have sufficiently good techniques to permit us to peel-out and look at this historic record of 46 climate change. How, one might ask, do you measure temperature? It turns out that temperature is nothing more than the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen. These isotopes are to be found in the spheres, and so you can measure, quite accurately, what temperature it was at the time that the snow fell. So, the whole paleo record, the historic record, is well-captured by our ice cores.

20

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Tree Rings
Warming is occurring – tree rings, coral reef cores prove
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf How, one might ask, do you measure temperature? It turns out that temperature is nothing more than the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen. These isotopes are to be found in the spheres, and so you can measure, quite accurately, what temperature it was at the time that the snow fell. So, the whole paleo record, the historic record, is well-captured by our ice cores. It is also well-captured in tree rings, coral reef cores, and sediments in the deep ocean. Thanks to increasing sensitivity of our instrumentation, particularly over the last generation, we can reconstruct temperature changes over time with increasing confidence. After we came out of the last ice age—which ended some 20,000 years ago, as you may recall—we entered a period which I call the Anthropogenic Sweet-Spot. It lasted some 10,000 years. This period witnessed the birth of agriculture, the medieval warm period which caused the Vikings to go trucking off to Iceland and Greenland and ultimately even to North America, and a little ice age between the 15th and 18th century. All those changes took place in a temperature band of less than 1 degree centigrade. All the things we associate with evolution, from the birth of the concept of a village and the concept of a state, to lighting and heat in our homes, took place in this 10,000 year period. We have now left this period behind us. The scientific evidence, in my view, moreover, permits us to predict with confidence that, at the current rate, we are likely to face a two to three degree warming period in this coming century. Hansen’s research reveals that we have now come out of the Anthropogenic Sweet-Spot.1

21

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Ice Sheets
Global warming is occurring – ice sheet measurements prove rapid temperature increases and prove positive feedbacks
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf The Evidence from Icebergs. The icebergs and glaciers of Greenland also help us to understand the process of global warming. In this country, floating icebergs extend some 700 meters below the surface. Greenland is also filled with glaciers which are really wonderful, magical things. Over the last decade our understanding of why they behave the way they do has changed radically. For example, at one point it was theorized that surface water did not make its way to the bottom. A research team from the University of Kansas has recently developed radar capable of penetrating the entire ice sheet, penetrating some 12,000 feet—something that 10 years ago we would have thought impossible and which, one imagines, the military must find interesting. We now find that there are lots of puddles of water below the ice that are lubricating these ice sheets. In Greenland, ice is melting incredibly rapidly. Since 1979 the surface area has been reduced by about 30 percent. There is a place in Greenland where the 49 face is coming off the ice sheet at a rate of 15 kilometers a year. If you stand in front of it for over an hour, you can actually see it move a couple of meters. So things are happening very rapidly in Greenland. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says, both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets, are reducing en masse. There is going to be some buildup due to snow fall. But, there is a net loss. The surface of melt is increasing about 1 percent per year, so we see Greenland as one of the hotspots—one of the places to watch, key our eye on. But why are they melting so rapidly? Well, if the ice sheets are percolating, they are taking the water down. If the water pooled on the surface, the energy exchange has to evaporate the water. That takes seven times as much energy as it does to melt ice. So if the water has disappeared and all you see is the surface ice, it takes one-seventh of the energy, so we accelerate the process of melting; so there is a dynamic feedback mechanism that is causing these glaciers to both melt faster and flow faster. What are the projected temperatures likely to be in the high Arctic? As Dr. Weart noted, everyone knows for a fact that, no matter what you do, the Polar Regions are going to warm more rapidly, and the Arctic is going to warm more rapidly than Antarctica. Why is this so? The explanation is really simple. Take an ice drill in the Arctic and drill down two meters, and you’re in water. So it’s 0 degrees Centigrade. Go to Antarctica, you’ve got to drill 12,000 feet in ice. So, it’s the difference between you putting just a tiny ice piece in your cocktail glass tonight versus filling it full of ice. The Antarctic mass is going to stay colder longer, and the high Artic is going to warm much more rapidly. There are other factors involved, but this is probably the dominant one. There are places which we expect to 50 experience 8 to 10 degrees of warming from the 1990s to the 2090s. What happened to Arctic Sea Ice in 2005 and 2006? The melt rate of the sea ice is pretty rapid. And though the rate has declined a bit in the last year or so, we are still talking about very large amounts of ice.

22

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Ice Sheets
Global warming is occurring – submarine data prove a 20% decrease in ice sheet thickness
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf What of thickness? Submarine data tells us that the ice was 40 percent thinner during this period than it had been previously. This is true, but one must bear in mind that submarines only go places where it has become 40 percent thinner. When you do the analysis, there is probably an 18 to 20 percent reduction in the thickness. This is a lot of fresh water.

23

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – General
Warming exists now and will continue with current GHG (green house gas) levels

Gerald A. Meehl et al., senior scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research – Boulder, 2008, “Climate Change Projections for the Twenty-First Century and Climate Change Commitment in the CCSM3”, Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, Benjamin D. Santer, William D. Collins, Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, David M. Lawrence, Haiyan Teng, Lawrence E. Buja, and Warren G. Strand
The T85 version of the CCSM3 is run for a 1990 control run, and an 1870 control run, which serves as the starting point for eight ensemble member simulations of twentieth-century climate, three SRES scenario experiments for twenty-first-century climate [A2 (five members), A1B, and B1], and three stabilization simulations, one with concentrations held constant at year 2000 values, and two with concentrations held constant at year 2100 values for A1B and B1. The response of the CCSM3 to increasing GHGs(green house gases) depends in part on the equilibrium climate sensitivity of the model, and oceanic heat uptake. Together, these determine the TCR, and the mean value and percent change of the meridional overturning circulation in the Atlantic influence the ocean heat uptake. The global average and geographical plots show we are already committed to significant warming and sea level rise even with no further increases in GHG concentrations. However, any realistic scenario has increases in GHG concentrations, which then further increase the future warming and sea level rise. These results confirm and quantify earlier studies with simple and global models in that the temperature change commitment is considerably less than the sea level rise commitment by 2100, percentage-wise. That is, temperature increase shows signs of leveling off 100 yr after stabilization, while the sea level continues to rise unabated with proportionately much greater increases compared to temperature, with these committed increases over the twenty-first century roughly an order of magnitude greater for sea level rise than temperature change. The percent increases of committed sea level rise here are roughly 220%, with the changes calculated relative to the respective sea level rise during the twentieth century. Though this is a result that has been acknowledged in other contexts, it is not widely appreciated and is quantified here with multiple CCSM3 simulations. Midlatitude summer drying noted in previous model simulations in a future warmer climate is simulated in the CCSM3, though the relatively small drying does not result in greater soil moisture stress on vegetation in the model.

GHG and warming are increasing in the Status Quo
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. {3.1} The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) projects an increase of global GHG emissions by 25 to 90% (CO2-eq) between 2000 and 2030 (Figure SPM.5), with fossil fuels maintaining their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond. More recent scenarios without additional emissions mitigation are comparable in range.8,9 {3.1} Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century (Table SPM.1, Figure SPM.5). {3.2.1}

24

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Precipitation
Warming is occurring- Precipitation models prove
Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1376 So far, we have been presenting results solely for atmospheric surface temperature change. An even more important indicator of climate change is precipitation. With warming at the Earth’s surface, increased evaporation from the oceans and from many land areas will lead, on average, to increased atmospheric water vapour content and therefore also, on average, to increased precipitation. The nature of the atmosphere’s hydrological cycle dominated by the condensation of water vapour leads to an expectation that the atmosphere’s average relative humidity should remain about the same irrespective of changes in the average surface temperature [72]. The atmosphere’s water vapour content, therefore, should increase as its water holding capacity increases by about 6.5% per °C 10. Model projections indicate increases in precipitation broadly related to surface temperature increases of about 3% per °C [73]—but also see section 7.5.

25

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming now—10 Degrees
Fossil Fuel use enables 10 degree temperature rises Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1380 7.6. Longer-term climate change From the beginning of the industrial revolution until 2000 the burning of fossil fuels released approximately 600 Gt of carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere. Under the SRES A1B scenario (figure 18) a further 1500 Gt will be released by the year 2100. The reserves of fossil fuels in total are sufficient to enable their rate of use to continue to grow well beyond the year 2100. If that were to happen the global average temperaturewould continue to rise and could, in the 22nd century, reach very high levels, perhaps up to 10°C higher than today. The associated changes in climate would be correspondingly large and could well be irreversible [82].

26

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Average Temperature
Warming is unequivocal- global average temperature IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}

27

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now—Sea Level
Warming Now- Sea level rise and melting ice IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1} Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1

28

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Sea Level Rises
Faster rising sea level rates prove human-caused global warming
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest.. New York Times. Sea Levels Rose Faster Than Estimated; [National Desk] (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 19, 2008. pg. A.25 The oceans have been growing warmer and sea levels have been rising at a faster rate than previously estimated, researchers reported. A review of millions of measurements over the past four decades revealed a subtle error, they said; after correcting it, they found that sea levels rose two inches from 1961 to 2003 -- about 50 percent greater than previous estimates. Experts familiar with the work said the finding, published in the journal Nature, added credence to computer simulations predicting centuries of rising seas from human-caused global warming.

29

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Glaciers Melting
Melting glaciers prove warming exists
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). Melting Pace Of Glaciers Is Quickening, Study Finds; [Foreign Desk] New York, N.Y.: Mar 18, 2008. pg. A.8 Most of the world's mountain glaciers, many of which feed major rivers and water supplies, are shrinking at an accelerating pace as the climate warms, according to a new report. The report charts changes through 2006. It was issued Monday by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, which is based at the University of Zurich and supported by the United Nations Environment Program. "The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight," said Wilfried Haeberli, the director of the glacier service. The study included data from 30 glaciers spread around nine mountainous regions. Several ice experts not associated with the report said year-to-year changes in the overall mass of ice locked in these moving frozen rivers did not always denote a trend. But they added that the long-term trend was clearly toward a warming world with less mountain ice -- and related water troubles, including both floods and shortages, from the Andes to the Himalayas. The global average temperature dropped from its seasonal norm in recent months, and the Northern Hemisphere has had unusually extensive snow. But many experts have said those developments are almost assuredly a short-term wiggle on the way to more warming and melting from the influence of long-lived greenhouse gases produced mainly by burning fuels and forests. The big danger ahead, several glacier experts said, is that the loss of glaciers would take away a summertime source of river water, drinking water and hydroelectric power in populous, relatively poor places like South Asia and the cities along the western slope of the Andes. "Millions of people depend on the runoff from mountain snow and ice in the warm seasons," said Peter Gleick, who has studied water and climate for two decades and is the president of the Pacific Institute, a private research group in Oakland, Calif. "Climate change is going to make that runoff disappear."

30

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – Retreating Ice Shelves
Shrinking ice caps are proof of rising concentrations of GHG and global warming
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 2, 2007. pg. F.1 The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia. Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates. Now the six-month dark season has returned to the North Pole. In the deepening chill, new ice is already spreading over vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean. Astonished by the summer's changes, scientists are studying the forces that exposed one million square miles of open water -- six Californias -- beyond the average since satellites started measurements in 1979. At a recent gathering of sea-ice experts at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, Hajo Eicken, a geophysicist, summarized it this way: ''Our stock in trade seems to be going away.'' Scientists are also unnerved by the summer's implications for the future, and their ability to predict it. Complicating the picture, the striking Arctic change was as much a result of ice moving as melting, many say. A new study, led by Son Nghiem at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and appearing this week in Geophysical Research Letters, used satellites and buoys to show that winds since 2000 had pushed huge amounts of thick old ice out of the Arctic basin past Greenland. The thin floes that formed on the resulting open water melted quicker or could be shuffled together by winds and similarly expelled, the authors said. The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming? The world is paying more attention than ever. Russia, Canada and Denmark, prompted in part by years of warming and the ice retreat this year, ratcheted up rhetoric and actions aimed at securing sea routes and seabed resources. Proponents of cuts in greenhouse gases cited the meltdown as proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity. Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.

31

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – AT: NASA Report
Recent NASA report was politically manipulated – distorting scientific studies
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. NASA Office Is Criticized on Climate Reports; [National Desk] New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 3, 2008. pg. A.16 Two years after James E. Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency's inspector general has concluded that such activities occurred and were "inconsistent" with the law that established the space program 50 years ago. In a 48-page report issued on Monday as a result of a request in 2006 by 14 senators, the internal investigative office said the activities appeared limited to the headquarters press office. No evidence was found showing that officials higher at NASA or in the Bush administration were involved in interfering with the release of climate science information, the report said. It also credited Michael Griffin, the agency administrator, for swiftly ordering a review and policy changes when the pattern came to light after articles in The New York Times early in 2006. The report, signed by Kevin H. Winters, assistant inspector general for investigations, criticized what it said was a sustained pattern of activities, largely supervised by senior political appointees, that included muting or withholding news releases on global warming and, at least in Dr. Hansen's case, limiting a scientist's interactions with reporters. "Our investigation," the report said, "found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was "inextricably interwoven" into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, "especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest." A NASA spokesman, Michael Cabbage, said: "The issues mentioned in the inspector general's report are more than two years old, and after learning of those issues, NASA revised the agency's policy for disseminating science information." Dean Acosta, who was deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the agency when the problems surfaced, sharply attacked the credibility of the report. Mr. Acosta was appointed by President Bush in 2003 and resigned in 2007. "My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications," Mr. Acosta, who now is director of communications for the Boeing space-exploration business, wrote in an e-mail message. "The inspector general's assertions are patently false. The report itself does nothing but raise questions about a three-year investigation that has yielded nothing but flimsy allegations aimed at hardworking public servants." Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who wrote the request for the inquiry, had a markedly different reaction. "Global warming is the most serious environmental threat we face, but this report is more evidence that the Bush administration's appointees have put political ideology ahead of science," Mr. Lautenberg said in an e-mailed statement. "Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust."

32

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – AT: Recent Cooling
Recent trends don’t disprove warming – we’re still overall getting warmer
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). “Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell” New York, N.Y.: Mar 2, 2008. pg. A.18 Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. ''The current downturn is not very unusual,'' said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless. ''Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Nina event is over,'' he said. Mr. Morano, in an e-mail message, was undaunted, saying turnabout is fair play: ''Fair is fair. Noting (not hyping) an unusually harsh global winter is merely pointing out the obvious. Dissenters of a man-made 'climate crisis' are using the reality of this recordbreaking winter to expose the silly warming alarmism that the news media and some scientists have been ceaselessly promoting for decades.''

33

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Now – AT: Gov Records/Reports
Government records of climate change has been edited by officials paid off by oil lobbyists.
ANDREW C. REVKIN a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. and MATTHEW L. WALD. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). “Material Shows Weakening Of Climate Change Reports” New York, N.Y.: Mar 20, 2007. pg. A.16 A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role. In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001. They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the ''climate team leader'' for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby. He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures. Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. ''When I came to the White House,'' he testified, ''my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration.'' Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the ''most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge.''

34

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Volcanoes/Sulfur/Aerosols – Variations in Temp
Variations are inevitable – computer models show variability occurs through the overall warming of the planet
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf We did so (and I think most of the scientific community would agree with this statement) during the period in which there was a lot of sulphur and other pollutants in the atmosphere. These caused the temperature to level off before it went screaming northward again, and we 47 kept getting higher and higher temperatures. There is a great deal of variation in temperature from month-tomonth, season-to-season, and even year-to-year. The computer models tell us to expect such variability, and indeed variability is likely to grow as the temperature of the planet warms

35

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Exists
Thousands of studies and scientists all conclude that climate change is real and happening now.
Stephanie B. Ohshita, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the U of San Francisco, Summer, Scientific and International Context for Climate Change Initiatives, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1

‘7The

What is new about scientific certainty on climate change is increasing evidence to support past scientific findings. For nearly two decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") - composed of experts from around the world - has been assessing the understanding of the climate change problem. n10 Through a formal process of review involving national governments as well as climate experts, the IPCC has issued four assessment reports. In 1995, the Second Assessment Report carefully worded its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." n11 Even this cautious statement evoked sharp reactions from those reluctant to acknowledge the climate change problem. In the Third Assessment Report of 2001, the IPCC strengthened its language and made it more specific: "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to [*4] human activities." n12 By 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report left no doubt and stated: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." n13 In the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC made considerable effort to provide decision makers with further information about the strength of their findings. n14 To do this, the IPCC sought to quantify the degree of certainty on expert findings, by calculating confidence intervals and by using consistent language to describe the level of confidence. For example, the IPCC used the language "very high confidence" or "very likely" to express a level of certainty of ninety percent or greater. n15 IPCC used the language "very likely" to convey that climate experts around the world are more than ninety percent certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of observed global warming. n16 By better quantifying and communicating scientific certainty, the IPCC clarified misconceptions or misrepresentations about agreement among the majority of climate experts. Misrepresentation has been especially problematic in the United States. Lack of media coverage on climate change has left the public unaware of the extent of the problem. n17 False journalistic balance - where the media presents unsupported conjectures of individuals on the same footing as the rigorous findings of hundreds of experts based on years of research - has confused both the public and policy makers. n18 Perhaps most blatant [*5] and disturbing has been political tampering with scientific findings, including White House staff deleting text and re-writing scientific reports, or attempts to gag scientists at government agencies when they communicate their findings in presentations or written reports. n19 In contrast, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report presents the conclusions of more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, over 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries around the world, after six years of current work. n20 Four main conclusions were conveyed in the authoritative IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: (1) the climate system is warming, (2) climate change is human-induced, (3) climate change impacts are happening now, and (4) climate change solutions are available and needed now. n21 1. The Climate System Is Warming Based on direct and indirect measurements of temperature around the globe, scientists have found that the warming of the Earth's climate is "unequivocal." n22 Observations of temperatures on the land surface, on the ocean surface and below, and at different heights in the atmosphere show that the average global temperature is increasing. n23 Greater trapping of incoming solar radiation by higher levels of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is causing the [*6] land surface to heat up. n24 The ocean layers are also showing warming, with surface heat slowly penetrating into deeper levels, weakening some ocean currents and conveying more heat in cyclical phenomena like El Nino events. n25 Higher temperatures at the Earth's surface are causing changes in the height of atmospheric layers, like some giant cafe latte; the height of the lowest layer (the stratosphere) has risen, while the layer above (the stratosphere) has cooled. Further investigation into climatic change is now showing changes in circulation patterns and hurricane intensity due to global warming, as well as changes in the water vapor content of the atmosphere. n26

36

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Exists – Scientific Consensus
The science culture will always have doubters – climate change is as close to established scientific fact existing in the community
Carolyn Pumphrey Triangle Institute for Security Studies May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf The State of the Problem Today. So where are we in our thinking today when it comes to the science of climate change? There are still dissenting voices, and we cannot speak with absolute certainty. But science, we should remember, is essentially a culture of doubt.2 As Karl Popper wrote at the start of the 20th century, “I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge’, but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are ‘true’. . . .”3 Nonetheless, the idea that there is such a thing as climate change is as close to established scientific fact as one can get. At its last meeting in February 2007, the IPCC concluded that human activity has indeed increased global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. It further concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

37

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Runaway Warming Now
Climate Change will occur fast; Mass droughts, environmental destruction, and mass extinctions will occur after the transition William A. Calvin, affiliate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, 2002,
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/092011.html One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's climate does great flipflops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Ni˜o because of the unusual winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering climate. Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who survived—and later thrived. There was very little food after the fires. Once the grasses got started on the burnt landscape, however, the surviving grazing animals had a boom time, fueled by the vast expanses of grass that grew in the next few decades. Had the cooling taken a few centuries to happen, so that the forests could have gradually shifted, our ancestors would not have been treated so badly. The higher-elevation species would have slowly marched down the hillsides to occupy the valley floors, all without the succession that follows a fire. Each hominid generation could have made their living in the way their parents taught them, culturally adapting to the shifting milieu. But when the cooling and drought were abrupt, surviving the transition was a serious problem. It was one unlucky generation that suddenly had to improvise amidst crashing populations and burning ecosystems.

Warming rates are increasing; action is key T. M. L. Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and S. C. B. Raper, Climatic Research Unit, 720-01, Science Vol. 293. no. 5529, pp. 451 – 454, “Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5529/451 In summary, we have shown that the very high upper-limit warming rate of about 0.5°C/decade given in the IPCC TAR (4) is much less likely than warmings in the center of the distribution, which are about 0.3°C/decade. Even warming at this rate, however, is very large compared with the observed warming over the past century, and considerably larger than the rate of warming suggested in the IPCC SAR (8). In many of the scenarios considered, the rate of warming is still high at the end of the 21st century; further warming through the 22nd century would be virtually certain in these cases. Whether or not such rapid warming will occur and be sustained depends, of course, on actions taken to control climate change. If the near future were to follow a rapid warming pathway, and the expected impacts were to occur, it is likely that mitigation efforts would be initiated rapidly in the hope of reducing the rate and magnitude of change. Inertia in the climate system would, however, lead to only a slow response to such efforts and guarantee that future warming would still be large (37).

38

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Runaway Warming Now
Global warming rate is accelerating Joseph Romm, editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress29-8-07, “Hurricane Katrina and the myth of global warming adaptation” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/29/94352/7786
If we won't adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans -- since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don't reverse greenhouse-gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by human-caused GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes -- and it is accelerating.

Warming rates are increasing Darren Osborne, ABC Science staff writer, 6-19-08, “Ocean review finds warming on the rise” http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279924.htm?site=science&topic=latest
A long-standing difference between climate models and observations has been resolved with researchers finding that the world's oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. The paper, published today in Nature, shows ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for the past five decades are 50% larger than earlier previously estimated. The finding also adds weight to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences of rising oceans.

39

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Runaway Warming Now
Global warming and CO2 rate is increasing EEA, European Environment Agency, 8-14-08, “Europe needs adaptation strategies to limit climate change impacts,” http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/climate_report-en
More frequent and more economically costly storms, floods, droughts and other extreme weather. Wetter conditions in northern Europe but drier weather in the south that could threaten agriculture in some areas. More frequent and more intense heatwaves, posing a lethal threat to the elderly and frail. Melting glaciers, with three-quarters of those in the Swiss Alps likely to disappear by 2050. Rising sea levels for centuries to come. These are among the impacts of global climate change that are already being seen in Europe or are projected to happen over the coming decades as global temperatures rise, according to a new report from the European Environment Agency (EEA). Strong evidence exists that most of the global warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human activities, in particular emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. The concentration of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, in the lower atmosphere is now at its highest for at least 420,000 years possibly even 20 million years - and stands 34% above its level before the Industrial Revolution. The rise has been accelerating since 1950. The summer floods of 2002 and last year's summer heatwave are recent examples of how destructive extreme weather can be. The serious flooding in 11 countries in August 2002 killed about 80 people, affected more than 600,000 and caused economic losses of at least 15 billion US$. In the summer 2003 heatwave western and southern Europe recorded more than 20,000 excess deaths, particularly among elderly people. Crop harvests in many southern countries were down by as much as 30%. Melting reduced the mass of the Alpine glaciers by one-tenth in 2003 alone. "This report pulls together a wealth of evidence that climate change is already happening and having widespread impacts, many of them with substantial economic costs, on people and ecosystems across Europe," said Prof. Jacqueline McGlade, EEA Executive Director. She added: "Europe has to continue to lead worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but this report also underlines that strategies are needed, at European, regional, national and local level, to adapt to climate change. This is a phenomenon that will considerably affect our societies and environments for decades and centuries to come." The extent and rate of the climate changes under way most likely exceed all natural variation in climate over the last thousand years and possibly longer. The 1990s were the warmest decade on record and the three hottest years recorded - 1998, 2002 and 2003 - have occurred in the last six years. The global warming rate is now almost 0.2 °C per decade.

40

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Runaway Warming Bad
Abrupt climate change exacerbates all gradual climate problems OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11 In some economic and ecologic sectors, where climatic impacts are of a smooth and linear nature, it is likely that the influence of abrupt climate change will be to accelerate the effects of climate change rather than to qualitatively change the impact. The case of slow sea-level rise discussed earlier provides an example where rapid and unanticipated changes appear to cause only a modest increase in damages. However, under some circumstances, abrupt climate change may not only exacerbate the impacts of gradual climate change but may lead to qualitatively different and more severe impacts.

Runaway warming will occur, inhibiting adaptation Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1375 The rate of change of global average temperature projected for the 21st century is in the range of 0.15– 0.6°C per decade—much larger than any rates of change the climate has experienced for at least the past ten thousand years as inferred from paleoclimate data. As we shall see when considering impacts (section 8), the ability of both humans and ecosystems to adapt to climate change depends critically on the rate of change.

Accelerated Warming now- efforts needed to prevent 2 degree warming which result in widespread environmental and military conflict Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 30-31
Why has climate change suddenly metamorphosed from a boutique environmental concern to a first-order foreign-policy and nationalsecurity problem that is now being ranked alongside terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? The answer is that sceptics have lost the argument about the significance and consequences of global warming. Policymakers around the world now accept there is sufficient scientific data to conclude that the speed and magnitude of climate change in the twentyfirst century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the world’s glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at accelerating rates and that sea-level rise will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas. And they regard as virtually certain that there will be a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations over pre-industrial levels this century regardless of what we do to contain or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.7 As a result, sea-levels are projected to rise by between 0.18 and 0.59 metres this century and the Earth’s surface will almost certainly warm by more than 2.0oC, which is widely accepted as the threshold above which managing risks becomes progressively more difficult and the consequences more dangerous. 8 The central problem is the rate at which temperatures are increasing rather than the absolute size of differential warming. Spread over several centuries, or a millennium, temperature rises of several degrees could probably be managed without political instability or major threats to commerce, agriculture and infrastructure. Compressed within the space of a single century, global warming will present formidable problems of human and biological adaptation, especially for natural ecosystems which typically evolve over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Without effective mitigation and adaptation strategies, a rapidly warming planet presents palpable geopolitical risks for all countries, increasing national vulnerabilities, exacerbating inter-state tensions and threatening the very survival of some societies.

41

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Prefer Models
Prefer recent models –modeling capabilities have advanced Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1371 6.4. Model evaluation [51] An obvious test of a climate model is to run it for a number of years of simulated time and compare in detail the model-generated climate to the current observed climate in both its average and its variability. Models have improved greatly in recent years against such tests. However, it is also necessary to demonstrate the model’s ability to accurately simulate changes in climate due to changing climate forcing. This has been done by testing the model’s ability to simulate the effects of large perturbations of the climate, for instance such as arise from El Ni˜no events (see section 7.3) or from volcanic eruptions. For instance, climate perturbations resulting from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, both in the global average [52] and regionally [53], were well simulated by models. Models have also been tested through comparing data from paleoclimate studies with simulations of past climates when the distribution of incident solar radiation on the Earth was substantially different from that at present (see section 3.3). The increase in available computing power in recent years has enabled comparisons to be made of model runs from different initial conditions (often referred to as ensembles) [54], so exploring model ‘natural’ variability and prediction uncertainty (see next section). Through these various studies confidence has been built in the value of models to simulate changes of climate that occur because of human activities.

Problems with models have been corrected and they are now very reliable V. Ramaswamy et al (Phd in Geosciences & Program in Atmospheric, executive summary for the US climate change science program, 2006, “Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere,” http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf).
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

Although models disagree about details, there are no fundamental inconsistencies V. Ramaswamy et al (Phd in Geosciences & Program in Atmospheric, executive summary for the US climate change science program, 2006, “Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere,” http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf).
The most recent climate model simulations give a range of results for changes in global-average temperature. Some models show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface, while a slightly smaller number of simulations show the opposite behavior. There is no fundamental inconsistency among these model results and observations at the global scale.

42

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

At: Models Fail—Chaos Theory
Models Are Accurate- chaos theory applies to weather not climate Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1371 In the last section, it was stated that confidence in models arises from their ability to describe current climate and to simulate some of the effect of changes in climate forcing in the past. But is there evidence apart from that of models to support the view that climate is predictable? In section 3.3 we pointed out that the correlation between the Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbital parameters and the cycles of climate change (see section 3.3) provides strong evidence to substantiate the Earth’s orbital variations as the main factor responsible for triggering large climate changes, such as the ice ages, although the nature of some of the feedbacks still needs to be understood. The existence of this surprising amount of regularity suggests that the climate system is not strongly chaotic so far as these large changes are concerned, but responds in a largely predictable way to Milankovitch forcing. Changes in climate as a result of the increase of greenhouse gases are driven by 1372 changes in the radiative regime at the top of the atmosphere that are not dissimilar in kind (although different in distribution) from the changes that provide Milankovitch forcing. It can be argued, therefore, that the increases in greenhouse gases will also result in a largely predictable response [56].

43

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Satellites Accurate
Most recent analysis of satellite data goes aff – their ev is based on flawed analysis with faulty equipment which has now been corrected
(Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer, 2005 http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html) For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening. Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses. The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed. While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling. Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data. "But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies. Oops! Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures. For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night. But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's. Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight. "It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said. Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling. The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming. "Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies. Argument evaporates According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992. "This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate." The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles. But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique. After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming. Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

44

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Balloons and Satellites Reliable
Balloon and satellite models are 95% reliable University of Alabama (“Comparing satellite & balloon climate data corroborates slower rate of global warming”, 5/14/2003, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11540).
The UAH team's research is published in the May 2003 edition of the American Meteorological Society's "Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology." "We know the climate is changing," said Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "Earth's climate has never been stable. What we don't know is the rate of natural climate change, which makes it really tough to say how much of the warming that we see might be due to things like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." The study published in the JAOT describes an updated global temperature dataset using NOAA satellite measurements of the atmosphere's microwave emissions, which change with the temperature. In this new version, the UAH team applied a more accurate accounting for temperature changes caused by the satellites' east-west drift. To test the accuracy of the new dataset, Christy and his colleagues used independent data from 28 radiosonde weather balloon sites in an area bounded by eastern Canada, the Caribbean, Alaska and the Marshall Islands in the Western Pacific. They also used American, British and Russian composite datasets of hundreds of weather balloon sites around the world. They used balloon data to test the satellite readings because balloon-borne thermometers and satellites both measure temperatures in deep layers of the atmosphere -- comparing apples to apples. "There is a 94 to 98 percent correlation between the satellite data and the different balloon datasets," said Christy. "The more difficult statistic to measure, the overall trend in the lower troposphere, agreed so well it was difficult to estimate the error bars." Ultimately, the team calculated a 95 percent confidence in the satellite-based temperature trend within plus or minus 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade. If the satellite data are reliable and accurate over the wide range of environments and climates represented by the balloon weather stations, Christy said, it is likely to be reliable over the rest of the globe.

45

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

At: Urban Heat island effect
The Urban heat island effect is negligible IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis,
http://www.grida.no/CLIMATE /IPCC_TAR/wg1/052.htm Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.

Studies prove that Urban heat is not significant to skew warming data
David E. Parker Nature 432, 290 (18 November 2004) | doi:10.1038/432290a; Published online 17 November 2004 “Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban” The author declares no competing financial interests. Abstract Controversy has persisted1, 2 over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions3. Here we show that, globally, 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. Observations of the minimum temperature (Tmin) over 24 hours at 264 stations worldwide since 1950 were expressed as anomalies, relative to the period 1961–90 where possible. Coverage of Tmin data was good north of 20° N, in Australasia and in the western tropical Pacific, but poor in Africa, South America, Antarctica and parts of southern Asia. Reanalysed4 daily-average near-surface wind components were used to classify the Tmin anomalies into 'windy' (upper tercile) and 'calm' (lower tercile) conditions. Daily average wind speeds were used because the timings of temperature extremes are not known. For stations between 140° E and the dateline, Tmin — which occurs most frequently in the early morning — was matched with the previous day's speed. This is because the early morning in terms of universal time (equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time) is still in the previous day in the Far East. Annual and seasonal anomalies of Tmin were gridded on a 5° 5° resolution for windy, calm and 'all' conditions. Coverage was at least 200 grid boxes (equivalent to more than 27% of global land area) in 1958–99. For 1950–2000, the trends of global annual average Tmin for windy, calm and all conditions were identical (0.19 0.06 °C per decade; Fig. 1a). So, urbanization has not systematically exaggerated the observed global warming trends in Tmin. The same can be said for poor instrumental exposure and microclimatic effects, which are also reduced when instruments are well ventilated5. When the criterion for 'calm' was changed to the lightest decile of wind strength, the global trend in Tmin was unchanged. The analysis is therefore robust to the criterion for 'calm'. To assess the effect of time differences between the reanalysis4 daily-average winds and Tmin, I repeated the analysis using 26 stations in North America and Siberia that have hourly or six-hourly reports of simultaneous temperature and wind. Again, windy and calm nights warmed at the same rate, in this case by 0.20 °C per decade. Because a small sample was used, I compared global trends for the reduced period 1950–93 with published all-conditions trends for that period based on a sample of over 5,000 stations6. All differences were within 0.02 °C per decade. This robustness arises
because of the spatial coherence of surface temperature variations and trends7. The global annual result conceals a relative warming of windy nights in winter in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 1b), mainly in western Eurasia. The observed tendency to an increased positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation8 implies that the windier days in western Eurasia had increased warm advection from the ocean9, yielding greater warming. In summer in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 1c), there was no relative change in Tmin on windy nights. At that time of year, atmospheric circulation changes are less influential, but an urban warming signal is still absent. In the tropics, calm nights warmed relative to windy nights on an annual average, but only by 0.02 0.01 °C per decade, which is much less than the overall tropical warming in Tmin (0.16 0.03 °C).

This analysis demonstrates that urban warming has not introduced significant biases into estimates of recent global warming. The reality and magnitude of global-scale warming is supported by the near-equality of temperature trends on windy nights with trends based on all data. 46

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Urban Heat Island Effect
50 year study proves that urban heat island effect makes no difference in temperature readings
Richard Black BBC environment correspondent“ Climate change sceptics 'wrong'” 18 November 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4021197.stm A major argument used by sceptics of global warming is flawed, a UK Met Office study in Nature magazine says. This argument maintains that much recorded climate data is inherently unreliable because of where weather instruments are situated. Most are in or near cities, which produce their own heat; so the rapid warming measured over the last century could be just a record of urbanisation. The Met Office believes its study shows this "urban heat island" idea is wrong. The analysis has been done by Dr David Parker. He used data for the last 50 years to create two separate graphs. One plots temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. If the urban heat island hypothesis is correct, he says, instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm nights than for windy ones - because wind blows excess heat away from cities and away from the measuring instruments. Opposing sides But there is no difference between the curves. "It helps to answer the critics," Dr Parker told BBC News. "There are other kinds of temperature measurements, too, which could not be influenced by urbanisation, such as warming in the oceans. "Different methods of measurement can produce different rates of warming but they all point upwards." Dr Myles Allen, from the atmospheric physics department at Oxford University, agrees: "It's pretty convincing," he said. "It's a sensible analysis which tests a prediction of the sceptical theory; and if it's right, we should see a greater effect on calm nights.

47

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Urban Heat Island Effect
Warming over oceans disprove narrow viewed UHI theory
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. Connecting the Global Warming Dots (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 14, 2007. pg. 4.2 If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today. The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis -- and the proof that people are driving much of the warming -- still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet's warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the ''balance of evidence,'' as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel's fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2. In the panel's last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused the most recent warming. A number of trends have been identified: The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth's surface, even after the sun has gone down.) The stratosphere, high above the earth's surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun's output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.) There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.) ''There's no urbanization going on on the ocean,'' said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said. ''Without the greenhouse gases,'' he said, ''you just don't get what we've observed.''

48

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback O/W Negative Feedback
Positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks- makes warming 2 times stronger Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1350 This increasedCO2 is leading to global warming of the Earth’s surface through its enhanced greenhouse effect. Let us imagine, for instance, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly doubled, everything else remaining the same (figure 5). What would happen to the numbers in the radiation budget presented earlier (figure 2)? The solar radiation budget would not be affected. But the thermal radiation emitted from CO2 in the atmosphere will originate on average from a higher and colder level than before (figure 4). The thermal radiation budget will, therefore, be reduced, the amount of reduction being about 4Wm−2 (see section 5) [6]. To restore the radiation balance the surface and lower atmosphere will warm. If nothing changes apart from their temperature—in other words, clouds, water vapour, ice and snow cover and so on, are all the same as before—a radiative transfer calculation indicates that the temperature change would be about 1.2°C. In reality, of course, many of these other factors will change, some of them in ways that add to the warming (positive feedbacks), others in ways that reduce the warming (negative feedbacks). The situation is, therefore, much more complicated than this simple calculation; it will be considered in more detail in section 6. Suffice it to say here, that the best estimate, at the present time, of the increased average temperature of the Earth’s surface if CO2 levels were to be doubled is about twice that of the simple calculation: 2.5°C. As the next section will illustrate, for the global average temperature this is a large change

49

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback – MOC
MOC disruption act as a positive warming feedback IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Based on current model simulations, the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will very likely slow down during the 21st century; nevertheless temperatures over the Atlantic and Europe are projected to increase. The MOC is very unlikely to undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st century. Longer-term MOC changes cannot be assessed with confidence. Impacts of large-scale and persistent changes in the MOC are likely to include changes in marine ecosystem productivity, fisheries, ocean CO2 uptake, oceanic oxygen concentrations and terrestrial vegetation. Changes in terrestrial and ocean CO2 uptake may feed back on the climate system. {3.4

50

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback – Vapor
Positive Feedback- Water vapor traps heat Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1366 Water vapour feedback [47]. With a warmer atmosphere more evaporation occurs from the ocean and from wet land surfaces. On average, therefore, a warmer atmosphere will possess a higher water vapour content. Since water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, on average a positive feedback results, of a magnitude that is estimated approximately to double the increase in the global average temperature that would arise with fixed water vapour [48].

51

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback—Albedo
Melted ice advances warming 10 fold- bare ground absorbs heat Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1367 Ice-albedo feedback. An ice or snow surface is a powerful reflector of solar radiation (the albedo is a measure of its reflectivity). As some ice melts at thewarmer surface, solar radiation, previously reflected back to space by the ice or snow, is absorbed leading to further increased warming. This is another positive feedback that on its own would increase the global average temperature rise due to doubled carbon dioxide by about 20%.

52

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback—Permafrost
Melting ice releases permafrost-contributing 70% to atmospheric carbon Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 43
Another risk factor is the stability of high-latitude permafrost. There is clear evidence that ground which was once frozen all year round is melting at higher and higher latitudes. Although there are no definitive estimates of the volume of gases trapped under the permafrost, their carbon content is thought to be considerable – perhaps as much as 500bn tonnes, the equivalent of 70% of all carbon currently present in the atmosphere.52 Its release could be quite rapid and widespread, as warming progresses, and would include a significant amount of methane gas, which is one of the most damaging of the main greenhouse gases. Should this occur, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions of future global warming would have to be revised upward by a substantial margin, since IPCC calculations only take account of emissions from fossil-fuel combustion.

53

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedbacks – Regional Clouds
Regional clouds impact a global positive feedback
ALF KIRKEVÅG, et. al TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008, “On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”. When CO 2 concentrations are doubled and aerosol emissions are kept constant at natural levels, we estimate a global warming of 2.61 K and an increase in precipitation of 4.5%, compared to 2.58 K and 4.8% with present-day aerosol emissions. Even though non-linear interactions between the effects of CO 2 doubling and anthropogenic aerosols are negligible globally, there are positive cloud feedbacks for low level clouds regionally, especially over the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, where surface air temperatures are too cold in the simulation with present- day aerosol emissions and CO 2 concentrations. When CO 2 is doubled, CCM-Oslo yields a small increase in sulphate and BC burdens, globally averaged, despite the almost 5% increase in precipitation. Most of that increase is in the form of convective precipitation, to which wet scavenging of aerosols is relatively insensitive in the model. The simulated stratiform precipitation is almost unchanged in a global mean, but actually decreases in large areas of major aerosol emissions. Together with regionally reduced precipitation over oceans in the subtropics, this leads to a slight increase in the lifetime and burden of anthropogenic aerosols

54

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun/Volcanic Activity
Models prove anthropogenic cause rapid temperature change in past century – sun and volcanic can’t explain the substantial increase
Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1373-4 6.6. Climate of the 20th century More than fifteen centres in the world located in ten countries are currently running fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Some of these have been employed to simulate the climate of the last 150 years. An example compared with observed climate is shown in figure 17; similar results have been obtained from many models. Note from figure 17 that the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the last century (especially for the latter part of the century), but that the best match with observations occurs when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. Assumed changes in solar output and the comparative absence of volcanic activity assist in providing explanations for the increase in global average temperature during the first part of the century. The shorter term variability shown in the model of about a tenth of a degree Celsius arises from internal exchanges in the model between different parts of the climate system, and is not dissimilar to that which appears in the observed record. It has also been possible from comparisons of results from regional models with observations to attribute some of the patterns of regional change to anthropogenic causes [63]. Allen et al [64] have used the constraints provided by the observed climate on the simulations of models to quantify the uncertainty in forecasts for the first part of the 21st century. Due to the slowing effect of the oceans on climate change, the warming observed or modelled so far is less than would be expected if the climate system were in equilibrium under the amount of radiative forcing due to the current increase in greenhouse gases and aerosols. The increase in ocean heat content over the last 50 years has also been simulated by models showing, when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included, substantial agreement with observations [65]. Since its formation in 1988 the IPCC has been much involved in the debate as to whether the observed record provides evidence of the influence on the climate of the increase in greenhouse gases. The evidence for both the detection and attribution 6 of climate change has grown significantly stronger during this period. From studies of the global average temperature increase as in figure 17 and also from studies of patterns of climate change over the globe, the carefully worded conclusion reached in the IPCC 2001 Report [66] is the following: ‘In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely 7 to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

55

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun – Night Temperatures
Rising nighttime temperatures disprove variability of the sun
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. Connecting the Global Warming Dots (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 14, 2007. pg. 4.2 If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today. The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis -- and the proof that people are driving much of the warming -- still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet's warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the ''balance of evidence,'' as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel's fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2. In the panel's last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused the most recent warming. A number of trends have been identified: The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth's surface, even after the sun has gone down.) The stratosphere, high above the earth's surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun's output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.) There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.) ''There's no urbanization going on on the ocean,'' said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said. ''Without the greenhouse gases,'' he said, ''you just don't get what we've observed.''

56

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Sun

57

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Positive Feedback—AT: Clouds
Clouds have negligible effect on warming- reflexivity and absorption cancel out Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1366 Cloud-radiation feedback. This is more complicated as several processes are involved. Clouds interfere with the transfer of radiation in the atmosphere in two ways (figure 16). First, they reflect a certain proportion of solar radiation back to space, so reducing the total energy available to the system. Second, they absorb thermal radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface so blanketing the surface in a similar way to greenhouse gases. Which effect dominates for any particular cloud depends on the cloud temperature (and hence on the cloud height) and on its detailed optical properties (e.g. its reflectivity to solar radiation and its interaction with thermal radiation). The latter depends on its thickness, whether the cloud is of water or ice, its liquid or solid water content and the average size of the cloud particles. In general, for low clouds the reflectivity effect wins; for high clouds, by contrast, the blanketing effect is dominant. The overall feedback effect of clouds, therefore, can be either positive or negative. Climate is very sensitive to possible changes in cloud amount or structure, as can be seen from the results of models discussed in later sections. To illustrate this, table 2 shows that the hypothetical effect on the climate, of changes of a few per cent in cloud cover is comparable with the expected changes due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration. The largest contribution to the range of uncertainty quoted in the last entry in the table is that due to lack of knowledge regarding cloud feedback.

58

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic
Global warming exists and is man-made. ALF KIRKEVÅG, TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008, “On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”.
There is now little doubt that the increased concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause a significant global warming (Teng et al., 2006). Important uncertainty still exists concerning the size of the climate response to external forcing, and inaccuracies associated with aerosols and clouds are important in this regard (Andreae et al., 2005; Randall et al., 2007). Aerosols affect climate directly by reflecting and absorbing radiation, mainly in the shortwave. The indirect effects of aerosols are caused by their altering the number and size of cloud droplets when activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), or by changing the properties of cold clouds, for example, when serving as ice nuclei.

Models show severe atmospheric effects from human created substances. ALF KIRKEVÅG, TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008, “On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”.
The horizontal distributions of anthropogenic sulphate and black Carbon (BC) column burdens for years 11–50(Fig.1a) are similar to those found in the off-line simulations in Iversen and Seland (2002, 2003), except for a southward shift in the tropics, discussed in detail by Kristjansson et al. (2005). Large sulphate and BC column burdens are calculated over SE Asia, Europe, North America and central Africa. The burdens are much higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere, see Table 2. The large BC-fraction of emissions from tropical biomass burning relative to NH fossil fuel combustion causes a smaller inter- hemispheric difference for BC than for sulphate. Table 2 also shows that the direct radiative ‘forcing’ (DRF) due to anthropogenic sulphate and BC (the difference TOT1 – NAT1, i.e. a quasi-forcing) is about −0.1 Wm −2 in the present response simulations, very close to the DRF in Kirkevag and Iversen (2002). Due to the considerable computational costs associated with extra calls to the cloud and radiative transfer code, similar (first and second) indirect radiative forcing values have not been explicitly extracted. In Kristjansson (2002) (the basis for the climate response simulations in Kristjansson et al., 2005), the indirect radiative forcing was estimated at −1.3 Wm −2 for the first effect, and −1.8 Wm −2 for the joint first and second indirect effect. Note that the term forcing is here, as in Kirkevag and Iversen (2002) and Kristjansson (2002), used slightly differently than by IPCC-conventions: values are calculated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface. The DRF at a given vertical level is calculated as the increment in net radiative flux due to changes in aerosol optical properties relative to an atmosphere that only contains a prescribed background aerosol consisting of primary particles of natural origins, dominated by sea-salt and mineral dust. The DRF of natural (from DMS, volcanoes, and wildfires) and anthropogenic (from fossil fuel and biomass burning) sulphate and BC are thus calculated separately. When CO 2 concentrations are doubled while aerosol and pre- cursor emissions are unchanged (TOT2 – TOT1, Fig. 1b), the simulated sulphate column burdens increase by about 2% in the Northern Hemisphere, but remain unchanged in the Southern.

59

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming is anthropogenic
Scientific consensus is that warming exists and is man made. The result is destruction of the world. Serge Galam, professor at the University of Paris, 8/30/2007, “Global Warming: The Sacrificial Temptation”. Centre de Recherche enEpistemologie Appliquee (CREA), Ecole Polytechnique and CNRS
The scientific community is extremely active on the issue by setting detailed scenarios on the dramatic consequences of the current trend and urge governments to act immediately. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is monitoring a world activity with thousands of climatologists involved. They are talking with a unique and single voice about the scientific diagnostic. During their last meeting in Paris in February 2007 they concluded unanimously that it is the increased quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which produces the global warming, and they designate man as the cause of it. Human greed, by its exponential appetite of natural resources, is destroying the planet in pure wastes. At present rate of carbon dioxide production, global warming will lead to a total catastrophe. Artists are getting involved in this survival cause and Al Gore is leading a new crusade to save the planet. Huge free concerts are taking places worldwide and demonstrations are organized locally

60

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic warming- cant be explained by models IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {2.4} Spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability. Several modelling studies have linked some specific responses in physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming. {2.4} More complete attribution of observed natural system responses to anthropogenic warming is currently prevented by the short time scales of many impact studies, greater natural climate variability at regional scales, contributions of nonclimate factors and limited spatial coverage of studies. {2.4

Anthropogenic warming occurring IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4} During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}

61

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic
Anthropogenic Warming occuring- global models prove Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1373-4 6.6. Climate of the 20th century More than fifteen centres in the world located in ten countries are currently running fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Some of these have been employed to simulate the climate of the last 150 years. An example compared with observed climate is shown in figure 17; similar results have been obtained from many models. Note from figure 17 that the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the last century (especially for the latter part of the century), but that the best match with observations occurs when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. Assumed changes in solar output and the comparative absence of volcanic activity assist in providing explanations for the increase in global average temperature during the first part of the century. The shorter term variability shown in the model of about a tenth of a degree Celsius arises from internal exchanges in the model between different parts of the climate system, and is not dissimilar to that which appears in the observed record. It has also been possible from comparisons of results from regional models with observations to attribute some of the patterns of regional change to anthropogenic causes [63]. Allen et al [64] have used the constraints provided by the observed climate on the simulations of models to quantify the uncertainty in forecasts for the first part of the 21st century. Due to the slowing effect of the oceans on climate change, the warming observed or modelled so far is less than would be expected if the climate system were in equilibrium under the amount of radiative forcing due to the current increase in greenhouse gases and aerosols. The increase in ocean heat content over the last 50 years has also been simulated by models showing, when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included, substantial agreement with observations [65]. Since its formation in 1988 the IPCC has been much involved in the debate as to whether the observed record provides evidence of the influence on the climate of the increase in greenhouse gases. The evidence for both the detection and attribution 6 of climate change has grown significantly stronger during this period. From studies of the global average temperature increase as in figure 17 and also from studies of patterns of climate change over the globe, the carefully worded conclusion reached in the IPCC 2001 Report [66] is the following: ‘In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely 7 to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

62

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic
Models show severe atmospheric effects from human created substances.
ALF KIRKEVÅG, TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008, “On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”. The horizontal distributions of anthropogenic sulphate and black Carbon (BC) column burdens for years 11–50(Fig.1a) are similar to those found in the off-line simulations in Iversen and Seland (2002, 2003), except for a southward shift in the tropics, discussed in detail by Kristjansson et al. (2005). Large sulphate and BC column burdens are calculated over SE Asia, Europe, North America and central Africa. The burdens are much higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere, see Table 2. The large BC-fraction of emissions from tropical biomass burning relative to NH fossil fuel combustion causes a smaller inter- hemispheric difference for BC than for sulphate. Table 2 also shows that the direct radiative ‘forcing’ (DRF) due to anthropogenic sulphate and BC (the difference TOT1 – NAT1, i.e. a quasi-forcing) is about −0.1 Wm −2 in the present response simulations, very close to the DRF in Kirkevag and Iversen (2002). Due to the considerable computational costs associated with extra calls to the cloud and radiative transfer code, similar (first and second) indirect radiative forcing values have not been explicitly extracted. In Kristjansson (2002) (the basis for the climate response simulations in Kristjansson et al., 2005), the indirect radiative forcing was estimated at −1.3 Wm −2 for the first effect, and −1.8 Wm −2 for the joint first and second indirect effect. Note that the term forcing is here, as in Kirkevag and Iversen (2002) and Kristjansson (2002), used slightly differently than by IPCC-conventions: values are calculated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface. The DRF at a given vertical level is calculated as the increment in net radiative flux due to changes in aerosol optical properties relative to an atmosphere that only contains a prescribed background aerosol consisting of primary particles of natural origins, dominated by sea-salt and mineral dust. The DRF of natural (from DMS, volcanoes, and wildfires) and anthropogenic (from fossil fuel and biomass burning) sulphate and BC are thus calculated separately. When CO 2 concentrations are doubled while aerosol and pre- cursor emissions are unchanged (TOT2 – TOT1, Fig. 1b), the simulated sulphate column burdens increase by about 2% in the Northern Hemisphere, but remain unchanged in the Southern.

63

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic – Generic
Multiple scientific factors prove that humans are responsible for climate change.
Stephanie B. Ohshita, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the U of San Francisco, Summer, Scientific and International Context for Climate Change Initiatives, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1)

‘7 (The

Even if we recognize that the globe is warming, how do we know that humans are causing the phenomenon? Through a combination of measurements and models, we can discern the human "fingerprint" on the climate system in a number of ways. n27 First, the observed warming goes well beyond natural variation. Paleoclimatology - the sleuthing for indicators of past temperatures in ice cores and coral reefs - indicates that current levels of CO<2> in the atmosphere far exceed the natural range of the last 650,000 years. n28 We know that atmospheric concentrations of CO<2> and temperature are strongly correlated, explaining why temperature levels are higher than ever before. n29 Second, the rapid increase in levels of CO<2> in the atmosphere coincides with the onslaught of the industrial revolution and the release of CO<2> from fossil fuels, along with dramatic changes in land use by humans. n30 Third, models of the climate system with and without human emissions show that natural variation alone cannot explain observed [*7] changes. n31 Natural fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, natural variation in solar activity, and other non-human phenomena cannot account for the rapid rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases and average temperature over the past century. Human activity does explain the observed changes.

64

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming = Anthropogenic – Ocean Temps
Warming is anthropogenic – ocean temperature calculations prove
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf The Evidence from the Ocean. The ocean is also very important to scientists attempting to understand climate change. Why is that so? Bear in mind that most of the water (97 percent) on earth is to be found in the ocean. Of all evaporative processes, 86 percent occur across the surface of the ocean. Oceans receive 78 percent of planetary precipitation. The oceans are the thermodynamic flywheel—they slow down the rate at which things happen, but they also give it momentum over time. Enough energy is stored in the ocean to make the planet even a bit warmer than it is now. And if you ask where the heat goes, that’s where it goes. Any excess warmth that comes into this planet and is not reradiated out ends up in the ocean. So all the stuff we talk about is inside 10 percent. So the ocean really is the central game player. Research undertaken by Tim Barnett gives you some idea of the role that heat is playing in the ocean.2 Suppose we assemble temperature data from every available source (ships, satellites, etc.) for the last 40 years and plot it in all six oceans on a graph as red dots. Suppose we find that, in some places (e.g., the northern Indian Ocean), the warming does not extend nearly as far south as it does in, say, the north Atlantic. We then say to the computer: Well, let’s back up 40 years and let’s not allow humans to introduce their contribution to warming.3 So the anthropogenic inputs 48 are removed. Then we ask the computer to identify the statistical band within which the temperature is likely to be (blue dots). Then we run the computer again. We put in the equation, and the computer says that projections ought to be in the green. And then we ask the question for various U.S. computer runs: “For all these six oceans, what is the correlation coefficient between the actual measurements and the computer projections?” And it turns out they are all at 95 percent. We are becoming, in short, increasingly confident as time goes on. The computer models don’t give us the fine details—they can’t tell you, for example, what’s happening here at Chapel Hill—but they can tell you very well what’s happening on a global scale.

65

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – FF/Ag

Global warming is anthropogenic – carbon dioxide concentrations and fossil fuel use in ag are key causes
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Let me finish by saying a few things about the key findings of the IPCC. These were released in February 2007. First, the Panel concluded that “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.” The documentation is solid. Over the course of a 10,000 year period, things remained pretty stable. The last 100-150 years witnessed a pretty dramatic change. Second, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, 52 widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.” Note the use by the Panel of words like “unequivocal” which means 90 percent certain or better. Third, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” This also means that there is a 90 percent likelihood. The Report documented several long-term changes in climate: “The global average temperature trend over 1906–2005 is 0.74°C (1.3°F), increasing to 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade over the last 3 decades; Global average sea level rose 0.17 meters (6.7 inches) over the 20th century;

66

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – GHG in the Troposphere
Cooling stratosphere prove GHG concentration in the troposphere has caused warming
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. Connecting the Global Warming Dots (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 14, 2007. pg. 4.2 If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today. The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis -- and the proof that people are driving much of the warming -- still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet's warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the ''balance of evidence,'' as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel's fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2. In the panel's last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused the most recent warming. A number of trends have been identified: The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth's surface, even after the sun has gone down.) The stratosphere, high above the earth's surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun's output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.) There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.) ''There's no urbanization going on on the ocean,'' said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said. ''Without the greenhouse gases,'' he said, ''you just don't get what we've observed.''

67

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus
There is undoubted scientific consensus that warming is anthropogenic Oreskes, Naomi Department of History and Science Studies Program, University Science; 12/3/2004, Vol. 306 Issue 5702, p16861686, 1p 00368075 Academic Search Premier BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then — EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" [ 1]. Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science [ 2]. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature [ 3]. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in [ 4]].

68

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – Scientific Consensus
Past 15 year reports all conclude that warming is anthropogenic Oreskes, Naomi Department of History and Science Studies Program, University Science; 12/3/2004, Vol. 306 Issue 5702, p16861686, 1p 00368075 Academic Search Premier The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" [ 9]. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

69

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – AT: Only IPCC Report
Multiple international and national academic scientific reports conclude human-caused Oreskes, Naomi Department of History and Science Studies Program, University Science; 12/3/2004, Vol. 306 Issue 5702, p16861686, 1p 00368075 Academic Search Premier IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in [ 5]]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in [ 5]]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society [ 6], the American Geophysical Union [ 7], and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling [ 8].

70

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Yes Anthropogenic – Their Authors Unqualified
Peer-reviewed scientific publishing form consensus on anthropogenic warming – economists and journalists are biased and confused Oreskes, Naomi Department of History and Science Studies Program, University Science; 12/3/2004, Vol. 306 Issue 5702, p16861686, 1p 00368075 Academic Search Premier Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. Without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the Earth's surface. This year's essay series highlights the benefits that scientists, science, and technology have brought to society throughout history.

71

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2  Warming
CO2 has a definite impact on global warming. ALF KIRKEVÅG, TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008, “On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”.
When CO 2 concentrations are doubled and aerosol emissions are kept constant at natural levels, we estimate a global warming of 2.61 K and an increase in precipitation of 4.5%, compared to 2.58 K and 4.8% with present-day aerosol emissions. Even though non-linear interactions between the effects of CO 2 doubling and anthropogenic aerosols are negligible globally, there are positive cloud feedbacks for low level clouds regionally, especially over the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, where surface air temperatures are too cold in the simulation with present- day aerosol emissions and CO 2 concentrations. When CO 2 is doubled, CCM-Oslo yields a small increase in sulphate and BC burdens, globally averaged, despite the almost 5% increase in precipitation. Most of that increase is in the form of convective precipitation, to which wet scavenging of aerosols is relatively insensitive in the model. The simulated stratiform precipitation is almost unchanged in a global mean, but actually decreases in large areas of major aerosol emissions. Together with regionally reduced precipitation over oceans in the subtropics, this leads to a slight increase in the lifetime and burden of anthropogenic aerosols

72

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Quals
IPCC’s overwhelmingly qualified—represents a global scientific consensus John Houghton, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN
PHYSICS 1343–1403

Three important factors have contributed to the authority and success of the IPCC’s reports [118]. The first is the emphasis on delineating between what is known with reasonable certainty and what is uncertain—differentiating so far as possible between degrees of uncertainty16 . The second is the involvement in the writing and reviewing of the reports of as many as possible of the world’s climate scientists, especially those leading the field. For the third assessment report in 2001, those taking part had grown to 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors, together with 21 review editors and 420 expert reviewers involved in the review process. The thorough debate by scientists during the assessment process ensures that the scientific community is well informed on a broad front. No previous scientific assessments on this or any other subject have involved so many scientists so widely distributed both as regards their countries and their scientific disciplines.

the IPCC is the most authoritative source on climate change.
Professor Houghton in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403) Three important factors have contributed to the authority and success of the IPCC’s reports [118]. The first is the emphasis on delineating between what is known with reasonable certainty and what is uncertain—differentiating so far as possible between degrees of uncertainty16 . The second is the involvement in the writing and reviewing of the reports of as many as possible of the world’s climate scientists, especially those leading the field. For the third assessment report in 2001, those taking part had grown to 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors, together with 21 review editors and 420 expert reviewers involved in the review process. The thorough debate by scientists during the assessment process ensures that the scientific community is well informed on a broad front. No previous scientific assessments on this or any other subject have involved so many scientists so widely distributed both as regards their countries and their scientific disciplines //persistent CO2 (hillman and fossil)

73

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Quals – Scientific Concensus
Prefer IPCC – it is the only international synthesis report created to clarify uncertainties in previous reports
ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html VALENCIA, Spain, Nov. 16 — In its final and most powerful report, a United Nations panel of scientists meeting here describes the mounting risks of climate change in language that is both more specific and forceful than its previous assessments, according to scientists here. Synthesizing reams of data from its three previous reports, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the first time specifically points out important risks if governments fail to respond: melting ice sheets that could lead to a rapid rise in sea levels and the extinction of large numbers of species brought about by even moderate amounts of warming, on the order of 1 to 3 degrees. The report carries heightened significance because it is the last word from the influential global climate panel before world leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia, next month to begin to discuss a global climate change treaty that will replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012. It is also the first report from the panel since it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October — an honor that many scientists here said emboldened them to stand more forcefully behind their positions. As a sign of the deepening urgency surrounding the climate change issue, the report, which was being printed Friday night, will be officially released by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday. The full report was embargoed from news organizations until Saturday. But drafts have been circulating for weeks, and descriptions of its findings began to appear on Web sites and in news agency reports on Friday. Bush administration officials held a news conference to discuss the report but insisted that their comments be withheld until after its official release. “This document goes further than any of the previous efforts,” said Hans Verolme, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Change Program. “The pressure has been palpable — people know they are delivering a document that will be cited for years to come and will define policy.” The previous three sections, released between February and April, focused on one issue at a time: the first on science, the second on how the world could adapt to warming and the third about how countries could “mitigate,” or reduce the greenhouse gases produced. This fourth and final assessment — the so-called synthesis report — seeks to combine lessons from all three. Its conclusions are culled from data contained in the thousands of pages that were essentially technical supplements to the panel’s previous publications. How that data is summarized and presented to the world is a powerful guide to what the scientists consider of utmost importance at the end of a five-year process, offering concrete guidelines for policy makers. “You look to a synthesis report to provide clarity, to clarify what was obscure in previous reports,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University. “Now, how can we take these findings and formulate a policy response that’s quick enough and big enough?”

74

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Quals – Scientific Review/Concensus
IPCC is reviewed by over 130 governments and thousands of scientists
ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html While drafts of the panel’s reports are written by panels of scientists, the language is reviewed and often altered by delegates from 130 governments who meet before their final approval and release. Those negotiations took place here this week, and were often contentious, with the United States, China and India raising many objections, said scientists who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to publicly refer to any countries by name. The scientists and country representatives who had flocked here this week to participate in negotiations on the final wording applauded as the panel’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, declared the panel’s years of work concluded, just after 10:30 p.m. on Friday. Even though the synthesis report is more alarming than its predecessors, some researchers believe that it still understates the trajectory of global warming and its impact.

75

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Quals – All Models
IPCC takes account for all models in their totality
ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html The panel presents several scenarios for the trajectory of emissions and climate change. In 2006, 8.4 gigatons of carbon were put into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, according to a study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which was co-written by Dr. Klepper. That is almost identical to the panel’s worst case prediction for that year. While the United States, Saudi Arabia and China tried to change the text in order to play down the consequences of global warming, developing nations — which will bear the initial brunt of climate change — were much more forceful than at previous meetings in opposing these efforts, one scientist who was in the negotiating room said. "I suspect that will continue,” he said. “As they feel more and more threatened by the sea and the storms they will insist that, as one of them put it, ‘We do not want this report to be warm and fuzzy when the reality is cold and risky,’ or something like that,” he said. One novel aspect of the report is a specific list of “Reasons for Concern.” It includes items that are thought to be very likely outgrowths of climate change that had been mentioned in previous reports, like an increase in extreme weather events. But it for the first time includes less likely but more alarming possibilities, like the relatively rapid melting of polar ice. Previous reports focused more on changes the scientists felt were “highly likely.” “This time, they take a step back and look at the totality,” Dr. Verolme said. “Saying it is less likely to occur, but if it does we are fried.”

76

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: IPCC Sea Levels Low
IPCC Projections of sea level don’t consider glacial ice-sheet melts – new consensus connect sea level rise with ice sheets
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.” One interesting thing to observe is that the IPCC projections for sea level rises which came out a few weeks ago were quite low. That is because they decided not to include glacial ice-sheet melt in their model because they did not have sufficient confidence in those predictions. The IPCC has a very calming effect. They ask, what can we scientists agree upon? By the way, most of the sea level ice comes from thermal expansion into the water and not from the sea ice—not sea ice but glacial ice sheets. But this century we’re going to see an increasing contribution from Greenland and ice sheets around the world. Virtually all (probably 98 percent) glaciers are now losing mass. The IPCC also made clear that predictions are scenario dependent. For example, if we consider how far sea level might have risen by the end of the 21st century, we can find low and high projections. The low projection is: 0.28 meters (11+ inches). The high projection is: 0.39 meters (15 + inches). Recent literature projects a rise of about 1 meter.

77

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

***Warming Bad Impacts***

78

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Extinction
Global warming leads to extinction! David Stein, Science editor for The Guardian, 2006, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting,”
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception."The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

Global warming causes extinction due to methane-filled clathrates David Stein, Science editor for The Guardian, 2006, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting,”
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson , a geologist writing in the Baltimore Sun, is the best and almost only mainstream media explanation of runaway global warming and how close we are to extinction. "There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide."

79

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Extinction
Warming forms a high way to extinction, slaughtering billions through starvation, flooding and disease Neo Hui Min, Straits Times Europe Bureau staff writer, April 7th 2007 “Billions face dire risk from global warming, says experts”
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st BRUSSELS - TOP climate scientists issued their bleakest assessment yet on global warming yesterday, with a warning that billions of people could go thirsty as water supplies dry up and millions more may starve as farmlands become deserts. Poor tropical countries that are least to blame for causing the problem will be worst hit, said the report. Small island states, Asia's big river deltas, the Arctic, and sub- Saharan Africa are also at risk. Global warming could also rapidly thaw Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers from India to China, and bring heat waves to Europe and North America. The dire warnings came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final text of a 21-page Summary for Policymakers was agreed on after an all-night session marked by serious disputes. Scientists from more than 100 countries made up the panel. Their report forms the second of a four-part climate assessment, with the final section to be released early next month in Bangkok. Its findings are approved unanimously by governments and will guide policy on issues such as extending the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, the main plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012. The grim 1,400-page report issued yesterday said change, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases, was already under way in nature. The IPCC noted that damage to the earth's weather systems was changing rainfall patterns, punching up the power of storms and boosting the risk of drought, flooding and stress on water supplies. Some scientists even called the degree-by-degree projection a 'highway to extinction'. Add 1 deg C to the earth's average temperatures and between 400 million and 1.7 billion more people cannot get enough water. Add another 1.8 deg C and as many as two billion people could be without water, and about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's species face extinction. More people will also start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts. This could happen as early as 2050. 'Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent,' said the report. University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, former head of the United States' IPCC delegation, said: 'It is clear that a number of species are going to be lost.' Mr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: 'It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. 'This does become a global responsibility in my view.' Still, some scientists accused governments of watering down the forecasts. They said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia had raised most objections overnight, seeking to tone down some findings. Other participants also said the US, which pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 saying it was too costly, had toned down some passages. Dr Pramod Kumar Aggarwal, one of the authors of the report, told The Straits Times that temperature increases could lead to crop failure and rising prices, with dire consequences for the poor. 'In Asia, you are talking about millions or billions of people,' he said.

80

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming – War: General
Climate change guarantees war and nuclear proliferation as nations hunt for resources Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security” As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven. In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing immigration problems between European nations – and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join Europe. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of energy supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.

81

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming – War: General
Climate induced resource shortages escalate to war Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security” Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security threats. There is a long-standing academic debate over the extent to which resource constraints and environmental challenges lead to interstate conflict. While some believe they alone can lead nations to attack one another, others argue that their primary effect is to act as a trigger of conflict among countries that face pre-existing social, economic, and political tension. Regardless, it seems undeniable that severe environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict. Co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Peter Gleick outlines the three most fundamental challenges abrupt climate change poses for national security: 1. Food shortages due to decreases in agricultural production 2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh water due to flooding and droughts 3. Disrupted access to strategic minerals due to ice and storms In the event of abrupt climate change, it’s likely that food, water, and energy resource constraints will first be managed through economic, political, and diplomatic means such as treaties and trade embargoes. Over time though, conflicts over land and water use are likely to become more severe – and more violent. As states become increasingly desperate, the pressure for action will grow.

Global warming causes nuclear conflict The Guardian February 22, 2004 “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

82

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming – War: General
Global warming causes resource tensions, sparking conflict Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security” The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially destabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as: 1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production 2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts 3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

Climate changes guarantees global instability CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. 2007
“National Security and the threat of Climate Change” http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ One reason human civilizations have grown and flourished over the last five millennia is that the world’s climate has been relatively stable. However, when climates change significantly or environmental conditions deteriorate to the point that necessary resources are not available, societies can become stressed, sometimes to the point of collapse [1]. For those concerned about national security, stability is a primary goal. Maintaining stability within and among nations is often a means of avoiding full-scale military conflicts. Conversely, instability in key areas can threaten our security. For these reasons, a great deal of our national security efforts in the post-World War II era have been focused on protecting stability where it exists and trying to instill it where it does not. This brings us to the connection between climate change and national security. As noted, climate change involves much more than temperature increases. It can bring with it many of the kinds of changes in natural systems that have introduced instability among nations throughout the centuries. In this chapter, we consider some of the ways climate change can be expected to introduce the conditions for social destabilization. The sources of tension and conflict we discuss here are certainly not solely due to climate change; they have been discussed by the national security community for many years. However, climate change can exacerbate many of them [2]. For example: • Some nations may have impaired access to food and water. • Violent weather, and perhaps land loss due to rising sea levels and increased storm surges, can damage infrastructure and uproot large numbers of people. • These changes, and others, may create large number of migrants . When people cross borders in search of resources, tensions can arise. • Many governments, even some that look stable today, may be unable to deal with these new stresses. When governments are ineffective, extremism can gain a foothold. • While the developed world will be far better equipped to deal with the effects of climate change, some of the poorest regions may be affected most. This gap can potentially provide an avenue for extremist ideologies and create the conditions for terrorism.

83

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming – War: General
Climate change excerbates instability
CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. 2007 “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ In the national and international security environment, climate change threatens to add new hostile and stressing factors. On the simplest level, it has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. The consequences will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope. Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.

Warming leads to increased conflicts and tensions
Arthur Bright, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 6-27-08, “New report highlights ties between global warming and US security,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0628/p99s01-duts.html The idea that global warming could aggravate immigration and ethnic tensions is not new. Last December, The Christian Science Monitor reported that experts studying the relationship between security and climate are watching several hot spots around the globe. Bangladesh, with its high population and low sea level, is a particularly noteworthy flashpoint according to experts, as global warming could force its people to migrate into culturally proud neighboring regions. "It is the No. 1 conflict zone for climate change," says Peter Schwartz, chairman of the Monitor Group, a research firm in San Francisco that recently released a study on the security risks presented by climate change. That field of study is relatively new, but analysts are beginning to lay the map of forecasted climate change over the map of political weakness to see where changes in weather could lead to volatility. No one argues that climate change alone will lead to war. But analysts suggest that it could be a pivotal factor that tips vulnerable regions toward conflicts. "Climate change is a threat multiplier," says Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington.

84

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes war [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]
Climate change causes African instability—exasperates underlying conditions
CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. 2007 “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ Africa is increasingly crucial in the ongoing battle against civil strife, genocide, and terrorism. Numerous African countries and regions already suffer from varying degrees of famine and civil strife. Darfur, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Western Sahara—all have been hit hard by tensions that can be traced in part to environmental causes. Struggles that appear to be tribal, sectarian, or nationalist in nature are often triggered by reduced water supplies or reductions in agricul- tural productivity. The challenges Africa will face as a result of climate change may be massive, and could present serious threats to even the most stable of governments. Many African nations can best be described as failed states, and many African regions are largely ungoverned by civil institutions. When the conditions for failed states increase—as they most likely will over the coming decades—the chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.

WAR IN AFRICA WILL RESULT IN INTERVENTION AND NUCLEAR WAR
DEUTSCH 2002 (Jeffrey, Political Risk Consultant and Ph.D in Economics, The Rabid Tiger Newsletter, Vol 2, No 9, Nov 18, http://list.webengr.com/pipermail/picoipo/2002-November/000208.html) The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.

85

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming  African Instability
Warming leads to instability in Africa and threatens national security
Arthur Bright, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 6-27-08, “New report highlights ties between global warming and US security,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0628/p99s01-duts.html The Washington Post writes that Thomas Fingar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, delivered the report Wednesday to a joint meeting of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence. He warned that global warming will reduce food supplies in Africa, which he predicted would in turn spark violence in the region. "Without food aid, the region will likely face higher levels of instability, particularly violent ethnic clashes over land ownership," probably creating "extensive and novel operational requirements," for the fledgling U.S. Africa Command, according to a National Intelligence Assessment on the security implications of climate change by the National Intelligence Council. ... Overall, the assessment found that while the United States "is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change," the impact on other countries has the "potential to seriously affect U.S. national security interests." Humanitarian disasters, economic migration, food and water shortages -- all caused by climate change -- will pressure other countries to respond. Such demands "may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture," the assessment found. Fingar said Africa is most vulnerable "because of multiple environmental, economic, political and social stresses." While no country will avoid climate change, the report said, "most of the struggling and poor states that will suffer adverse impacts to their potential and economic security," are in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

86

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Water Wars
Variable Raining causes water scarcity ensuring escalating conflicts Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 33
Changes in the variability and distribution of rainfall could also exacerbate fresh-water scarcity in water-deficient states. In a world where over 2bn people already live in countries suffering moderate to high water stress, and half the population is without adequate sanitation or drinking water, relatively small shifts in rainfall patterns could push countries and whole regions into deficit, leading to a series of water crises with global implications. In Asia, per capita water availability has already declined by between 40% and 65% since 1950.15 By 2025, some 5bn people globally could be suffering from serious water shortages, half a billion of them due to climate change.16 It is not yet possible to accurately forecast detailed precipitation changes at the national and sub-national level. However, it is clear that countries which are already water deficient will be most at risk, as rainfall patterns shift and become more variable

Water conflicts escalate into global nuclear war WEINER, 1990 Prof at Princeton Department of Molecular Biology

[Johnathan, The Next 100 Years: Shaping the Fate of Our Living Earth, p. 214]
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-Bomb and the H-Bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-Bomb, the change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from Northern Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.

87

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming  Water Wars
Global warming causes massive water shortages
John Houghton, cochair of the IPCC, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING
REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403

With global warming, there will be substantial changes in water availability, quality and flow. On average, some areas will become wetter and others drier. Substantial changes in variations of flow during the year will also occur as glaciers and snow cover diminishes leading to less spring melt. Much of these changes will exacerbate the current vulnerability regarding water availability and use. Especially vulnerable will be continental areas where decreased summer rainfall and increased temperature result in a substantial loss in soil moisture and increased likelihood of drought. Even greater impact is likely to occur because of increased frequency and intensity of extremes, especially floods and droughts (see section 7.5). Such disasters are the most damaging disasters the world experiences; on average they cause more deaths, misery and economic loss (see section 8.8) than other disasters. They are especially damaging to developing countries where, in general, they are more likely to occur and where there is inadequate infrastructure to cope with them. Impacts of climate change on fresh water resources are likely to be exacerbated by other pressures, e.g. population growth, land-use change, pollution and economic growth.

88

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  China/India Conflict
Warming Causes escalating China-India conflict- metled Tibetan glaciers cause territorial conflicts Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 33
The melting of the Tibetan glaciers illustrates the nexus between climate change, water scarcity and geopolitics. By China’s own estimates, the glaciers on the Tibetan plateau are melting at a rate of about 7% a year.17 Hundreds of millions of people are dependent on the flow of glacier-fed rivers for most of their food and water needs, as well as transportation and energy from hydroelectricity. Initially, flows may increase, as glacial run-off accelerates, causing widespread flooding. Within a few decades, however, water levels are expected to decline, jeopardising food production and causing widespread water and power shortages with potentially adverse consequences for India, Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. With less fresh water available to slake the thirst of its booming population and economy, China has redoubled its efforts to redirect the southward flow of rivers from the water-rich Tibetan plateau to water-deficient areas of northern China. The problem is that rivers like the Mekong, Ganges, Brahmaputra and Salween flow through multiple states. China’s efforts to rectify its own emerging water and energy problems indirectly threaten the livelihoods of many millions of people in downstream, riparian states. Chinese dams on the Mekong are already reducing flows to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. India is concerned about Chinese plans to channel the waters of the Brahmaputra to the over-used and increasingly desiccated Yellow River. Should China go ahead with this ambitious plan, tensions with India and Bangladesh are likely to rise, as existing political and territorial disputes18 are aggravated by concerns over water security.

89

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Spratly Conflict
Rising Oceans result in spratly conflict- territorial conflicts escalate Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 35
In Asia, rising oceans could make more difficult the resolution of disputed sovereignty claims in the Spratly Islands, a group of lowlying atolls in the South China Sea which sit astride potentially rich deposits of oil and have already been the scene of military tensions between and among China, Vietnam and the Philippines. Some of these islands are already partially submerged and the highest (Southwest Cay) is only 4m above sea level.24 Beijing has challenged the island status of Okinotorishima, a small offshore islet claimed by Japan at the southernmost part of the archipelago that is uninhabited and slowly sinking, and is the basis for Japan’s claim to an extended EEZ. Under Article 121 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, islands classified as ‘rocks’ are not entitled to a 200 nautical mile EEZ, unless they are capable of sustaining human habitation and economic life. Japan has already attempted to increase the size and height of Okinotorishima by planting coral around the islet, while some of the claimants to the Spratlys have built large concrete structures grafted onto submerged, naturally occurring coral, which house small military garrisons.25

A conflict over the Spratly Islands goes nuclear and draws in the US Nikkei Weekly, 6-3-95, Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands, says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad Mahathir strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. The prime minister hails the ASEAN Regional Forum as a means for civilized nations of achieving negotiated settlement of disputes. Many members of the forum, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, have problems with their neighbors, but they are trying to solve them through continued dialogue, he adds.Three scenarios Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S., leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.

90

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Arctic Conflict
Warming results in Russian Us conflict- access to resources causes exploitation Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 35
Warming seas, as a consequence of climate change, are also making it possible to exploit previously inaccessible energy resources under the polar ice caps, threatening what has been characterised as a new ‘gold rush’, with claimant states jostling for the rights to exploit potentially rich deposits of oil, gas and minerals on the seabed. The potential for conflict was dramatically brought home by Russia’s successful and highly publicised planting of its national flag on the Arctic seabed on 2 August 2007 by two small submersibles, an act that was lauded as ‘heroic’ by Moscow but condemned by other claimants, notably Canada, which compared the Russian action to a fifteenth-century land grab.26 Many climate scientists believe that latesummer Arctic ice could disappear entirely by 2060, which would make the exploitation of Arctic resources technically feasible and therefore more likely, unless the five claimant states – Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway – can reach an accommodation.27

Artic Conflcit goes nuclear
Prof. Rob Huebert, Department of Political Science/Strategic Studies Program, University of Calgary 1998 http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm Likewise, there is evidence that the Russians intend to continue developing more advanced nuclear ballistic missile submarines. The keel of the fourth-generation strategic missile submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruky (Borei class), was laid on November 2, 1996. (3) This new class of submarines is to replace the Russian Typhoon and Delta classes and is expected to be operational by 2002-2003. It is estimated that cost of each of these submarines will exceed $1 billion (US). This clearly illustrates the seriousness of the Russian's perceived military threat. Given the fact that Murmansk is one of three remaining SSBN ports, the construction of these vessels guarantees that the Arctic will remain an area of continued military activity for Russia, and therefore the United States, well into the 21st century. The potential for an accidental nuclear war remains as a threat to the Arctic regions.

Arctic Conflicts Escalate
Security Innovator, 8/23/07 http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=12387§ionID=43 Huebert explained that he’d “like to be positive that it won’t go that bad,” but noted “all you need is a couple of bad turns and things can go bad really quickly” in the Arctic, as experienced during the Cold War. But he noted, “We still have time for a collaborative approach to all things Arctic, we can turn around and agree that all the disputed borders won’t escalate, and that any of the resource issues will be dealt with by joint management regimes. Hell, if the Indonesians and the Australians can do it, I don’t see why we can’t.” But Huebert cautioned that “Arctic issues have a habit of catching people unexpectedly, though they shouldn’t.” He recalled how the Polar Sea incident “escalated really quickly and could have been handled quite differently, but it colored relations between Canada and the U.S. for a long time.” And he added that “little issues like Hans Island can hurt relations between Canada and Denmark.” Even an overly aggressive resource exploration company might come along and start drilling in a disputed zone, and if so, things “will get real ugly real fast,” as “these things have a bad habit of getting nasty real fast without people really anticipating, and at that point, that’s where positions start to harden.” Huebert calls upon the Arctic rim states to come together and address these issues now: “Let’s get the means of resolving” Arctic disputes developed, and a “method for handling it. Let’s create an understanding of the border issues, understand the environmental issues we both know are important, we all know we could do that right now. There’s no reason why we couldn’t start tomorrow.”

warming  Terrorism
Climate change creates instability—failed states, terrorism and massive migrations exaggerate further
91

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
Anthony C Zinni General, Former Commander in Chief of the US Central Command, 2007. “On Climate Change and the Conditions of Terrorism” published as part of the “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” A starting point in understanding this connection might be to “look at how climate change effects could drive populations to migrate,” Gen. Zinni said. “Where do these people move? And what kinds of conflicts might result from their migra- tion? You see this in Africa today with the flow of migrations. It becomes difficult for the neighbor- ing countries. It can be a huge burden for the host country, and that burden becomes greater if the international community is overwhelmed by these occurrences. “You may also have a population that is traumatized by an event or a change in condi- tions triggered by climate change,” Gen. Zinni said. “If the government there is not able to cope with the effects, and if other institutions are unable to cope, then you can be faced with a collapsing state. And these end up as breed- ing grounds for instability, for insurgencies, for warlords. You start to see real extremism. These places act like Petri dishes for extremism and for terrorist networks.” In describing the Middle East, the former CENTCOM commander said, “The existing situation makes this place more susceptible to problems. Even small changes may have a greater impact here than they may have elsewhere. You already have great tension over water. These are cultures often built around a single source of water. So any stresses on the rivers and aqui- fers can be a source of conflict. If you consider land loss, the Nile Delta region is the most fertile ground in Egypt. Any losses there could cause a real problem, again because the region is already so fragile. You have mass migrations within the region, going on for many decades now, and they have been very destabilizing politically.” Gen. Zinni referenced the inevitability of climate change, with global temperatures sure to increase. But he also stressed that the intensity of those changes could be reduced if the U.S. helps lead the way to a global reduction in carbon emis- sions. He urged action now, even if the costs of action seem high. “We will pay for this one way or another,” he said. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll. “There is no way out of this that does not have real costs attached to it. That has to hit home.”

92

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming  Terrorism
Climate change overwhelms governments, fostering terrorism
CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. 2007 “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” Many developing countries do not have the government and social infrastructures in place to cope with the types of stressors that could be brought on by global climate change. When a government can no longer deliver services to its people, ensure domestic order, and protect the nation’s borders from invasion, conditions are ripe for turmoil, extremism and terrorism to fill the vacuum. Lebanon’s experience with the terrorist group Hezbollah and the Brazilian government’s attempts to reign in the slum gang First Capital Command [12] are both examples of how the central governments’ inability to provide basic services has led to strengthening of these extra-governmental entities.

Climate changes causes global instability, fueling terrorism
Joseph Lopez, Former Commander in Chief, US Naval Forces Europe and of Allied forced, Souther Europe, 2007. “On Climate Change and the Conditions of Terrorism” published as part of the “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror,” Adm. Lopez said. “You have very real changes in natural sys- tems that are most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism,” Adm. Lopez said. “Droughts, violent weather, ruined agricultural lands—those are the kinds of stresses we’ll see more of under climate change.” Those changes in nature will lead to changes in society. “More poverty, more forced migrations, higher unemployment. Those conditions are ripe for extremists and terrorists.” In the controversial war on terrorism, Adm. Lopez noted, there is general agreement on at least one thing: It’s best to stop terrorism before it develops. “In the long term, we want to address the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit. That’s what we’d like to do, and it’s a consensus issue—we all want to do that. But climate change prolongs those conditions. It makes them worse.” “Dealing with instability and how you mitigate that leads to questions about the role U.S. security forces can play,” Adm. Lopez added. “What can we do to alleviate the problems of instability in advance? And keep in mind this will all be under a challenged resource situation. This is very compli- cated. Of course, the military can be a catalyst for making this happen, but it can’t do it all. This is also about economics, politics, and diplomacy.

Climate Change Natural disasters devastate state infrastructure and stability Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 40
Natural disasters linked to climate change may prove an even greater security challenge for developing states, displacing affected populations, calling into question the legitimacy or competence of national governments and feeding into existing ethnic or intercommunal conflicts. In extreme cases, the survival of the nation itself may be in question. For example, the 1998 monsoon season brought with it the worst flood in living memory to Bangladesh, inundating some 65% of the country, devastating its infrastructure and agricultural base and raising fears about Bangladesh’s long-term future in a world of higher ocean levels and more intense cyclones. In the absence of effective mitigation strategies, a 1m rise in sea level would flood about 17.5% of Bangladesh and much of the Ganges river delta which is the country’s food basket.39

93

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming  Migration/Refugees
Massive Migration will occur as warming destabilizes nations
Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and economically poor regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a severe risk to political, economic, and social stability. In less prosperous regions, where countries lack the resources and capabilities required to adapt quickly to more severe conditions, the problem is very likely to be exacerbated. For some countries, climate change could become such a challenge that mass emigration results as the desperate peoples seek better lives in regions such as the United States that have the resources to adaptation.

Warming causes Short and long term displacement- destabilizing states Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 41
Environmental refugees In a grimly ironic scene from the Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow, thousands of starving, dislocated North Americans stream south across the border to sanctuary in Mexico fleeing from the frigid winter descending on the continent as the great ocean conveyor, or thermohaline circulation, collapses.40 Although the film is predictably dramatic in its depiction of this high-impact but low-probability scenario, the possibility that climate change might cause mass migrations of environmental refugees and displaced persons, with serious consequences for international security, is certainly plausible and should not be dismissed as a figment of Hollywood’s imagination. We already know that refugee flows and unregulated population movements can destabilise states internally, aggravate trans-border conflicts, create political tensions between sending and receiving states and jeopardise human security.41 One of the defining features of the post-Cold War security environment has been the rapid rise in unregulated population movements around the globe. The causes of these movements are complex and intercon nected, but there is growing evidence to suggest that environmental decline is a contributing cause and that, in future, climate change may play a significant ancillary role. Some contend that climate or environmental refugees are now the fastest-growing proportion of refugees globally and that by 2050 up to 150m people may be displaced by the impact of global warming.42 Climate-induced migration is set to play out in three distinct ways. First, people will move in response to a deteriorating environment, creating new or repetitive patterns of migration, especially in developing states. Secondly, there will be increasing short-term population dislocations due to particular climate stimuli such as severe cyclones or major flooding. Thirdly, largerscale population movements that build more slowly but gain momentum as adverse shifts in climate interact with other migration drivers such as political disturbances, military conflict, ecological stress and socio-economic change are possible.43 Even the beneficial effects of climate change could lead to conflict. In China’s Xingiang province, for example, a projected increase in rainfall is likely to attract an influx of Han migrants into the Muslim Uighur ancestral lands, further inflaming ethnic tensions between the two communities where a low-level insurgency is already festering.

94

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming hurts Biodiversity
Warming destroys biodiversity- harms biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new and stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change on unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountain communities and ecosystems), with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing risk of species extinction and coral reef damage is projected with higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C over 1980-1999 levels. Confidence has increased that a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperature above 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above preindustrial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened systems including many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation by corals. Increasing vulnerability of indigenous communities in the Arctic and small island communities to warming is projected. Loss of ecosystems and species risks planetary extinction – each species loss could be one to cause extinction Diner, 94 (Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis) No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct
and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species,

filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

XTN: Warming Hurts BioD
Fast warming causes widespread specieis loss
95

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. {3.4} Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. {3.4} Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe. {3.4}

Warming devastates ecosystems- extreme heat, cold, drought, and rain
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Some systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especially affected by climate change.12 {3.3.3} Systems and sectors: {3.3.3} _ particular ecosystems: - terrestrial: tundra, boreal forest and mountain regions because of sensitivity to warming; mediterranean-type ecosystems because of reduction in rainfall; and tropical rainforests where precipitation declines - coastal: mangroves and salt marshes, due to multiple stresses - marine: coral reefs due to multiple stresses; the sea ice biome because of sensitivity to warming _ water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes13 and in the dry tropics, due to changes in rainfall and evapotranspiration, and in areas dependent on snow and ice melt _ agriculture in low latitudes, due to reduced water availability _ low-lying coastal systems, due to threat of sea level rise and increased risk from extreme weather events _ human health in populations with low adaptive capacity. Regions: {3.3.3} _ the Arctic, because of the impacts of high rates of projected warming on natural systems and human communities _ Africa, because of low adaptive capacity and projected climate change impacts _ small islands, where there is high exposure of population and infrastructure to projected climate change impacts _ Asian and African megadeltas, due to large populations and high exposure to sea level rise, storm surges and river flooding. Within other areas, even those with high incomes, some people (such as the poor, young children and the elderly) can be particularly at risk, and also some areas and some activities. {3.3.3}

Warming causes extinction, ecosystem destruction, and huge sea level rising
AP, 6-24-08, “We’re toast if we don’t stop global warming” http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/last-chance-or-weretoast/2008/06/24/1214073221343.html James Hansen told US Congress today that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide only for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises. "We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."

96

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming Hurts BioD
Warming hurts species, raises sea levels, and threatens millions of lives Doug Struck, staff writer for The Boston Globe, 11-17-07, “In key report, firm action urged on climate change” http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/17/in_key_report_firm_action_urged_on_climate_chang e/
WASHINGTON - Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels, and threatening millions of poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say in a report today that UN officials hope will help mobilize the world to taking tougher actions on climate change. The scientists said only firm action, including putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, will avoid more catastrophic events. Those actions will take a small part of the world's economic growth and will be substantially less than the costs of doing nothing, the report will say. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be key ammunition as world leaders meet in Bali next month to try to draft a global plan to deal with Earth's rising temperatures after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. A near-final draft, approved yesterday by representatives of more than 140 governments meeting in Valencia, Spain, said global warming is "unequivocal" and said human actions are heading toward "abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts."

Global warming will lead to extinction by exterminating many species Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm
The first recorded mass extinction of species took place 440 million years ago, the Ordovician extinction and the second deadliest of the five great periods of extinction. During that era, fossil records show an abrupt die-off of two-thirds of the Earth’s species. During the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago, another mass extinction occurred that resulted in most of the planet’s fish species dying. About 250 million years ago the third, and most severe mass extinction took place, the Permian-Triassic extinction or "the Great Dying." This die-off resulted in loss of almost all marine life and most of the land species.The fourth mass extinction took place about 205 million years ago at the end of the Triassic Period. The fifth mass extinction took place about 65 million years ago. The majestic era of the dinosaurs ended when about half of all species died off, having existed 165 million years. And now a sixth mass extinction is underway. In January, 2003 a study by lead author, biologist Terry Root, and 5 colleagues at Stanford's Institute for International Studies involved reviewing scientific studies pertaining to 1,400 plant and animal species. The Stanford researchers determined that about 80% of those species have undergone range or behavioral changes likely caused by climate change. "If we've had so much change with just 1 degree, think of how much we will have with 10 degrees," Terry Root said, referring to the estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of a 3 to 10 degree Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century. "In my opinion, we're sitting at the edge of a mass extinction." In a study published in the journal Nature, January 8, 2004, its authors found that 15 to 37% of all species in the study regions could become extinct from expected temperature increases by 2050.(126) “If the projections can be extrapolated globally, and to other groups of land animals and plants, our analyses suggest that well over a million species could be threatened with extinction as a result of climate change,” said lead author Chris Thomas of the University of Leeds, England. “This study makes clear that climate change is the biggest new extinction threat,” says co-author Lee Hannah. “The combination of increasing habitat loss and climate change together is particularly worrying.

97

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming Hurts BioD
Warming destroys wetland’s– key to global biodiversity
John Houghton, cochair of the IPCC, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING
REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403

It is not only in places where there is dense population that there will be adverse effects. The world’s wetlands and mangrove swamps currently occupy an area of about a million square kilometres (the figure is not known very precisely), equal approximately to twice the area of France. They contain much biodiversity and their biological productivity equals or exceeds that of any other natural or agricultural system. Over two-thirds of the fish caught for human consumption, as well as many birds and animals, depend on coastal marshes and swamps for part of their life cycles, so they are vital to the total world ecology. These areas could not adjust to the rapid rate of sea-level rise that is likely and in many cases would be unable to extend inland. Net loss of wetland area will therefore occur [97]

98

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 bad—Oceans
CO2 increases oceanic acidity which leads to species extermination Dr. Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, 6-30-05, “Oceans turning to acid from rise in CO2”, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/ci-ott063005.php
Stanford, CA. A report issued by the Royal Society in the U.K. sounds the alarm about the world's oceans. "If CO2 from human activities continues to rise, the oceans will become so acidic by 2100 it could threaten marine life in ways we can't anticipate," commented Dr. Ken Caldeira, co-author of the report and a newly appointed staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California.* The report on ocean acidification was released today by the Royal Society. See http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ Many scientists view the world's oceans as an important sink for capturing the human-induced greenhouse gas CO2 and slowing global warming. Marine plants soak up CO2 as they breathe it in and convert it to food during photosynthesis. Organisms also use it to make their skeletons and shells, which eventually form sediments. With the explosion of fossil-fuel burning over the past 200 years, it has been estimated that more than a third of the human-originated greenhouse gas has been absorbed by the oceans. While marine organisms need CO2 to survive, work by Caldeira and colleagues shows that too much CO2 in the ocean could lead to ecological disruption and extinctions in the marine environment. When CO2 gas dissolves into the ocean it produces carbonic acid, which is corrosive to shells of marine organisms and can interfere with the oxygen supply. If current trends continue, the scientists believe the acidic water could interrupt the process of shell and coral formation and adversely affect other organisms dependent upon corals and shellfish. The acidity could also negatively impact other calcifying organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, some of the most important players at the base of the planet's food chain. "We can predict the magnitude of the acidification based on the evidence that has been collected from the ocean's surface, the geological and historical record, ocean circulation models, and what's known about ocean chemistry," continued Caldeira. "What we can't predict is just what acidic oceans mean to ocean ecology and to Earth's climate. International and governmental bodies must focus on this area before it's too late."

99

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 bad—Coral
CO2 acidifies oceans, killing coral
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change • Increases in ocean temperatures associated with global climate change will increase the number of coral bleaching episodes. High water temperatures stress corals leading to “bleaching” — the expulsion of colorful, symbiotic algae that corals need for survival, growth, and reproduction. While coral species have some capacity to recover from bleaching events, this ability is diminished with greater frequency or severity of bleaching. As a result, climate change is likely to reduce local and regional coral biodiversity, as sensitive species are eliminated. • Increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion will drive changes in surface ocean chemistry. The higher the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere, the greater the amount of CO2dissolved in the surface ocean. Higher dissolved CO2increases ocean acidity and lowers the concentration of carbonate which corals and other marine organisms use, in the form of calcium carbonate, to build their skeletons. Thus, continued growth in human emissions of CO2will further limit the ability of corals to grow and recover from bleaching events or other forms of stress. • The effects of global climate change will combine with more localized stresses to further degrade coral reef ecosystems. Although climate change itself will adversely affect coral reefs, it will also increase the susceptibility of reef communities to degradation and loss resulting from natural climate variability such as El Niño events as well as disease, over-fishing, disruption of food webs, and pollution from neighboring human communities.

C02 emissions destroy coral causes ocean acidification- harming coral
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Ocean acidification The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to further acidification. Projections based on SRES scenarios give a reduction in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century. While the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, the progressive acidification of oceans is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent species. {3.3.4}

100

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Hurts Coral
Warming kills reefs which are key to biodiversity and the economy Alok Jha, science correspondent for The Guardian, 1-24-08, Hurricanes and global warming devastate Caribbean coral reefs, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/24/climatechange
Warmer seas and a record hurricane season in 2005 have devastated more than half of the coral reefs in the Caribbean, according to scientists. In a report published yesterday, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) warned that this severe damage to reefs would probably become a regular event given current predictions of rising global temperatures due to climate change. According to the report, 2005 was the hottest year on average since records began and had the most hurricanes ever recorded in a season. Large hotspots in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico powered strong tropical hurricanes such as Katrina, which developed into the most devastating storm ever to hit the US. In addition to the well-documented human cost, the storms damaged coral by increasing the physical strength of waves and covering the coast in muddy run-off water from the land. The higher sea temperature also caused bleaching, in which the coral lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. The reefs then lose their colour and become more susceptible to death from starvation or disease. Impacts Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the IUCN's global marine programme, said: "Sadly for coral reefs, it's highly likely extreme warming will happen again. When it does, the impacts will be even more severe. If we don't do something about climate change, the reefs won't be with us for much longer." Some of the worst-hit regions of the Caribbean, which contains more than 10% of the world's coral reefs, included the area from Florida through to the French West Indies and the Cayman Islands. In August 2005 severe bleaching affected between 50% and 95% of coral colonies and killed more than half, mostly in the Lesser Antilles. The IUCN report highlights pressures on coral reefs in addition to those of overfishing and pollution identified in recent years. A recent study found that reefs near large human populations suffered the most damage. Coral reefs are an important part of the marine ecosystem, supporting an estimated 25% of all marine life including more than 4,000 species of fish. They provide spawning, nursery, refuge and feeding areas for a wide variety of other creatures such as lobsters, crabs, starfish and sea turtles. Reefs also play a crucial role as natural breakwaters, protecting coastlines from storms. "It's quite clear that the structure and their function as they are right now in the Caribbean is quite severely impeded," said Lundin. "Over the next few decades we will see a large reduction in the number of reef areas." Reefs also boost the local economy - in the Caribbean coral reefs provide more than $4bn (£2bn) a year from fisheries, scuba-diving tourism and shoreline protection. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute: Reefs at Risk, coral loss in the region could cost the local economy up to $420m every year.

Warming can cause irreversible damage to the critical coral reefs
Union of Concerned Scientists, 8-10-05, “Early Warning Signs: Coral Reef Bleaching” Coral reefs are one of the most productive ecosystems on Earth, providing many critical services to fisheries, shoreline protection, tourism, and to medicine. They are also believed to be among the most sensitive ecosystems to long-term climate change (Nurse et al., 1998). Elevated sea surface temperatures can cause coral to lose their symbiotic algae, which are essential for the nutrition and color of corals. When the algae die, corals appear white and are referred to as "bleached." Water temperatures of as little as one degree Celsius above normal summer maxima, lasting for at least two to three days, can be used as a predictor of coral bleaching events (Goreau and Hayes, 1994). Studies indicate that most coral are likely to recover from bleaching if the temperature anomalies persist for less than a month, but the stress from sustained high temperatures can cause physiological damage that may be irreversible (Wilkinson et al., 1999).

101

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming Hurts Coral
Coral reefs are vulnerable to warming and they are key to biodiversity and industry Thomas J Goreau, president of the non-profit Global Coral Reef Alliance, 5-31-05, “Global Warming and coral reefs” http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2558.jsp
Coral reefs are the most sensitive of all ecosystems to global warming, pollution, and new diseases. They will be first to go as a result of climate change. As the most important resources for fisheries, tourism, shore protection, and marine biodiversity for more than a hundred countries, this will be a huge disaster. Almost all reefs have already been heated above their maximum temperature thresholds. Many have already lost most of their corals, and temperature rise in most places gives only a few years before most corals die from heatstroke.

Warming kills coral, hurting biodiversity Sean Markey, staff writer for National Geographic News, 5-16-06, Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html
Eight years after warming seas caused the worst coral die-off on record, coral reefs in the Indian Ocean are still unable to recover, biologists say. Many reefs have been reduced to rubble, a collapse that has deprived fish of food and shelter. As a result, fish diversity has tumbled by half in some areas, say authors of the first long-term study of the effects of warming-caused bleaching on coral reefs and fish. The study focused on reefs near Africa's Seychelles islands, north of Madagascar (see Seychelles map), which sustained heavy losses from bleaching in 1998. "The outlook for recovery is quite bleak for the Seychelles," said lead study author Nicholas Graham, a tropical marine biologist at England's University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. The study, in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts that isolated reef ecosystems like that around the Seychelles will suffer the most from global warming-caused bleaching events. Warming Oceans Small but prolonged rises in sea temperature force coral colonies to expel their symbiotic, food-producing algae, a process known as bleaching.

102

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming hurts coral
Reefs are being destroyed by warming and must be saved for biodiversity, hunger, industry, and lifesaving medicines Charles W. Schmidt, science writer specializing in the environment, genomics, and information technology, Jul 08 “In Hot Water: Global Warming Takes a Toll on Coral Reefs” http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-7/focus.html
In the summer of 2005, while Atlantic hurricanes battered coastlines from Cuba to Mexico, the Eastern Caribbean baked under a relentless sun with barely a breeze to cool the air. Tourists and locals alike wilted in the heat, and below the sea, marine life and corals in particular suffered as well. The windless calm settled in just as a buildup of unusually warm water began accumulating in the region. Ordinarily, easterly trade winds would have churned the sea, helping it to cool. But thanks to an unprecedented heat wave beginning in May—the result of a confluence of factors related to climate change, scientists say—water temperatures in the Eastern Caribbean climbed and stayed high for months, reaching levels that by September would be warmer than any recorded in 150 years. The heat disturbed a symbiotic partnership that coral animals normally maintain with a type of algae called zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae supply corals with essential nutrients produced by photosynthesis, particularly carbon, in return for the shelter and access to sunlight provided by the reefs. The algae also impart color to the corals, which themselves are colorless. But as sea temperatures rose, the zooxanthellae disappeared, leaving their carbon-deprived hosts behind to starve. The reefs turned snow white, the color of the underlying stonelike structures they had built up over centuries, in a phenomenon known as coral bleaching. As the heat wave progressed, it left a trail of bleached reefs the likes of which had never been seen in the Caribbean. By year's end, coral cover ranging from 90% in the Virgin Islands to 52% in the French West Indies was affected. Coral bleaching isn't always fatal—if water temperatures cool in time, the zooxanthellae might return, allowing corals to recover. But in parts of the Eastern Caribbean, the reefs never got a chance. Almost as soon as their recovery started, they were attacked by diseases affecting a range of coral species down to 60 feet. By 2007, roughly 60% of the coral cover in the Virgin Islands and 53% in Puerto Rico's La Parguera Natural Reserve was dead—an unprecedented tragedy. The Eastern Caribbean disease outbreak came on the heels of what's been a rough several decades for coral reefs worldwide. Long suffering from land-based pollution, habitat destruction, and overfishing, coral reefs now must also contend with climate change, which has accelerated their global decline. This puts a wealth of biodiversity at risk. Reefs support up to 800 types of coral, 4,000 fish species, and countless invertebrates. Reef-dwelling species numbering in the hundreds of thousands may not even be catalogued yet, some scientists speculate. The implications of these declines could be as disastrous for human health as they are for marine life. Globally, reefs provide a quarter of the annual fish catch and food for about 1 billion people, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Reefs protect shorelines from storm surges, which could become more powerful as sea levels rise with climate change. Tourism—a mainstay of coastal economies in the tropics, worth billions in annual revenue—could suffer if reefs lose their appeal. Reefs are also a long-standing source of medicines to treat human disease. Being attached to reefs, corals and other immobilized marine animals can't escape predators, so they deploy a range of chemical compounds to deter hunters, fight disease, and thwart competing organisms. Two antiviral drugs (vidarabine and azidothymidine) and the anticancer agent cytarabine were developed using compounds extracted from Caribbean reef sponges. Another product called dolastatin 10, isolated from the sea hare (Dolabella auricularia) of the Indian Ocean, has been investigated as a treatment for breast and liver cancers and leukemia. Many more lifesaving medicines and useful chemical products could one day be derived from reef dwellers, experts say. Saving these ecosystems is imperative on a range of levels, says Caroline Rogers, a marine ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. "We have to save them for economic, ecological, aesthetic, and even spiritual reasons," she says. "People need to feel connected with nature and with systems that are bigger than they are. Coral reefs are aweinspiring—we're losing something that we barely understand."

103

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming hurts coral
Warming sea levels and increased acidity caused by warming will decimate coral Charles W. Schmidt, science writer specializing in the environment, genomics, and information technology, Jul 08 “In Hot Water: Global Warming Takes a Toll on Coral Reefs” http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-7/focus.html
Corals live within a few degrees of temperatures that can send them into a tailspin. They've survived on that precipice for thousands of years because ocean temperatures in the tropics have been stable. But that's no longer the case. Seawater warmed by a global average of nearly 1°C over the twentieth century, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, episodes of coral bleaching and disease are occurring with mounting frequency around the world. In 1997–1998, the world's largest bleaching event ever killed 16% of the world's reefs, with mortality approaching 90% throughout Bahrain, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and parts of Tanzania. If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises from its current level of 380 ppm to 450–500 ppm by mid-century, as the IPCC predicts could happen if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed, average ocean temperatures will rise an additional 2°C, an intolerable increase for most coral species. What's more, atmospheric carbon dioxide is being absorbed by seawater and converted to carbonic acid, which serves to lower the ocean's pH, threatening reef structures with dissolution, explains Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland in Australia. Scientists now warn that within a few decades, reefs could suffer cataclysmic changes, as coral populations dwindle past the point of return.

Warming increases bleaching and diseases among coral reefs Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com, 5-7-07, “Global warming is killing coral reefs” http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0507-coral.html
A new study provides further evidence that climate change is adversely affecting coral reefs. While previous studies have linked higher ocean temperatures to coral bleaching events, the new research, published in PLoS Biology, found that climate change may increasing the incidence of disease in Great Barrier Reef corals. Omniously, the research also shows that healthy reefs, with the highest density of corals, are hit the hardest by disease. Monitoring 48 reefs along more than 900 miles (1,500 kilometers) of Australia's coastline for six years, a team of researchers led by John Bruno, a marine biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, tracked white syndrome, an infectious disease that kills coral. They found that "reefs with high coral cover and warm sea surface temperatures had the greatest white syndrome frequency." "More diseases are infecting more coral species every year, leading to the global loss of reef-building corals and the decline of other important species dependent on reefs," said Bruno. "We've long suspected climate change is driving disease outbreaks. Our results suggest that warmer temperatures are increasing the severity of disease in the ocean."

104

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming hurts coral
Coral loss is caused by warming and is fatal Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
In March, 2006 researchers discovered devastating loss of coral in the Caribbean off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. "It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 official monitoring stations in the Virgin Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."...............Miller noted that some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only grows the width of one dime each year. If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a University of Puerto Rico biology researcher. While investigating the widespread loss of Caribbean coral, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral — more than 13 feet high — that had just died in the waters off Puerto Rico.........."We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have never seen before." "We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before," said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch. Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance says that compared to coral areas in the Indian and Pacific ocean, where warming waters have brought about a 90% mortality rate, the Caribbean is healthier.

Coral is bleached by warming and is key to biodiversity Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm
Coral bleaching is happening all over the world in many countries. Whenever coral is stressed by higher water temperatures, even only 2 or 3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, it may expel the algae that nourishes it and gives the coral its color, thus coral bleaching. Coral usually recovers from bleaching, but it cannot survive the stress of constant warming waters. Second to rainforests in biodiversity of species, coral reefs have been called the rainforests of the sea. An example of coral reef biodiversity are the reefs of the Florida Keys, which sustain 500 species of fish, more than 1700 species of mollusks, five species of sea turtles, and hundreds of species of sponges. Lose the algae that sustains the coral, we lose the fisheries that depend on the coral. John Ogden, a marine biologist and director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography says that coral reefs provide about 10% of global fisheries, “fish going directly into the mouths of the people who need the protein the most, the coastal populations of Third World countries.” In a report released at the 9th Int’l Coral Reef Symposium in Bali, Indonesia (October 2000), Indonesian researchers noted that about 27% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed. Most of the remaining coral could be dead in 20 years, if global warming and pollution continue. [100] “Reefs are tough,” says Clive Wilkinson, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. “You can hammer them with cyclones, and they’ll bounce right back. What they can’t bounce back from is chronic, constant stress.”

105

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming hurts coral
Global Warming’s destroying coral reefs, the cornerstone of marine biodiversity
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization led by Eileen Claussen, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, February 13, 2004 “Press Release: Global Warming Expected to Further Degrade Coral Reef Systems” http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/global_warming_reefs.cfm Coral reefs have the highest biodiversity of any marine ecosystem, providing important ecosystem services and direct economic benefits to the large and growing human populations in low-latitude coastal zones. One recent estimate valued the annual net economic benefits of the world’s coral reefs at $30 billion. But human activities including development in coastal areas, overfishing, and pollution have contributed to a global loss approaching 25 percent of these valuable ecosystems. Global warming is expected to further contribute to coral reef degradation in the decades ahead. A new Pew Center on Global Climate Change report, Coral Reefs & Global Climate Change: Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems, authored by Drs. Robert W. Buddemeier, Joan A. Kleypas, and Richard B. Aronson, outlines the likely impacts of climate change and global warming over the next century to coral reef systems both in U.S. waters and around the world. The report reviews the published literature in an effort to analyze the current state of knowledge regarding coral reef communities and the potential contribution of future climate change to coral reef degradation and loss. The report concludes that recent global increases in reef ecosystem degradation and mortality (the “coral reef crisis”) are exceeding the adaptive capacity of coral reef organisms and communities. The severity of this crisis will only intensify with future changes in the global climate. “Coral reefs are striking, complex, and important features of the marine environment,” said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center. “If we fail to act, the destruction of these rare and important ecosystems will continue unabated, threatening one of our world’s most precious natural resources.”

106

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CACO3 internal link
CO2 induced CACO3 dissolution kills reefs—it’s key to growth and protection
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Reef-building occurs where calcium carbonate precipitation exceeds its removal. The structural components of reefs (skeletons of corals and algae) are glued together and made more resistant to physi- cal breakdown by calcium carbonate cements that precipitate within the reef framework, and by the over- growth of thin layers of calcareous algae. A reduction in CaCO3precipitation by whatever means (mortality of reef organisms, lowered calcification rates, or lowered cementation rates) reduces a reef’s ability to grow and to withstand erosion (Kleypas et al., 2001). Some slow-growing or weakly cemented reefs may stop accumulating or shrink as carbonate deposition declines and/or erosion increases. Such effects have been observed in the Galápagos and elsewhere (Eakin, 1996; Reaka-Kudla et al., 1996). Future changes in seawater chemistry will not only lead to decreases in calcification rates, but also to increases in CaCO3dissolution. Field experiments (Halley and Yates, 2000) indicate that the dis- solution rate could equal the calcification rate once atmospheric CO2concentrations reach double the preindustrial levels. This points to a slow-down or reversal of reef-building and the potential loss of reef structures in the future.

C02 kills coral—deprives them necessary CACO3 for calcification
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change The oceans currently absorb about a third of the anthropogenic CO2 inputs to the atmosphere,resulting in significant changes in seawater chemistry that affect the ability of reef organisms to calcify (Houghton et al., 2001). Photosynthesis and respiration by marine organisms also affect seawater CO2concentration, but the overwhelming driver of CO2concentrations in shallow seawater is the concentration of CO2in the overlying atmosphere. Changes in the CO2concentration of seawater through well-known processes of air- sea gas exchange alter the pH (an index of acidity) and the concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions (Box 7; previous page). Surface seawater chemistry adjusts to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations on a time scale of about a year. Projected increases in atmospheric CO2may drive a reduction in ocean pH to levels not seen for millions of years (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Many marine organisms use calcium (Ca2+) and carbonate (CO32–) ions from seawater to secrete CaCO3skeletons. Reducing the concentration of either ion can affect the rate of skeletal deposition, but the carbonate ion is much less abundant than calcium, and appears to play a key role in coral calcifica- tion (Langdon, 2003). The carbonate ion concentration in surface water will decrease substantially in response to future atmos- pheric CO2increases (Box 7; Figure 5), reducing the calcification rates of some of the most important CaCO3producers. These include corals and calcareous algae on coral reefs and planktonic organisms such as coccolithophores (Riebesell et al., 2000) and foraminifera in the open ocean (Barker and Elderfield, 2002).

107

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext – CORAL impact
Coral’s key to global biodiversity—offers unique geological and biological structures to sustain life
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Coral reefs offer many values to human society and to the health of the biosphere. Reefs support fisheries, and reef structures provide natural breakwaters that protect shorelines, other ecosystems, and human settlements from waves and storms. Humans use reefs and reef products extensively for food, building materials, pharmaceuticals, the aquarium trade, and other products. Due to their grandeur, beauty, and novelty, reefs have become prime tourist destinations and, therefore, economic resources. Less evident are the multiple “ecosystem services” of coral reefs, such as recycling nutrients and providing food, shelter, and nursery habitat for many other species. Many of these services are related to the geologic and biologic structures that create the spatial complexity necessary for the high biodiversity of reefs. The biodiversity is not all marine; humans, like many seabirds and other air-breathing species, have colonized island and coastal environments formed by coral reef communities

108

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

At: INCREASED SEA LEVELS HELP REEFS
Flooding overpowers reef adaptability, suppressing growth
P.W. Glynn, professor in the Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 19 June 1992 “Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives” Coral Reefs 12:1-17 Some workers have suggested that sea level rise that would accompany global warming might initially favor vertical reef flat accretion when coral growth could keep pace with the flooding (Buddemeier and Smith 1988; Hopley and Kinsey 1988). This prediction is based on a globally averaged most probable sea level rise of 15+_3 ram/year (Hoffman et al. i983). Predictions of coral reef growth responses to sea level rise are complicated, however, by the high susceptibility of important reef-building coral species to the sea warming events observed in the 1980s (Williams and Bunkley-Williams 1990; Glynn 1991). It is probable that sustained elevated sea temperatures that would accompany sea level rise would suppress coral growth or kill many reef flat corals before they could respond to reef flooding. If coral growth is retarded, it may be more susceptible to the de- structive effects of corallivores and bioeroders that would probably not be affected by higher temperatures. Com- pared with the mass coral mortalities in Panama caused by the 1982-83 ENSO warming event, most corallivores, herbivores, and bioeroding sea urchin populations remained at pre-1983 abundances or increased in size after that disturbance (Glynn 1985 a, 1988 c, 1990).

109

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

environment impact
Environmental Decay Risks Collapse Of Civilization Dernbach 98 (John C. Associate Professor, Law, Widener University, “Sustainable Development as a Framework for National
Governance,” CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 49, Fall 1998, p. 16.) The global scale and severity of environmental degradation and poverty are unprecedented in human history. Major adverse consequences are not inevitable, but they are likely if these problems are not addressed. Many

civilizations collapsed or were severely weakened because they exhausted or degraded the natural resource base on which they depended. n76 In addition, substantial economic and social inequalities have caused or contributed to
many wars and revolutions. n77 These problems are intensified by the speed at which they have occurred and are worsening, making it difficult for natural systems to adapt. The complexity of natural and human systems also means that the effects of these problems are difficult to anticipate. The potential impact of global warming on the transmission of tropical diseases in a time of substantial international travel and commerce is but one example.

110

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming hurts oceans
Warming devastates ocean ecosystems- disrupts salinity, plankton, oxygen and circulation
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming. In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance are with high confidence associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation. {1.2} Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming(figure SPM.2). However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {1.2, 1.3}

Collapse of ocean ecosystems ends life on Earth
Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law, 2003, Lexis Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Nonuse biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.

111

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes FLOODING
Warming causes massive global flooding
Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season. Melting along the Himalayan glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate. Floating ice in the northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is mostly gone during summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the globe (roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over fishing rights. Each of these local disasters caused by severe weather impacts surrounding areas whose natural, human, and economic resources are tapped to aid in recovery. The positive feedback loops and acceleration of the warming pattern begin to trigger responses that weren’t previously imagined, as natural disasters and stormy weather occur in both developed and lesser-developed nations. Their impacts are greatest in less-resilient developing nations, which do not have the capacity built into their social, economic, and agricultural systems to absorb change.

112

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming causes flooding
Warming causes flooding
Maggie Borman, Staff writer for The Telegraph, 7-13-08, “Global warming may increase floods, scientist says,” http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/average_16116___article.html/inches_illinois.html The National Wildlife Federation says people in the Central United States are not imagining things. The last few decades have brought more heavy summer rainfall, along with increased likelihood of devastating floods. Climate scientist Amanda Staudt said that while no single storm or flood, such as the high water recently in the Midwest, can be attributed directly to global warming, changing climate conditions are at least partly responsible for the trends. Because warmer air can hold more moisture, global warming is expected to bring more and heavier precipitation in the years to come, she said. "The big picture is that global warming is making tragedies such as the recent Midwest flooding more frequent and intense," the Wildlife Federation's Staudt said.

Warming caused Katrina and Darfur, and is only going to get worse
Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer for CNSNews, 7-11-08, “Global Warming Led to ‘Black Hawk Down,’ Congressman Says,” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32291 Bordes said that he thinks the warming of the atmosphere could lead to a situation in which his home, which is near the superdome in New Orleans, could become permanently inundated with water. Markey also told the students that there no longer exists any debate about whether or not disasters like Katrina are caused by climate change. “There now is no question that this harm is being caused by human activity,” said Markey. “It’s warming up the planet and melting the glaciers. There is an underwater heat wave going on. The waters get warmer and warmer and that intensifies the storms and creates even greater havoc when those storms reach land.” “The planet is running a fever. It’s heating up but there is no emergency rooms for planets,” he said. “The worst consequences affect the planet -- not only New Orleans -- but the whole planet. “The same thing is true by the way with Darfur,” Markey added. “Darfur is really about water. This is an issue which really goes to the heart of the incredible impact that climate change is having upon our planet. “

113

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming causes sea level rise
Warming causes Ocean rise, mountain instability, hydroyitic systems
IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Observational evidence4 from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2} Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes, increased ground instability in mountain and other permafrost regions and led to changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems. {1.2} There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected through increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers and through effects on thermal structure and water quality of warming rivers and lakes. {1.2}

Warming melts ice sheets, causing massive rises in sea levels
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 “Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf • Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9°C to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 10.7} • Dynamical processes related to ice fl ow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {4.6, 10.7}

114

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming causes Monsoons
Warming makes monsoons and El ninos more common and lethal
Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1377 Important components of anthropogenic climate change can be expected to be in the form of changes in the intensity or frequency of established climate patterns illustrated by these regimes [74]. Although there is little consistency as yet between models regarding projections of many of these patterns, recent trends in the tropical Pacific for the surface temperature to become more El Ni˜no-like are projected to continue by many models. There is also evidence that warming associated with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause an intensification of the Asian summer monsoon and an increase of variability in its precipitation. The influence of increased greenhouse gases on major climate regimes, especially the El Ni˜no, is an important and urgent area of research.

115

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes draughts
Climate change distorts rain patterns and destroys water sources, causing massive droughts
CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. 2007 “National Security and the threat of Climate Change” http://securityandclimate.cna.org/ Adequate supplies of fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and sanitation are the most basic prerequisite for human habitation. Changes in rainfall, snowfall, snowmelt, and glacial melt have significant effects on fresh water supplies, and climate change is likely to affect all of those things. In some areas of the Middle East, tensions over water already exist. Mountain glaciers are an especially threatened source of fresh water [3]. A modest rise in temperature of about 2° to 4°F in mountainous regions can dramatically alter the precipitation mix by increasing the share falling as rain while decreasing the share falling as snow. The result is more flooding during the rainy season, a shrinking snow/ice mass, and less snowmelt to feed rivers during the dry season [4]. Forty percent of the world’s population derives at least half of its drinking water from the summer melt of mountain glaciers, but these glaciers are shrinking and some could disappear within decades. Several of Asia’s major rivers—the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow—originate in the Himalayas [4]. If the massive snow/ice sheet in the Himalayas—the third-largest ice sheet in the world, after those in Antarctic and Greenland—continues to melt, it will dramatically reduce the water supply of much of Asia. Most countries in the Middle East and northern Africa are already considered water scarce, and the International Water Resource Management Institute projects that by 2025, Pakistan, South Africa, and large parts of India and China will also be water scarce [5]. To put this in perspective: the U.S. would have to suffer a decrease in water supply that produces an 80 percent decrease in per capita water consumption to reach the United Nations definition of “water scarce.” These projections do not factor in climate change, which is expected to exacerbate water problems in many areas.

Warming increases Droughts and Floods
Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1377 Even larger variations in precipitation are projected. Although, on average, globally precipitation increases there are large regional variations and large areas where there are likely to be decreases in average precipitation and changes in its seasonal distribution. For instance, at high northern latitudes large increases are projected in winter and over south Asia in summer. Southern Europe, Central America, Southern Africa and Australia are likely to have drier summers.

116

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes hurricanes
Global Warming causes hurricanes
China View, 7-14-08, “Study: hurricane season longer, big storms sooner” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/200807/14/content_8543160.htm BEIJING, July 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Hurricane seasons are arriving early and hanging around longer during the past century, and the big storms are forming earlier, some climate scientists say. Plus, the area of warm water able to support hurricanes is growing larger over time. The Atlantic Ocean is becoming more hurricane friendly, scientists say, and the shift is likely due to global warming. "There has been an increase in the seasonal length over the last century," Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told LiveScience. "It's pretty striking." A study Gulledge co-authored with other climate scientists found a five-day increase in season length per decade since 1915. Hurricane season officially starts June 1, but the first named storm of the 2008 season, Tropical Storm Albert, formed on May 31. The first hurricane of the season, Hurricane Bertha, formed on July 1, reaching hurricane strength on July 7, relatively early in the season for a major storm. In the last decade, more strong storms have been forming earlier in the season, said hurricane researcher Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

117

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes diseases [general]
Warming causes diseases
Smartbreif, 7-14-08, “Global warming could cause malaria increase” http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aabb/storyDetails.jsp? issueid=D3A7F3A6-E91A-45F1-AD74-9A412CDFCBB9&copyid=BDC59903-2014-4D8D-9947-FF5B41D9B582 Global warming is contributing to the spread of infectious diseases, and the problem has become more serious in the past decade, medical experts said at a global conference on climate change and human health. Experts predicted continued problems with malaria in mountainous regions, the spread of West Nile virus and a year-round flu season near the equator.

Warming causes diseases, disasters, etc
AP, Dina Cappiello, staff writer, 7-15-08, “EPA experts detail global warming's health risks,” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifTIO4F-5F4uJL8wnzMbDs3wSzzAD91TTBG00 WASHINGTON (AP) — Government scientists detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, wildfires, disease and smog caused by global warming in an analysis the White House buried so it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases. In a 149-page document released Monday, the experts laid out for the first time the scientific case for the grave risks that global warming poses to people, and to the food, energy and water on which society depends. "Risk (to human health, society and the environment) increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change," scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency said. Global warming, they wrote, is "unequivocal" and humans are to blame. The document suggests that extreme weather events and diseases carried by ticks and other organisms could kill more people as temperatures rise. Allergies could worsen because climate change could produce more pollen. Smog, a leading cause of respiratory illness and lung disease, could become more severe in many parts of the country. At the same time, global warming could mean fewer illnesses and deaths due to cold. "This document inescapably, unmistakably shows that global warming pollution not only threatens human health and welfare, but it is adversely impacting human health and welfare today," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. "What this document demonstrates is that the imperative for action is now."

Warming increases disease Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm
A recent study by New Zealand doctors, researchers at the Wellington School of Medicine's public health department said outbreaks of dengue fever in South Pacific islands are directly related to global warming. ************ According to a report from World Wildlife Fund, dengue, or breakbone fever has now resurged in the Americas infecting over 200,000 people in 1995. ************ In a San Francisco Chronicle article (September 28, 1996) Paul Epstein of Harvard's School of Public Health noted during a conference on Climate Change and Human Health in the Asian Pacific, that insects are bringing illnesses like malaria and dengue to higher altitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It was also reported at this conference that continued global warming will cause the spread of these diseases and also encephalitis and yellow fever to higher latitudes. ************ "Many of the most important diseases in poor countries, from malaria to diarrhoea and malnutrition are highly sensitive to climate," said Diarmid CampbellLendrum, of the World Health Organization (WHO), and a co-author of a report published in the science journal Nature on November 17, 2005. The report says that climate change is the driving force behind an increase in debilitating illnesses such as malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea. "Those least able to cope and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected," says lead author Jonathan Patz, a professor at University of Wisconsin at Madison's Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. "Herein lies an enormous global ethical challenge."...."Our energy-consumptive lifestyles are having lethal impacts on other people around the world, especially the poor."says Dr. Patz. The parts of the globe most vulnerable are the Asian and South American Pacific coasts, the Indian Ocean coast and sub-Saharan Africa. Patz and his colleagues point to the moral responsibility of the industrial countries, such as the United States to take a leadership role in curbing emissions.

118

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming causes diseases [general]
Warming increases spread of infectious diseases that have heavy economic costs and destroy biodiversity OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11 Yet another area of potential concern is health—both of humans, of domesticated plants and animals, and of wildlife (National Research Council, 1999a). There is widespread appreciation of the potential for unwelcome invasions of new or exotic diseases in the human population, particularly of vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Similar concerns may arise for pests and diseases that attack livestock or agriculture. Another concern is diseases of wildlife. Scenarios based on climate models for greenhouse warming indicate that changes will occur in the geographic distribution of a number of water- borne diseases (e.g., cholera, schistosomiasis) and vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, yellow fever, dengue, leishmaniasis) if not countered by changes in adaptation, public health, or treatment availability. These changes will be driven largely by increases in precipitation leading to favorable habitat availability for vectors, intermediate and reservoir hosts, and/ or warming that leads to expansion of ranges in low latitudes, oceans, or montane regions. The host-parasite dynamics for abrupt climate change have not been targeted specifically as yet, but Daszak et al. (2001) suggested three phenomena that indicate abrupt climate change may have had heightened impacts on key human diseases: There appears to be a strong link between El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and outbreaks of Rift Valley fever, cholera, hantavirus, and a range of emergent diseases (Colwell, 1996; Bouma and Dye, 1997; Linthicum et al., 1999), and if ENSO cycles become more intense, these events may become more extensive and have greater impact; Malaria has reemerged in a number of upland tropical regions (Epstein, 1998) (although this is debated by Reiter, 1998); and Recent extreme weather events have precipitated a number of disease outbreaks (Epstein, 1998). Criteria that define emerging infectious diseases of humans were recently used to also identify a range of emerging infectious diseases that affect wildlife (Daszak et al., 2000). They include a fungal disease that is responsible for mass mortality of amphibians on a global scale and linked to species extinctions (Berger et al., 1998), canine distemper virus in African wild dogs, American ferrets and a series of marine mammals, and brucellosis in bison as well as others. An ongoing reduction in biodiversity and increased threats of disease emergence in humans and livestock make the impacts of these changes potentially very large. Emerging diseases are affected by anthropogenic environmental changes that increase transmission rates to certain populations and select for pathogens adapted to these new conditions. Daszak (2001) points to abrupt climate change as pushing environmental conditions past thresholds that allow diseases to become established following their introduction. For example, African horse sickness (a vector-borne disease of horses, dogs, and zebras) is endemic in subSaharan Africa. Although it usually dies out within 2 to 3 years of introduction to Europe, the latest event involving imported zebras to Spain resulted in a 5-year persistence, probably because recent climate changes have allowed the biting midge vector to persist in the region (Mellor and Boorman, 1995). Introduced diseases are costly—a single case of domestic rabies in New Hampshire led to treatment of over 150 people at a cost of $1.1 million. The cost of introduced diseases to humans, livestock, and crop plant health is estimated today at over $41 billion per year (Daszak et al., 2000). Abrupt climate change-driven disease emergence will significantly increase this burden. Furthermore, the economic implications of biodiversity loss due to abrupt climate change-related disease events may be severe, as wildlife supports many areas (fisheries, recreation, wild crops) very significant to our well-being.

119

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes diseases [general]
Climate Change enables disease vectors - 300,000 will die by 2020 Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 35
Infectious disease Climate change will have a number of serious health-related impacts, including illness and death directly attributable to temperature increases, extreme weather, air pollution, water diseases, vector- and rodent-borne diseases and food and water shortages. 1.7m people die prematurely every year because they do not have access to safe drinking water, and the situation will worsen if waterborne pathogens multiply as a result of rising temperatures.28 But the greatest security risk is from infectious disease. Temperature is the key factor in the spread of some infectious diseases, especially where mosquitoes are a vector, as with Ross River fever, malaria and dengue fever. As the planet heats up, mosquitoes will move into previously inhospitable areas and higher altitudes, while disease transmission seasons may last longer. A study by the World Health Organisation has estimated that 154,000 deaths annually are attributable to the ancillary effects of global warming due mainly to malaria and malnutrition. This number could nearly double by 2020.29 Currently, some 40% of the world’s population lives in areas affected by endemic malaria.30 Extreme weather events and climate-related disasters could lead to short-term disease spikes because of the damage to food production, displacement and reductions in the availability of fresh water. Poorer nations with limited public health services will be especially vulnerable.31 Health problems can quickly metamorphose into a national-security crisis if sufficient numbers of people are affected and there are serious economic and social consequences, as occurred during the devastating flu pandemic of 1918–19 which killed from 40–100m people.32 Climate change does not automatically or always provide a more favourable environment for the spread of infectious diseases, since transmission rates and lethality are a function of many interrelated social, environmental, demographic and political factors, including the level of public health, population density, housing conditions, access to clean water and the state of sewage and wastemanagement systems, as well as human behaviour. All these factors affect the transmission dynamics of a disease and determine whether or not it becomes an epidemic. But where climate is a consideration, temperature, relative humidity and precipitation will affect the intensity of transmission. Temperature can influence the maturation, reproductive rate and survivability of the disease agent within a vector, or carrier.33 So climate change will alter the distribution of the animals and insects which are host to dangerous pathogens, increasing or decreasing the range of their habitats and breeding places.

120

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes Diseases [malaria]
Warming causes malaria
Smartbreif, 7-14-08, “Global warming could cause malaria increase” http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aabb/storyDetails.jsp? issueid=D3A7F3A6-E91A-45F1-AD74-9A412CDFCBB9&copyid=BDC59903-2014-4D8D-9947-FF5B41D9B582\ Global warming may cause an increase in malaria cases and the spread of malaria to new areas of the globe, experts say. One official with a Swiss company working to develop a malaria vaccine said that curbing the spread of the disease in current high-threat areas could help limit transmission to new regions

Warming causes malaria and dengue
Smartbreif, 7-14-08, “Global warming could cause malaria increase” http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aabb/storyDetails.jsp? issueid=D3A7F3A6-E91A-45F1-AD74-9A412CDFCBB9&copyid=BDC59903-2014-4D8D-9947-FF5B41D9B582 Between 1.5 billion and 3.5 billion people could become infected with dengue by 2080 because of global warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel also said an additional 220 million to 400 million people could face exposure to malaria. The report called upon governments in developed countries to carry the responsibility for responding to public health threats posed by climate change. Medindia.net (India) (12/13)

Global warming increases malaria
Jaspreet Kaur, staff writer for The Med Guru, 7-14-08, “Global Warming Adds to Malaria Cases,” http://www.themedguru.com/articles/global_warming_adds_to_malaria_cases-8616131.html Another after-effect has been added to the already disastrous effects of global warming on the planet. Experts say that global warming is leading to an increase in the number of malaria cases. The irreversible changes occurring in the environment are adding fuel to the spread of the already dreaded disease. It has been found that Europe, North America and North Asia are almost immune from the malaria threat because the temperatures are much lower in these regions. But with the rising temperatures all over the world, this may no longer hold true. Experts believe that even a slight increase in temperature can lead to the breeding of malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Therefore, billions of people can come under the clasp of malaria. And all these developments add to the need of inventing a vaccine which can prevent people from contracting the disease.

121

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming bad laundry list
Global warming leads to terrorism, poverty, environmental degradation, and more CNNPolitics, 6-25-08, “Global warming could increase terrorism, official says”, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html?eref=rss_politics#cnnSTCText
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Climate change could increase flooding in coastal areas, like the flooding that hit the Philippines. Climate change "will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions," Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian, Central American and Central Asian countries.” People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some may turn to terrorism, he said. "The conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity," he said. "Economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Anthropogenic warming is occurring, melting ice, raising the sea level, and will cause 20-30% species to go extinct Reuters, 11-17-07, Highlights of U.N. climate panel summary report, http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL17206824
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." Causes of changes "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in ... greenhouse gas concentrations" from human activities. Annual greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have risen by 70 percent since 1970. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Projected climate changes Temperatures are likely to rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 Celsius (2.0 and 11.5 Fahrenheit) and sea levels by between 18 cm and 59 cm (7 inches and 23 inches) this century. Africa, the Arctic, small islands and Asian mega-deltas are likely to be especially affected by climate change. Sea level rise "would continue for centuries" because of the momentum of warming even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilised. "Warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible". About 20-30% of species will be at increasing risk of extinction if future temperature rises exceed 1.5 to 2.5 Celsius. Five reasons for concern Risks to unique and threatened systems, such as polar or high mountain ecosystems, coral reefs and small islands. Risks of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and heatwaves. Distribution of impacts - the poor and the elderly are likely to be hit hardest, and countries near the equator, mostly the poor in Africa and Asia, generally face greater risks such as of desertification or floods. Overall impacts - there is evidence since 2001 that any benefits of warming would be at lower temperatures than previously forecast and that damages from larger temperature rises would be bigger. Risks or "large-scale singularities", such as rising sea levels over centuries; contributions to sea level rise from Antarctica and Greenland could be larger than projected by ice sheet models.

122

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming hurts trade
Warming causes flooding, disease, and hurts essential trade CNNPolitics, 6-25-08, “Global warming could increase terrorism, official says”, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html?eref=rss_politics#cnnSTCText
But it is also likely to result in storm surges that could affect nuclear facilities and oil refineries near coasts, water shortages in the Southwest and longer summers with more wildfires, the study found. International migration may also help spread disease, Fingar added, and climate change could put stress on international trade in essential commodities. "The United States depends on a smoothfunctioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access to critical raw materials, such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these," he warned, "with significant geopolitical consequences."

Trade Blocks Go Nuclear
(Spicer, 1996, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121) More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

123

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming hurts economy
Warming hurts the economy, is accelerating and causing more damage than expected David Adam, environment correspondent for The Guardian, 4-18-08, “I underestimated the threat, says Stern,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions
Stern said this week that new scientific findings showed greenhouse gas emissions were causing more damage than was understood in 2006, when he prepared his study for the government. He pointed to last year's reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and new research which shows that the planet's oceans and forests are soaking up less carbon dioxide than expected. He said: "Emissions are growing much faster than we'd thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we'd thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate change seems to be faster." Stern said the new findings vindicated his report, which has been criticised by climate sceptics and some economists as exaggerating the possible damage. "People who said I was scaremongering were profoundly wrong," he told a conference in London. He said that increasing commitments from countries to curb greenhouse gases now needed to be translated into action. Earlier this week, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said a lack of such action from developed countries could derail attempts to seal a new global climate treaty at a crucial meeting in Copenhagen next year. The Stern Review was credited with shifting the debate about climate change from an environmental focus to the economic impacts. It said the expected increase in extreme weather, with the associated and expensive problems of agricultural failure, water scarcity, disease and mass migration, meant that global warming could swallow up to 20% of the world's GDP, with the poorest countries the worst affected. The cost of addressing the problem, it said, could be limited to about 1% of GDP, provided it started on a serious scale within 10 to 20 years.

US economic decline causes nuclear war
- Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury Department, "It's Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964) Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?

Warming bad impacts outweigh any positive ones, warming causes disease and hurts econ Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm
A study, by scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that 154,000 people die every year from the effects of global warming, from malaria to malnutrition, children in developing nations seemingly the most vulnerable. These numbers could almost double by 2020. "We estimate that climate change may already be causing in the region of 154,000 deaths...a year," Professor Andrew Haines of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told a climate change conference in Moscow. Haines said the study suggested climate change could "bring some health benefits, such as lower cold-related mortality and greater crop yields in temperate zones, but these will be greatly outweighed by increased rates of other diseases." Haines mentioned that small shifts in temperatures, for instance, could extend the range of mosquitoes that spread malaria. Water supplies could be contaminated by floods, for instance, which could also wash away crops. On November 28, 1998 the San Francisco Chronicle ran an Associated Press article reporting that dollar damages from weather-related natural disasters (floods, storms, droughts, fires) worldwide for 1998 totaled $89 billion. (The final figure for 1998 was to be $93 billion.) Total damages for the entire decade of the 1980's were $83 billion (this is the inflation-adjusted figure; actual figure was $54 billion). Damage totals for the 1990's soared above $340 billion, a 300% increase over the 1980's.

124

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext – warming hurts economy
Warming damages the economy and we must act now Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, 10-31-06, “Warming Called Threat To Global Economy” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000269.html
Failing to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global economy on the scale of the Great Depression or the world wars by spawning environmental devastation that could cost 5 to 20 percent of the world's annual gross domestic product, according to a report issued yesterday by the British government. The report by Nicholas Stern, who heads Britain's Government Economic Service and formerly served as the World Bank's chief economist, calls for a new round of international collaboration to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. "There's still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally," Stern said in a statement. "But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close." Climate Change causes financial shocks and loss of biodiversity OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11 Serious impacts to ecological or economic capital stocks can occur when they are disrupted in a manner preventing their timely replacement, repair, or adaptation. It is generally believed that gradual climate change would allow much of the economic capital stocks to roll over without major disruption. By contrast, a significant fraction of these stocks probably would be rendered obsolete if there were abrupt and unanticipated climate change. For example, a rapid sea-level rise could inundate or threaten coastal buildings; abrupt changes in climate, particularly droughts or frosts, could destroy many perennial crops, such as forests, vineyards, or fruit trees; changes in river runoff patterns could reduce the value of river facilities and flood-plain properties; warming could make ski resorts less valuable and change the value of recreational capital; and rapid changes in climate could reduce the value of improperly insulated, heated, and cooled houses. There may also be an impact on more intangible investments such as health, technological, and “taste” capital, although these are more speculative. Similarly, ecological systems are vulnerable to abrupt climate change because they have long-lived natural capital stocks, they are often relatively immobile and migrate slowly, and they do not have the capacity of humans to adapt to or reduce vulnerability to major environmental changes. Ecological systems are also vulnerable because of anthropogenic influences on the environment, which repeatedly alter ecosystems and limit species abundance and composition as a result of habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and loss. Past examples of ecosystem vulnerability to rapid climate change, such as the Younger Dryas cooling, illustrate the fragility of species diversity at one location as forests experienced rapid change. In southern New England, trees such as spruce, fir, and paper birch experienced local extinctions within a period of 50 years at the close of the Younger Dryas (Peteet et al., 1993). North American extinctions of horses, mastodons, mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and many other animals were greater at this time than at any other extinction event over millions of years (Meltzer and Mead, 1983). The reasons for this extinction have been linked to both climate and early human impacts (Martin, 1984).

125

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Heg
Climate change will collapse heg
Richard A. Mathew, Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) Against this background, climate change and security can be linked in a number of ways. Where climate changes abruptly, security problems will be immediate and extensive and perhaps even existential. We can easily envision threats on this scale in Bangladesh or other poor low-lying countries, but even here a significant number of Americans would be affected by a sudden barrage of massive flooding, Katrina-sized hurricanes, and tropical disease epidemics—perhaps enough to make climate change a national security issue. Another possible threat that we should take seriously is that of the gradual erosion of American power as endless demands are placed on it due to abrupt changes elsewhere. These are likely to arise as we face humanitarian disasters, as drought intensifies throughout Africa, and as South Asia collapses into conflict over things like fresh water. The greater our sense of interdependence, the greater our sense that national security depends on the welfare of things beyond our borders, and the more likely it is that the climate change will be a real security threat. This poses a big problem today. To what extent should we intervene to assist abroad? When should we use our resources and when should we show restraint? It is going to be difficult to make these decisions. We are playing with a lot of uncertainty. We do not know how other actors in the world will behave.

126

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Most Probable War
Things that climate change will cause are the most likely source of future wars.
Richard A. Mathew, Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) According to last year’s Human Security Report put out by the University of British Columbia, the world is overall becoming a more peaceful, more cooperative, and less violent place. This is obviously, on the whole, encouraging. But although there have been great gains 62 in terms of reducing the number of people killed in war and displaced by war, there are, nonetheless, many seemingly intractable areas of extreme violence. These areas do largely coincide with areas where one finds conditions of scarcity or violent competition for control of a natural resource like oil or gold.

127

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Water Wars
Climate change will trigger water wars throughout Southeast Asia.
Richard A. Mathew, Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) At this point, let me put a concrete face on all of this by looking at a specific place. Let me examine what might happen in South Asia. A quarter of the world lives there. It is a region already facing water scarcity. Much of the fresh water comes from the mountain regions. If the glaciers continue to melt and snow patterns continue to change as we now see happening, people may, for a couple of decades, think that there is a lot of fresh water to be had. That is, there will be a temporary increase in many areas. But this will suddenly and quite abruptly change, and the people there will soon find that there is, in fact, a real scarcity of fresh water in an area that has one and a half billion people and in which there are two nuclear powers. Now there is disagreement in the academic literature over the extent to which competition over water leads to violent conflict rather than being worked out institutionally. But whatever the trends of the past, there is general agreement that climate change could create an entirely new type of water politics. South Asia is an area of considerable concern in this regard. If we look at water-related conflict in South Asia, there have been 10 incidents of violent conflict in the past 7 years. In the 53 years before, there were only three incidents. In other words, water-related violent conflict has increased 24-fold in the past 7 years. Fresh water is clearly the cause of grave concern throughout the subcontinent these days. Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh worry that India is using its enormous power to negotiate a series of bilateral agreements that may not be on their best interests. So these countries are already very nervous about their prospects for fresh water over the next 20, 30, or 40 years, but they are not sure what to do. They are aware, however, that their fresh water supply could collapse dramatically, and they are concerned about how this will play out. Let me give you one example from my own research that I think is somewhat illustrative of what might lie in the not too distant future. Nepal, of course, is a fairly small country, 30 million people, but it is an extremely poor country, a country with a very low literacy rate and low rates in things like the United Nations (UN) Human Development Index, where it ranks at the very bottom of the planet’s 192 countries or close to the bottom. It is a country that has experimented with democracy. It has also experienced 10 years of extreme civil conflict that has driven the government to invest less and less in education and fresh water and sanitation and more and more in security. Nepal has a population that is very youthful, growing very rapidly, concentrated in a small number of areas. In short, it has all the conditions for violent conflict. It is transforming into a democracy, it is extremely impoverished, there is a high population density, and the big issue today is land. During 10 years of insurgency, the Maoists promised to redistribute land once they came into power, but since they joined the parliamentary system in November, they have backed away from this promise in two ways. Now they are saying, “Well, we will not redistribute any land of less than 10 hectares because that would be costly and disruptive, and, as for the formula for the rest, we have no idea what it should be, because we do not want to throw our economy into chaos by scaring away our local expertise and foreign investors.” So right now the politics of Nepal is defined by a tremendous expectation for land reform and very little clue of how to reform land ownership and access. What people are also starting to recognize is that land reform will need to be somehow integrated with access to fresh water. But fresh water is something that Nepal has been losing. It sees itself as a water rich country, but it has been losing a considerable amount to India. For example, in the 1950s people were encouraged to move to a wetland area of the Koshi River system to take pressure off the Kathmandu Valley. Half of this wetland was then leased to India because India has tremendous thirst for fresh water and needed it for irrigation in the north. Then the other half was turned into a protected site because the people were destroying it. What happened to the people? Well, the people, feeling uncompensated, appear to have been mobilized by the Maoists, who promised to return the wetland to them as soon as they were in power. Now you have a situation in which millions of people are waiting to recover or gain access to water and land that they believe is rightfully theirs, and the Maoists have no idea how they are going to satisfy this expectation— one they cultivated. Meanwhile, Maoists have risen in power significantly in India in the past couple of years. These Naxalites are calling the Nepali Maoists soft because they are not dealing with the water and land issues that they promised they would deal with. This is a sort of pattern we are going to see more and more of. Ultimately there is no easy solution to the land and water issues in South Asia. Climate changes are likely to make these problems even more difficult to solve than in the past.

128

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Northwest Passage/Sea Lanes Disputes
Opened sea lines cause boundary disputes
Robert W. Corell has been a Senior Policy Fellow with the Atmospheric Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society. He is also currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The Science of Climate Change” The Heinz Center May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Dumping a lot of fresh water into the system also, incidentally, has some consequences as well. Another interesting development to consider is the opening of new sea routes—notably the northern route and the Northwest Passage. Russia has always wanted to be a maritime nation. It is coming closer to that now. In fact, the sea route is 40 percent closer to the two major markets of Europe and the Far East. Two things have become clear since the last IPCC meeting. One, the opening is going to be on the Russian side. Two, it is likely to give Americans close to a half a year of opening within the next generation. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) models project that the current navigation season of 20-30 days per year will increase to 3-6 months/yr by 2080, with one model indicating an ice-free summer by 2040. This will have significant repercussions. All kinds of issues of access will have to be worked out. Seaward claims will be made. At the present moment, Canadians and Russians both lay claim to territory all the way to the Pole. Even the Americans, who generally adhere to the law of the sea, get quite heated over this particular 51 issue. Boundary disputes are also likely to occur. There is already a boundary dispute between every Arctic nation. We are going to have to solve these problems and figure out the correct means to do so. Is the law of the sea going to be applicable? Or will there be some other forum in which to resolve these conflicts? So what happened in the lower Arctic? We see the same picture. A lot of things are happening. In some places, where there is no longer an ice presence, the sea is eating away at the coastline and will gobble up little villages. In other places, where there is permafrost warming, the local fauna suffers. The Hudson Bay is almost empty of ice, and polar bears are well on their way to extinction now—they eat primarily seal and cannot hunt seals if there is no ice.

129

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Malaria
Climate induced precipitation will increase malaria spread.
Andrew Price-Smith, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Colorado College, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) Data provided by the IPCC regarding changes in precipitation from 1900-2000 indicate enormous variance on a global scale. Certain regions, such as the arctic and sub-arctic regions of the northern hemisphere, the northeastern sector of south Asia, and Eastern Australia are clearly enjoying increased levels of precipitation. Certain vectors of disease, (such as mosquitoes and snails) thrive in wet environments. Consequently, increases in precipitation will induce the proliferation of vectors, and thereby increase the transmission rates of certain pathogens such as malaria and schistosomiasis. Pathogens and their vectors of transmission are often highly sensitive to changes in temperature as well. IPCC data from 1976-2000 clearly indicate increasing temperatures for much of the surface of the planet, with the greatest increases evident in the temperate to polar regions. As isotherms shift toward the polar regions, this will expand the latitudinal range of the vectors in question (i.e., anopheles mosquitoes) and thereby permit the expansion of malaria in previously nonmalarious zones. Similarly, increasing surface temperatures permit the movement of malaria in higher altitudes than before. For example, Nairobi has historically been nonmalarial due to its altitude, but in recent years increases in temperature have seen the pathogen moving into the region. The temperature induced expansion of malaria is problematic because it exposes novel populations, who often lack any genetic or acquired immunity to the pathogen. Thus, the mortality and morbidity in such regions may be much higher than in zones where malaria is endemic.

130

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Disease
Climate change will increase disease spread.
Andrew Price-Smith, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Colorado College, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) Increasing temperatures also affect the biting rate of vectors. As temperatures rise, the vectors (mosquitoes) feed with greater frequency, and therefore increase the transmission rate of the plasmodium (the parasite) into human populations. Furthermore, increasing temperatures also affect the extrinsic incubation rate of the pathogen, such that it replicates within the gut of the vector at a greatly augmented rate. Thus, under conditions of higher temperatures, there are greater numbers of plasmodium within the vector, and the vector bites with much greater frequency.2 On a macro level, all of this means that as temperatures increase, the burden of disease (e.g., malaria) is likely to increase to a significant degree. Precipitation and Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are strong predictors of malarial incidence.

131

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes blackouts
Warming causes blackouts
Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm Increasing Power Outages or Rolling Blackouts More intense heat waves will have a further impact. More severe heat waves will bring heavy use of air-conditioning, increasing the probability of more blackouts, as power grids are strained beyond the limit. The combination of increasing severity of heat waves, together with a trend of electricity supply not keeping pace with demand, ultimately will lead to increases in blackouts. In a CNN.com article on July 1, 2000, 'Heat waves likely to bring more rolling blackouts', it was reported that U.S. consumption of electricity has risen 35% during the past decade, while newly generated electric power has risen by only 18%. "During the last several summers (as of July, 2000) utilities in some parts of the country have been stretched to the limit," says Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. (68) A study by the New York think tank, Allied Business Intelligence (ABI), says that in the next ten years, energy sources will be insufficient to meet demand throughout the U.S., except for Middle America. With a robust economy spurring the building industry, especially plans currently anticipating the building of half a million new commercial buildings annually, demand for energy is swiftly outpacing supply. According to ABI, 150 gigawatts (150 billion watts) will be needed by 2007 in the U.S. Plans call for meeting only half of that demand, says ABI. (66) The Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition of business, environmental, consumer and government leaders, says that a continuing trend of higher temperatures and more severe heat waves will have a role in producing more blackouts in the coming years. [71] On June 24, 2003 Italian utilities ordered power cuts for the first time since 1981, as a heat wave pushed the national power grid close to collapse. Further blackouts were planned into July. The blackouts resulted from a nationwide heavy demand in use of air conditioners and fans, affecting 6 million people. The unrelenting heat and an accompanying drought have disrupted Italian electricity production, as diminished water power has impacted hydroelectric plants. Demand for electricity set a new summer Italian record of 52,000 megawatts.

Black Outs will permanently cripple the US economy
United Press International, 8/18/03 In the end, Bush would learn it was the largest electric blackout ever. Though apparently not caused by terrorism, in the span of just nine seconds 50 million people in New York City and state, New England, Detroit, Cleveland, Ottawa and Toronto would lose electric power, placing them in the hot, often waterless darkness. Thousands would have to walk home; thousands would be trapped underground in subways, suspended in inoperable elevators, or at schools and theaters. But very quickly in the past two days Bush and his energy team found that some very tricky issues were posed by the blackout that will not be easily answered. The crisis over power in the United States may not be temporarily as devastating as Baghdad's, but in the long run the very nature of U.S. economic and social survival may rely upon correcting the difficulties.

US economic decline causes nuclear war
- Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury Department, "It's Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964) Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?

132

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes wildfires
Warming causes wildfires
Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm Wildfires IncreasingThe forests of Canada, Alaska and the former Soviet Union including Siberia are apparently burning like never before, experts said at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco (Dec.18, 2000). The likely reason: Global warming is drying out northern timber and brush. As a result, lightning bolts spark infernos of colossal extent. In Alaska and Canada's boreal forests, fire consumed an average of more than 7 million acres a year in the 1990s. That's a sharp rise from the average of 3 million acres per year in the 1960s, scientists said on the third day of the conference. See Source Article or 103************The year 2000 was the worst U.S. wildfire season in 50 years. A replay is proving that the year 2001 is producing scorching summer weather, again turning the Western United States into a tinderbox, where a few sparks could easily ignite a new inferno. Officials at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, say bone-dry conditions coupled with thick underbrush make for another potential record-breaking fire season in 2001. Firestorms in 2000 scorched some 7.5 million acres — an area roughly the size of Maryland — and cost some $1.7 billion to fight. See Article or 106 <>With wildfires come the prospect of flooding and mudslides. The record California wildfires of October - November 2003 that destroyed 100s of thousands of forest acreage, together with thousands of homes and businesses, promise more destruction from floods and landslides, say forest officials. See Planet Ark Story Also See ENN Article The wildfires burning in the late summer of 2001 across the Western United States were releasing tons of mercury into the atmosphere, say researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Hans Friedli and colleague Lawrence Radke conducted laboratory tests to find out how much mercury a fire could release. About half the atmospheric mercury got there from natural sources in soil, oceans and volcanoes, and the other half through human activity. Mercury is transformed in the atmosphere through chemical processes and then rains or falls out as wet or dry deposition to the surface. For trees, "wet deposition is most important," said Friedli. "Mercury is picked up by the surfaces - the leaves or needles - and it stays there."

The immediate impact of forest fires hurt biodiversity, crush corporations, deplete water, and erode soil
World Wildlife Foundation 9/12/06 http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_fires/index.cfm The immediate impact of forest fires can be devastating to human communities and forest ecosystems alike. Fires can alter the structure and composition of forests, opening up areas to invasion by fast-colonizing alien species and threaten biological diversity. Buildings, crops and plantations are destroyed and lives can be lost. For companies, fire can mean the destruction of assets; for communities, besides loss of an important resource base, fire can also lead to environmental degradation through impacts on water cycles, soil fertility and biodiversity; and for farmers, fire may mean the loss of crops or even livelihoods.

Also, any species can be a keystone species – even resilient ecosystems are susceptible when new species die
Perrings, 95 (Charles, Prof. at U. of NY, Biological Loss)
The contributors to this volume have argued that the fundamental goal of biodiversity conservation is not species preservation for its own sake, but the protection of the productive potential of those ecosystems on which

Ecosystem resilience has been shown to be a measure of the limits of the local stability of the self- organization of the system. Hence a system may be said to be resilient with respect to exogenous stress or shocks of a given magnitude if it is able to respond without losing self- organization. Where species or population deletion jeopardizes the resilience of an ecosystem providing essential services, then protection of ecosystem resilience implies species preservation. This is not to say that we should dismiss arguments for species preservation for its own sake. The identification of existence or nonuse value in contingent valuation exercises indicates that people do think in such terms. But it does make it clear that there is both an economically and ecologically sound rationale for ensuring the conservation of species that are not currently in use. More particularly, species which are not now keystone species but may become keystone species under different environmental conditions have insurance value, and this insurance value depends on their contreibution to ecosystem resilience.
human activity depends. This, it has been argued, is a function of the resilience of such ecosystems.

warming hurts plants
Warming will lead to water and food shortages, destroying crops and increasing starvation
133

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao Pamela Hess, staff writer for AP, 6-25-08, “Report: Climate Change linked to national security” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_co/global_warming_security
The assessment of global climate change through 2030 is one in a series of periodic intelligence reports that offer the consensus of top analysts at all 16 spy agencies on foreign policy, security and global economic issues. Congress requested the report last year. The assessment is classified as confidential. It predicts that the United States and most of its allies will have the means to cope with climate change economically. Unspecified "regional partners" could face severe problems. Fingar said the quality of the analysis is hampered by the fact that climate data tend not to focus on specific countries but on broad global changes. For that reason, the intelligence agencies have only low to moderate confidence in the assessment. Africa is seen as among the most vulnerable regions. An expected increase in droughts there could cut agricultural yields of rain-dependent crops by up to half over the next 12 years. Parts of Asia's food crops are vulnerable to droughts and floods, with rice and grain crops potentially facing up to a 10 percent decline by 2025. As many as 50 million additional people could face hunger by 2020. The water supply, while larger because of melting glaciers, will be under pressure from a growing population and increased consumption. Between 120 million and 1.2 billion people in Asia "will continue to experience some water stress." Latin America may experience increased precipitation, possibly cutting tens of millions of people from the ranks of those in need of water. But from 7 million to 77 million people could be short of water resources because of population growth.

134

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext – warming hurts plants
Warming kills off plants which spillover to the rest of the environment OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11
Extremes of environment are most damaging to the reproductive stages of plants. For example, changes in mast fruiting,5 which are often synchronous over large regions, have strong effects that cascade through all levels of an ecosystem (Koenig and Knops, 2000). One example is the influence that large acorn crops have on increasing the populations of deer, mice, and ultimately ticks (Jones et al., 1998). Thus, climatically induced changes in masting that lead to increased acorn production can result in an enhanced risk of Lyme disease, which then impacts human health. It is likely that the effects of abrupt climate change on mast fruiting will be nonlinear and thus the impacts of these changes will be difficult to predict (Koenig and Knops, 2000). Drought is also of primary importance to forests. In contrast to earlier predictions that global warming would increase radial growth of trees in boreal forests, white spruce (Picea glauca) tree ring records show recent decreases in radial growth. These decreases are presumed to be due to temperature-induced drought stress, which has implications for forest carbon storage at high latitudes. In the Southern Hemisphere (Patagonia), recent pulses of mortality in Austrocedrus chilensis trees were associated with only 2 to 3 years of drought (Villalba and Veblen, 1998). Not only is the lack of water directly damaging in a drought, but there is increased susceptibility to fire as a forest dries out. Further, there is evidence that drought triggered an ecotonal shift in New Mexico (Allen and Breshears, 1998) where ponderosa pine experienced high mortality rates in less than 5years and the ecotone migrated over 2 km. Woody mortality loss occurs much faster than tree growth gain, which has pervasive and persistent ecological effects on associated plant and animal communities. Warming induced droughts cause greater erosion killing plants and increase outbreaks of defoliating insects OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11 Droughts and floods are also responsible for changes in erosion patterns, as reduced vegetation due to fires results in greater soil loss (Allen, 2001). For example, in the Indonesian tropics, drought years have led to a greater frequency and magnitude of fires resulting in a loss of peatlands, increased erosion, and increased global air pollution. Globally, rates of soil erosion are 10 to 40 times greater than rates of soil formation (i.e., over 75 billion tons from terrestrial systems annually; Pimentel and Kounang, 1998). Droughts have also been implicated in insect outbreaks and pulses (births and deaths), with impacts on tree demography (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1998). Episodic outbreaks of pandora moth (Coloradia pandora), a forest insect that defoliates ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and other western US pine species, have been linked to climatic oscillations (Speer et al., 2001). Drought years have been linked to insect crashes as well as booms (Hawkins and Holyoak, 1998).

Unique Link- Warming uniquely devastates food supply- extreme weather and fertilizer disruption Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 33
Of course, doomsayers have long warned of an approaching food deficit and been proved wrong. Most food economists believe that global supply will be able to keep ahead of rising demand. But their assumptions have not adequately factored in the impact of climate change, especially the shift in rainfall distribution, rising temperatures and the probable increase in extreme weather events. Nor have they accounted for the fact that agricultural yields are heavily dependent on high fertiliser use, which links food production to climate change through the energy cycle. The need to achieve greenhouse-gas reductions will increase energy costs, making it more difficult to maintain the per capita food yield gains of the previous century.

135

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext – warming hurts plants
Warming devastates agriculture- flooding and droughts kill crops
Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1378-9 7.5. Changes in climate extremes Most of the presentation so far has concerned average climate. However, it is not the changes in average climate so much as the extremes of climate—droughts, floods, storms and extremes of temperature in very cold or very warm periods—that provide the largest impact on our lives. The most obvious change to be expected in extremes is a large increase in the number and severity of extremely warm days (figure 20) coupled with a decrease in the number of extremely cold days. A number of model projections show a generally decreased daily variability of surface air temperature in winter and increased daily variability in summer in Northern Hemisphere land areas, suggesting that the situation in figure 20(c) could apply in these areas (figure 26 shows an example). However, the greatest impact is likely to occur with changes connected with precipitation events, especially precipitation intensity. Moderate rainfall soaks into the soil and benefits plants. However, the same rainfall falling with greater intensity in a shorter period can lead to floods, run off, less soil moisture and may also cause damage. In heavy rainfall events, the intensity is dependent on the total water vapour available from the volume of air drawn in by the storm’s circulation [76]; this rises by about 6.5% per °C (section 7.2). Further, since many storms, especially in tropical areas, obtain most of their energy from the release of latent heat of condensation, larger increases in rainfall intensity could occur. Many model studies confirm these results (figure 21) that mean, with increasing temperature, a large rate of increase in the likelihood of floods. For instance, a recent modelling study (figure 22) has shown that, with doubled CO2 concentration, the probability of extreme seasonal precipitation in winter is likely to increase over large areas of central and Northern Europe and to decrease over parts of the Mediterranean and north Africa. In parts of central Europe, increases are indicated in the return period of extreme rainfall events of about a factor of five (e.g. from 50 years to 10 years). Similar results have been obtained in a study of major river basins around the world [77]. Note also from figure 21 that the number of days with lighter rainfall events (less than 6 mm/day) is expected to decrease. This is because, with the more intense hydrological cycle, a greater proportion of the rainfall will fall in the more intense events and further, in regions of convection, the areas of downdraught become drier as the areas of updraught become more moist. In many areas with relatively lowrainfall, therefore, the rainfall will tend to become less. Further, in such areas it is likely that the number of rainy days will be substantially fewer with more chance of prolonged periods of no rainfall at all; in other words, much more likelihood of drought. Further, the higher temperatures will lead to increased evaporation reducing the amount of moisture available at the surface —thus adding to the drought conditions. The proportional increase in the likelihood of drought is much greater than the proportional decrease in average rainfall. The impact of this is considered in more detail in section 8.

136

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes food shortages
Warming causes food shortages Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm
Robert Watson, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned rising temperatures will "cause decreases in agricultural productivity in the tropics and sub-tropics ... areas where we already have hunger." (82) The threat to future food supplies from climate change weighs heavily on an expected 2050 world population of 9 billion people. Lester R. Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute and a noted environmental analyst who spent 10 years as a policy adviser in the Department of Agriculture, says, "The vast corn belt of the Northern Hemisphere, for example, will become hotter and dryer, and that change can't be resolved merely by creating new corn belts further north, because the soils further north are not the same at all."...Brown goes onto say, "Each global increase of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) around the world will reduce grain yields like rice and wheat, as well as corn, by at least 10%."...Brown, noting the threat of water shortages from dwindling aquifers, says, "This disruption by a combination of climate change and water shortages has the potential for creating political instabilities on a scale thsat we can't even forsee." [116] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects an increase in global mean surface temperatures of about 1.5 to 6.0 degrees C (2.5 to 10.4 degrees F) by 2100. (10) Scientists have issued a warning that increasing temperatures will diminish the yield of basic crops of corn, soybean and rice. In a National Academy of Sciences report abstract (June, 2004), Rice yields decline with higher night temperatures from global warming, it was demonstrated that “grain yield declined by 10% for each 1 degree Celsius increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming." A study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution shows that over a 17-year period ended 1998 a 1-degree Celsius rise in temperature during the June-August growing season reduces yields of soy bean and corn crops by 17 percent. In their 2003 Science journal report, Climate and Management Contributions to Recent Trends in U.S. Agricultural Yields, the authors, David B. Lobell and Gregory P. Asner say, “As the United States is the largest producer of both corn and soybean in the world, predicted future global production of these crops based on historical trends may be overestimated.”

A decrease in crop yields causes worldwide nuclear war
WILLIAM H. CALVIN, prof @ University of Washington [Atlantic Monthy] 98 The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem — and could easily lead to a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.

137

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming hurts the barents sea
Global warming dramatically alters Barents Sea life and hurts key species. Arne Eide and Knut Heen, professors at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, 6/14/2002, Economic impacts of global warming A study of the fishing industry in North Norway
Most global circulation models (GCMs) show an increase of perhaps 5–10 °C in air temperature in the northern regions including the Barents Sea over the next 100 years. Based on these it is realistic to assume an increase in mean sea temperature of 2 °C over some decades. Year-to-year variability is assumed to be as present. 6.2.1. Consequences 1. Growth rate of cod and herring increases by 20%. We assume that the amount of primary and secondary production increases sufficiently to allow increased growth. 2. Increased recruitment of cod and herring. Number of recruits at age 3 for cod is increased from a historic average of just above 600–800 millions. The increase of the herring recruitment will be up to 30%. 6.3. Scenario 2 The average inflow to the Barents Sea of warm Atlantic water masses is significantly reduced leading to an average reduction in sea temperature of 3 °C, while standard deviation is assumed to remain constant. This might happen either as a result of a general reduction in the flow of the Gulf Stream or in the branch of it entering the Barents Sea. Even with a reduction of 3 °C the summer temperatures in the western Barents Sea will be higher than in other oceans at similar latitudes. 6.3.1. Consequences Such a dramatic change in temperature may completely alter the ecosystem including the species composition. In this case, we assume that cod, capelin and herring, at least in an intermediate period, will still be the main species, but growth, recruitment and distribution will be altered: 1. Growth rate of cod and herring will be reduced by 25%. 2. Recruitment to the cod and herring stocks will be reduced. Assume average number of 3-year old cod will be reduced from 600 to 400 millions. Similarly the herring recruitment will be reduced to onethird.

The Barents Sea is key to regional economic and social stability, as well as world food supplies Arne Eide and Knut Heen, professors at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, 6/14/2002, Economic impacts of global warming A study of the fishing industry in North Norway
The Barents Sea (Fig. 1) contains some of the most abundant fish resources in the world. Plankton forms the basis of the biological production system, with sea mammals at the top of the biological hierarchy, preying both on cod, pelagic fish and shrimp, while cod prey on pelagic fish and shrimp. Our focus is on that part of the ecosystem defined by the cod and pelagic fish stocks and on the vessel groups and processing sector associated with those species: together they form the most important components of the Barents Sea ecosystem and regional economy

138

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming bad for asia
Climate change will devastate Asia—killing billions through disease, drought, flooding and starvation
Channel News Asia 6 Apr 07 “Asia faces floods, drought, disease: UN climate report” http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st BRUSSELS - Asia faces a heightened risk of flooding, severe water shortages, infectious disease and hunger from global warming this century, the UN's top climate panel said on Friday. The region is confronted by a 90-percent likelihood that more than a billion of its people will be "adversely affected" by the impacts of global warming by the 2050s, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said. Its estimates, in a major report unveiled in Brussels, say the magnitude of climate- change effects will vary according to the size of the world's population, energy use and the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which determines the rise in global temperature. But under any scenario, the world's most populous region will be badly hit. Here are the major findings: -120 million to 1.2 billion people in Asia will experience increased water stress by 2020, and 185 to 981 million by 2050. -- Cereal yields in South Asia could drop in some areas by up to 30 percent by 2050. -- Even modest rises in sea levels will cause flooding and economic disruption in densely-populated mega-deltas, such as the mouths of the Yangtze in China, the Red River in China and Vietnam, and the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta in low-lying Bangladesh. -- Cholera and malaria could increase, thanks to flooding and a wider habitat range for mosquitoes. -- In the Himalayas, glaciers less than four kilometres (2.5 miles) long will disappear entirely if average global temperatures rise by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit). This will initially cause increased flooding and mudslides followed by an eventual decrease in flow in rivers that are glacier-fed. -- Per capita water availability in India will drop from around 1,900 cubic metres (66, 500 cubic feet) currently to 1,000 cu. metres (35,000 cu. ft.) by 2025.

139

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Linear Impacts

Finally, the impact to warming is linear – every degree of warming we prevent saves billions of people.
Neo Hui-Min, Straits Times Staff Writer 2007, http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st) BRUSSELS - TOP climate scientists issued their bleakest assessment yet on global warming yesterday, with a warning that billions of people could go thirsty as water supplies dry up and millions more may starve as farmlands become deserts. Poor tropical countries that are least to blame for causing the problem will be worst hit, said the report. Small island states, Asia's big river deltas, the Arctic, and sub- Saharan Africa are also at risk. Global warming could also rapidly thaw Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers from India to China, and bring heat waves to Europe and North America. The dire warnings came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final text of a 21-page Summary for Policymakers was agreed on after an all-night session marked by serious disputes. Scientists from more than 100 countries made up the panel. Their report forms the second of a four-part climate assessment, with the final section to be released early next month in Bangkok. Its findings are approved unanimously by governments and will guide policy on issues such as extending the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, the main plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012. The grim 1,400-page report issued yesterday said change, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases, was already under way in nature. The IPCC noted that damage to the earth's weather systems was changing rainfall patterns, punching up the power of storms and boosting the risk of drought, flooding and stress on water supplies. Some scientists even called the degree-by-degree projection a 'highway to extinction'. Add 1 deg C to the earth's average temperatures and between 400 million and 1.7 billion more people cannot get enough water. Add another 1.8 deg C and as many as two billion people could be without water, and about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's species face extinction. More people will also start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts. This could happen as early as 2050. 'Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent,' said the report. University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, former head of the United States' IPCC delegation, said: 'It is clear that a number of species are going to be lost.' Mr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: 'It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. 'This does become a global responsibility in my view.' Still, some scientists accused governments of watering down the forecasts. They said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia had raised most objections overnight, seeking to tone down some findings. Other participants also said the US, which pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 saying it was too costly, had toned down some passages. Dr Pramod Kumar Aggarwal, one of the authors of the report, told The Straits Times that temperature increases could lead to crop failure and rising prices, with dire consequences for the poor. 'In Asia, you are talking about millions or billions of people,' he said.

Each degree of warming linearly increases the risk of climate induced wars.
Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Visiting Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Vice-Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, ‘8 (http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf) Climate change is only just beginning, but its impacts will steadily intensify in the coming decades. WBGU shows that firstly, climate change could exacerbate existing environmental crises such as drought, water scarcity and soil degradation, intensify landuse conflicts and trigger further environmentally induced migration. Rising global temperatures will jeopardize the bases of many people’s livelihoods, especially in the developing regions, increase vulnerability to poverty and social deprivation, and thus put human security at risk. Particularly in weak and fragile states with poorly performing institutions and systems of government, climate change is also likely to overwhelm local capacities to adapt to changing environmental conditions and will thus reinforce the trend towards general instability that already exists in many societies and regions (Box 1). In general it can be said that the greater the warming, the greater the security risks to be anticipated.

140

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Bio D (2 Degree Temp Rise)
The 2-degree line is a line of no return – the global biodiversity collapses past that point. IPCC a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, An Assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new and stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change on unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountain communities and ecosystems), with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing risk of species extinction and coral reef damage is projected with higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C over 1980-1999 levels. Confidence has increased that a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperature above 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above preindustrial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened systems including many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation by corals. Increasing vulnerability of indigenous communities in the Arctic and small island communities to warming is projected.

141

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Bio-D Collpase => Econ/Famine Impact
tipping point of biodiversity destroys our life support system causing extinction. Independently, it crashes the economy, destroys food security, and amplifies global warming even further.
Richard Margoluis, Director, Biodiversity Support Program; Co-Founder, Foundations of Success, 1996, Biodiversity Support Program,
http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACP322.pdf

Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control.2 The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.3 Biodiversity is important to the global economy. The economic value of biodiversity is a well-established fact. Modern agriculture, which depends on new genetic stock from natural ecological systems, is now a $3 trillion global business; nature tourism generates some $12 billion worldwide in annual revenues.4 In the United States, the economic benefits from wild plants and animals comprise approximately 4.5% of the Gross Domestic Product.5 In 1988, worldwide commercial trade in wild plants (excluding timber) and animals was valued at $5 billion.6 That same year, the 20 best-selling drugs in the U.S., with combined revenues of about $6 billion worldwide, all relied on plants, microbes, and animals for their development.7 Each wild plant that provides the chemical basis for developing new drugs is projected to generate at least $290 million annually.8 Biodiversity is essential for ensuring food security. All of the world's major food crops, including corn, wheat, and soybeans, depend on new genetic material from the wild to remain productive and healthy. Breeders and farmers rely on the genetic diversity of crops and livestock to increase yields and to respond to changes in environmental conditions. Plant breeding, using wild genetic stock and other sources, was responsible for half the gains in agricultural yields in the United States from 1930 to 1980.9 The Earth's oceans, lakes, and rivers contain an abundance of food resources. At present, food production from wild stocks of fish is the single largest source of animal protein for the world's expanding population. In 1994, more than 10 billion pounds of fish, valued at about $4 billion, were caught and sold in the United States alone.10 Teosinte, a wild relative of corn discovered in Mexico during the 1960s, is resistant to four of the eight major diseases that kill corn in the United States.11 Had it been available to U.S. farmers in the 1970s, losses of $1 billion could have been avoided when disease wiped out uniformly susceptible varieties.12 Corn is the essential ingredient in a range of products-from animal feed to corn syrup. Thanks to Teosinte, prices for grain-fed meats, soft drinks, and other corn-related foods have been kept low. This example shows that genetic biodiversity protects American farmers and consumers alike. Biodiversity safeguards human health. Of the top-selling 150 prescription drugs in the United States, 79% have their origins in nature.13 Many synthetic drugs, including aspirin, were first discovered in wild plants and animals. Roughly 119 pure chemical substances extracted from some 90 species of higher plants are used in pharmaceuticals around the world.14 Traditional medicine, which relies on species of wild and cultivated plants, forms the basis of primary health care for about 80% of all people living in developing countries. In the United States, traditional medicine and other alternative health systems are gaining in acceptance. Each year, the U.S. imports more than $20 million of rain forest plants valued for their medicinal properties.15 Despite such widespread popularity, only 2% of the 250,000 described species of vascular plants have been screened for their chemical compounds.16 Of those that have been screened, some show dramatic promise. For example, Taxol, a new drug developed from the Pacific yew tree, is being used to treat ovarian cancer.17 In 1960, a child with leukemia had a 1 in 5 chance of remission. Now, thanks to anti-cancer drugs developed from a compound discovered in wild periwinkle plants, the same child's chance of survival has increased to 80%.18 Biodiversity provides recreational opportunities. In addition to protecting our future food supply, health, and environment, biodiversity provides an array of recreational opportunities and aesthetic value. In 1991, recreation associated with wild birds alone generated nearly $20 million in economic activity and 250,000 jobs in the United States, exceeding many Fortune 500 companies.19 Saltwater recreational fishing in the U.S. generates more than $15 billion annually in economic activity and provides over 200,000 full-time jobs.20 U.S. parks brought in $3.2 billion from visitors in 1986.21 That same year, tourism in Kenya amounted to $400 million. In that country, the economic value of viewing elephants alone totaled $25 million in 1989.22 These large economic revenues reflect the high value people place on recreation involving biodiversity. Biodiversity and the issues that affect it cross all national borders. Air and water pollution do not respect national borders. Acid rain, which results when air pollutants mix with falling rain, is a good example. In North America, industrial emissions from U.S. factories have caused 142

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Bio-D Collapse => Econ/Famine Impact
[CONTINUED] acid rain to damage sugar maples in Canada, threatening future maple syrup production.23 Perhaps the most serious threat to life on Earth is global climate change.24 In December 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientists and policymakers from 120 nations, agreed in writing that human activities are affecting the global climate.25 Carbon released from such human-induced activities as the burning of fossil fuels, forests, and other natural habitats is a major contributor to climate change.26 Tropical forest burning outside the U.S. has accounted for about 25% of all carbon released into the atmosphere over the past decade.27 Rapid build-up of carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, combined inextricably with ozone depletion, is causing our climate to change.28 The consequences for many species of wildlife and ecosystems, as well as for human populations, may be catastrophic.29 In the United States, warmer temperatures could result in the shifting of agricultural lands hundreds of miles north and cause severe coastal flooding.30 Species would be forced to migrate to keep up with optimum conditions, but the rate of change would be too fast for many to adapt.31, 32 On a global scale, loss of biodiversity can even threaten national security. There are many national and international conflicts over water, land, and other natural resources. Such environmental conflicts often lead to mass migrations of people that strain national budgets, public infrastructure, and international relations.33 Rates of species extinction are unprecedented. Not since the disappearance of the dinosaurs has the rate of species extinction, the most common measure of biodiversity loss, been higher. Virtually all of the loss is caused by human activities, mostly through habitat destruction and overhunting.34 In the contiguous United States, 98% of virgin forests have been destroyed, and 54% of wetlands have been lost.35 Over the past 500 years, 200 species of plants and 71 species and sub-species of vertebrates have become extinct in North America alone; another 750 species are officially listed as endangered or threatened.36 Unfortunately, only 13% of the approximately 14 million species that inhabit the Earth have been described by scientists.37 With increasing human pressure on biological resources, rates of extinction can only be expected to accelerate.

143

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability
Warming will cause Central Asian instability.
Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Visiting Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Vice-Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, ‘8 (http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf) Central Asia is an area prone to conflict. All the countries of Central Asia are characterized by a major democracy deficit, autocratic and paternalistic forms of government and weak governance structures (Kaufmann et al., 2006; Grävingholt, 2007). The post-Soviet political institutions lack legitimation and fail to operate in accordance with the rule of law. Inefficient public administration and widespread corruption hinder economic and social development. Unmet material and participative needs fuel discontent among the population, leading increasingly to internal political conflict. Political tensions usually have ethnic or religious undercurrents, because the region is home to a variety of ethnic groups and Islamic opposition movements are growing in strength (Luders, 2003). Arbitrary border- drawing between the areas occupied by different ethnic groups further exacerbate the situation. In ̈ consequence, the internal stability of these countries has been repeatedly shaken in the recent past by terrorist campaigns (Uzbekistan), civil war (Tajikistan) and criminal penetration of politics. On account of their poor governance capacities, many countries are regarded as so weak and fragile that it would take little in the way of critical events for the state to collapse. The unstable internal situation is compounded by global developments: the geostrategic importance of the region has increased as a result of the ‘ war on terror’ (Halbach, 2002). On account of its proximity to Afghanistan, Central Asia is regarded, moreover, as a hub of the international drugs trade. In addition, in connection with the securing of global resources and energy supplies, this resource-rich region is increasingly caught up in the potentially conflicting interests of powers such as the USA, Russia and China (Luders, 2003; ̈ Amineh, 2006). The region is characterized in some places by great poverty. For example, the proportion of the population living below the poverty line of less that US$2 per day is 16 per cent in Kazakhstan, 21 per cent in Kyrgyzstan and as high as 43 per cent in Tajikistan (World Bank, 2006e). The Human Development Indices of theses countries are close together, all lying in the lower part of the middle range (UNDP, 2006). The sole exception is Kazakhstan, which scores better than its neighbours. A large proportion of the population of Central Asia is affected by unemployment and struggles for opportunities to earn a living. Kazakh stan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the only countries in which the state fulfils its welfare obligations, and then only at a very low level (Schmitz, 2004). At the same time, there are extremely wide social differences in these three countries, with a large proportion of the profits from gas and oil exports benefiting only a small, affluent minority. Economic structures depend to a large extent on natural resources. In addition, these countries still have to contend with inefficient management structures created for a planned economy; this is particularly significant for the supply of water. Agriculture forms the basis of existence for large sectors of the population and accounts for up to 40 per cent of GDP. The proportion of agricultural land requiring irrigation is 75–100 per cent (Bucknall et al., 2003; Giese and Sehring, 2006). The non-sustainable monoculture has far-reaching consequences, including soil salination, declining availability of pasture and arable land and contamination of water with fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, the large-scale abstraction of water from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers has led to a gradual silting up of the Aral Sea, with disastrous consequences for climate and environmental conditions in the region and the health and socio-economic situation of the population (WBGU, 1998). Health problems caused by impure drinking water and sandstorms, high unemployment and impoverishment have fuelled social unrest and migratory movements in the region. The allocation of scarce water supplies, combined with controversial measures such as the building of the Golden Century reservoir, places strain on relationships between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Because of the anticipated affects of climate change in the Aral Sea region, the potential for destabilization is therefore particularly high (Giese and Sehring, 2006). In addition to agriculture, another important economic sector is the generation of hydroelectricity for both the domestic and – increasingly – the export market. With regard to the use and distribution of water, there is sometimes a divergence of interest between countries adjoining the upper and lower reaches of rivers that flow through different states: for example, the requirements of electricity generation in winter (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) as opposed to agricultural irrigation in summer (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan). Since the Central Asian republics gained political independence, these differences of interest between riparian countries has resulted in more interstate disputes over water throughput quantities. Increased worsening of the water supply situation in summer would significantly increase the existing potential for conflict and far overtask current regional water management structures such as the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination, which was later included in the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (Section 6.2.3.2). A part of Central Asia that is particularly prone to conflict is the Fergana basin. This is the most important area of agricultural cultivation and the most densely populated part

144

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Central Asian Stability
[CONTINUED] of the region. It is situated in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Since the end of the 1980s there has repeatedly been conflict over access to resources that has erupted along ethnic lines. On account of social impoverishment and existing ethnic tensions, there is a high security risk attached to the anticipated consequences of climate change – that is, the probable increasing loss of valuable arable land, the risk of landslides and the growing scarcity of usable water resources in summer. This applies not only to the valley itself, but to the entire region. In the neighbouring autonomous Uyghur region of Xinjiang in the People’s Republic of China, too, scarce water and land resources are already the principal cause of conflict between ethnic groups. The tensions between immigrant, controlling Chinese on the one hand and the local population (Islamic Turkic ethnic groups: Uyghurs, Kazaks, Kyrgyz and BuddhistLamaist Mongols) on the other have increased in severity in the recent past and have erupted openly. Further developments in the province could have a destabilizing effect on the whole of China (Section 7.7). 7.5.3 Conclusions Central Asia is a region severely affected by climate change. An increasing shortage of water is already noticeable. The above-average warming of Central Asia and the increasing variability of precipitation will exacerbate the situation. Combined with increasing demand for water, this will lead to further water scarcity in lakes and rivers that are shared between countries, siltation of inland lakes and desertification. Although the melting of the glaciers will increase the flow of water in the short to medium term, it will further exacerbate the water shortage in the long term. Water is both a key resource for agriculture (ensuring the survival of the population) and a strategic resource (electricity generation), and the region is already characterized by political and social tensions, the growth of Islamic movements, civil war and resource disputes; there is therefore considerable additional potential for conflict. The socio-economic consequences of global warming are borne in particular by small farmers. Environmental degradation affects primarily regions that are politically and economically marginalized and whose problems are not a priority for those in power (Giese and Sehring, 2006). This can lead to unrest or to the escalation of existing tensions, particularly if the problems are instrumentalized ethnically or nationalistically, as for example in the Fergana valley or Xinjiang. Climatic changes could also affect the strategic interests of countries through which waterways flow. Declines in agricultural exports (cotton) and disputes over water throughput quantities affect the economies of some countries. The countries themselves have very weak capacity for dealing with the consequences of environmental problems and climate change. This applies both to the implementation of national and international agreements and to domestic political reforms. Water management problems are further compounded by the geostrategic and economic interests of powerful countries in the region and by geographical aspects such as proximity to Afghanistan. The further development of the region could depend to a significant extent on resolving this critical complex of socio-economic and ecological problems.

Central Asian instability is the most likely scenario for nuclear war.
Stephen Blank, MacArthur Professor of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 5-1-98 Many of the conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in which third parties intervene are present in the Transcaucasus. For example, many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their lesser proteges and proxies. One or another big power may fail to grasp the other side's stakes, since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client's defeat are not well established or clear as in Europe. Clarity about the nature of the threat could prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled escalation we saw in 1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia - or if it could, would trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia's declared nuclear strategies) - the danger of major war is higher here than almost everywhere else.

145

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Middle Eastern Instability
Climate change will cause water shortages in the Middle East, leading to region wide instability.
John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress and Peter Ogden, Senior National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress, Winter, ‘7The Security Implications of Climate Change, The Washington Quarterly 31.1 This is likely to be the case in the Middle East, where water shortages will coincide with a population boom. The enormously intricate water politics of the region have been aptly described as a "hydropolitical security complex."30 The Jordan River physically links the water interests of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria; the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers physically link the interests of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. This hydrological environment is further complicated by the fact that 75 percent of all the water in the Middle East is located in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.31 Such conditions would be cause for political tension even in a region without a troubled history. [End Page 121] Turkey's regional position will likely be strengthened as a result of the water crisis. Situated at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, Turkey is the only country in the Middle East that does not depend on water supplies that originate outside of its borders and, although far from a water-rich country, will not find its water supply significantly threatened by climate change within the next three decades. Yet, climate change will leave all of the other countries that are dependent on water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers more vulnerable to deliberate supply disruption. Turkey is seeking to maximize this leverage with its massive Southeastern Anatolian Project. When completed in 2010, Turkey will have built 22 dams and 19 power plants along the Euphrates River, thereby reducing downstream water supply. The dams will also give Turkey the capacity to cut Syria's water supply by up to 40 percent and Iraq's water supply by up to 80 percent.32 Turkey's ability to use water as a political tool will become increasingly important in its relations with Syria. Turkey demonstrated its capacity to cut water supply to Syria in January 1990, when it disrupted the flow of the Euphrates River to fill a reservoir in front of the Ataturk Dam. Turkey has also threatened to cut off water in retaliation for Syria's support of the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), and it has the capacity to reduce water supplies to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.33 Although Syria's support for the PKK ended in 1998, the chaos in Iraq could prompt an emboldened PKK to seek renewed support from potential regional allies. Israel, already extremely water poor, will only become more so. One thousand cubic meters of water per capita is considered the minimum amount of water necessary for an industrialized nation. By 2025, Israel will have fewer than 500 cubic meters of water per capita.34 Overpumping has also contributed to the gradual depletion and salinization of vital aquifers and rivers. Much of Israel's water supply, moreover, is from sources located in politically fraught territory. One-third of it is from the Golan Heights, and another third is from the mountain aquifer that straddles the West Bank and Israel.35 Israel will need to place additional importance on its relationship with Turkey, and a deeper alliance could be forged if a proposed water-trading agreement in which Turkey would ship water directly to Israel in tankers is eventually completed.36 This new source of supply would not offset the added pressures of climate change and population growth, but it would deepen their strategic ties and cushion any sudden short-term supply disruptions or embargoes.37 [End Page 122] Israel's relations with Syria will also be strained by its need for the water resources of the Golan Heights. Although each side recognizes that any peaceful and sustainable resolution over the Golan Heights will need to include a water-sharing agreement, the issue of direct access to the Sea of Galilee will continue to complicate negotiations over the final demarcation of the border, as it did in 2000. The region's water problems will be compounded by its population growth (see figure 1). According to current projections, the Middle Eastern and North African population could double in the next 50 years.38 In the Middle East, the fastest growing populations are in water-poor regions such as the Palestinian territories. In the West Bank, a lack of available freshwater has already contributed to food shortages and unemployment, and there have been incidences of small, violent conflicts over water supplies.39 These clashes will only become more prevalent as the population increases and available water resources diminish.

146

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Southeast Asia Instability
Climate induced migration will cause Southeast Asian wars.
John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress and Peter Ogden, Senionr National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress, Winter, ‘7 The Security Implications of Climate Change, The Washington Quarterly 31.1 No region is more directly threatened by human migration than South Asia. The IPCC warns that "coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East, and Southeast Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers."8 Bangladesh in particular will be threatened by devastating floods and other damage from monsoons, melting glaciers, and tropical cyclones that originate in the Bay of Bengal, as well as water contamination and ecosystem destruction caused by rising sea levels. The population of Bangladesh, which stands at 142 million today, is anticipated to increase by approximately 100 million people during the next few decades, even as the impact of climate change and other environmental factors steadily render the low-lying regions of the country uninhabitable.9 Many of the displaced will move inland, which will foment instability as the resettled population competes for already scarce resources with established residents. Others will seek to migrate abroad, creating heightened political tension not only in South Asia but in Europe and Southeast Asia as well. India will struggle to cope with a surge of displaced people from Bangladesh, in addition to those who will arrive from the small islands in the Bay of Bengal that are being slowly swallowed by the rising sea. Approximately four million people inhabit these islands, and many of them will have to be accommodated on the mainland eventually.10 Bangladeshi migrants will generate political tension as they traverse the region's many contested borders and territories, such as those between China, India, and Pakistan. The Indian-Bangladeshi border is already a site of significant political friction, demonstrated by the 2,100mile, two-and-a-half-meter [End Page 117] high, iron border fence that India is in the process of building.11 Due to be completed in 2007, this fence is being constructed at a time when there are numerous signs of rising Islamic extremism in Bangladesh. In the wake of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, for instance, hundreds of Taliban and jihadists found safe haven in the country.12 In his recent article, former National Security Council staffer and CIA analyst Bruce Riedel argues that Bangladesh is among the places most likely to become a new base of operations for al Qaeda.13 The combination of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire environmental insecurity brought on by climate change could prove a volatile mix with severe regional and potentially global consequences.

147

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability
Climate change will cause crush the Chinese economy, increase social tensions and overwhelm the government-the result is massive instability.
Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Visiting Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Vice-Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, ‘8 (http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf) Against the background of existing and – as a result of climate change – increasing environmental problems and the economic, ecological and social contrasts within the country, the capacity of the Chinese state for management and action can be described as follows: marked regional, social and economic disparities are a feature of China’s development (Alpermann, 2004; Heberer and Senz, 2006b). Since the introduction of its reform policies and increased openness in 1978/79, economic growth has proceeded rapidly, with GDP growing by more than 9 per cent annually in real terms; per capita income (in US$) quadrupled between 1981 and 2003. In the same period, the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty (less than US$1 per day) fell from more than 60 per cent to just below 10 per cent (World Bank, 2006a; Chaudhuri and Ravallion, 2007). At first glance, therefore, China appears to be a major economic success story. However, the population participates very unequally in the economic dynamism, resulting in social polarization and wide income disparities. Economic development takes place almost exclusively in the urban centres of the coastal region; many inland regions, by contrast, continue to resemble typical developing countries. Around 45 per cent of China’s workforce is still occupied in agriculture (Heberer and Senz, 2006b; Winters and Yusuf, 2007b). This disparity between and within regions is reflected in the Human Development Index: in 2005, Shanghai was on the same level as Portugal, while Tibet was level with Gabon. In addition, income disparities in China are among the highest in the world (UNDP, 2005a). A new urban middle class contrasts with a majority of some 770 million rural dwellers who have no adequate access to education and health care provision. Since the 1990s unemployment, income disparities and the need for cheap labour in China’s coastal provinces have led to a large-scale exodus from the rural regions. The number of migrant workers in China is currently around 120–180 million. They form a grow- ing stratum of impoverished urban dwellers and highlight the imbalance in China’s impressive socio-economic development (Heberer and Senz, 2006b). The poorest and least developed regions are the areas in which ethnic minorities live; these make up around 60 per cent of Chinese territory. These districts are dependent on agricultural yields and are therefore particularly affected by deforestation (Tibet, Yunnan, Sichuan), desertification (Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia) and glacier melt (Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai). In the autonomous Uyghur region of Xinjiang, for example, scarce water and land resources are already the principal cause of disputes between different ethnic groups (Giese and Sehring, 2006). In addition, the Chinese government’s modernization policy for the autonomous regions based on economic development and resource extraction has bred political and ethnic conflict that continues to simmer (Heberer and Senz, 2006b). Social disparities among the population, increasing extraction of resources to underpin the economic upswing, and the effects of climate change threaten to further exacerbate these internal Chinese conflicts and beget the risk of growing political instability. In addition to the conflicts in the interior of the country, the regional security situation is becoming increasingly tense. Tensions are growing as a result of migration from China to neighbouring countries such as Russia and Mongolia, and as a consequence of the resource and raw materials policy pursued by China and by Chinese companies in adjoining states (e.g. Mongolia, Russia, Central Asia) (Barkmann 2006; Sidikov 2006; Umbach 2006). China’s need for resources also forms the background to territorial disputes over the islands of the South China Sea and disagreements between China and Japan (Heberer and Senz, 2006a). In addition, there is significant crisis potential in China’s relationship with Taiwan. The pursuit of national interests in dealings with neighbouring countries can, in the long term, serve to exacerbate conflict. This effect is heightened if the ‘nationalist card’ is perhaps played in an attempt to stabilize the state and maintain the Communist Party’s power (Klenke, 2006). A central challenge to China’s problem-solving capacity lies in the need to tackle not only social problems but also the environmental consequences of economic growth. The loss of arable land, the decline in soil quality and pollution of air and water are already giving rise to costs amounting to around 8 per cent of GDP (Economy, 2004). Every year millions of people fall victim to natural disasters; many of these are dependent on state aid. The health consequences of environmental pollution (e.g. ‘cancer villages’) are serious, and the number of protests is growing. The Chinese government has so far succeeded in presenting itself as capable of solving these problems. In fact, its position and legitimacy is built on its promise to develop and modernize the country, to solve the pressing social and ecological problems and to ensure political and social stability (Heberer and Senz, 2006b). The government’s goals and options for action in the face of these challenges are ambivalent; Chinese politics has broken away from Marxist-Leninist ideology and is based on

148

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability
[CONTINUED] pragmatism. The new innovative and technocratic political elite continues to focus primarily on economic development. The Chinese leadership, however, is to an increasing extent including ecological goals among its aims, particularly through the environmental authority SEPA. It has started to measure ‘green GDP’, for example, and has introduced measures to increase energy efficiency and expand renewable energies (SEPA, 2006; Schumann, 2007; Richerzhagen, 2007). The ‘Communist party state’ of the People’s Republic of China is not a homogenous structure but represents a system of ‘fragmented authoritarianism’ (Lieberthal and Lampton, 1992). Within this system, a range of stakeholders exert influence on political decisions and their implementation – central government, the provinces, local government, the military, new social strata, new social organizations, etc. In many respects, the goals of central and local government conflict. For example, the implementation of environmental legislation often founders in the hands of administrative bodies at the lower level that evade the regu lations in the interests of local economic development (Lan et al., 2006; OECD, 2007a). Awareness of regional and global responsibility for environmental issues appears to be slowly growing (Wenk, 2007; Schumann, 2007). Negotiation and less coercion are now important tools of political consensus building and decisionmaking within China. A civil society movement is slowly emerging and giving rise to China’s own environmental NGOs. On account of the prevailing political structures, however, they are still fragmented, often locally oriented and not entirely independent of the government in the western sense. Provided that they do not pursue explicitly political goals, the state supports such organizations because they often contribute to solving concrete social problems. Overall, though, the party state is set against a splintered and weak civil society that is at present unable to challenge it effectively. 7.7.3 Conclusions The major environmental changes to be expected in China as a result of climate change are increasing soil degradation and the loss of arable land, an increase in extreme weather events and periods of drought and increasing water scarcity. The effects will, however, vary in different parts of China. Nevertheless, existing ecological and social problems in the cities and rural areas could escalate, undermining the dynamism of the economy and ultimately affecting the political stability of the country. The south will be confronted with an increase in flood disasters, severe weather events, storms and landslides. The main problems in the north will be water scarcity in summer and an increase in droughts – with subsequent harvest failures – as a result of glacier melt and precipitation variability. The rural population will bear the brunt of climate impacts. Compounded by ethnic tensions, poverty and social disadvantage, these regional developments could have a destabilizing effect on the entire country and on neighbouring states. Since rural exodus as a result of environmental degradation is already being observed, it is very likely that internal migration will increase further and will represent one of the central challenges of the coming decades (Heberer and Senz, 2006b). Further significant risk and conflict potential arises from the concentration of the economic infrastructure in the densely populated river deltas of the east coast. The rising sea level and an increase in flood disasters, possibly also driven by more powerful typhoons, could cause major damage both to industrial facilities – thus striking at the heart of the Chinese economy – and to residential areas in which millions of people live. The potential for conflict would be considerable. The anticipated problems present a major challenge to the political structures and the legitimacy of the Chinese government both internally and externally. Externally China, with its growing economic strength and global political weight, is not only becoming a serious competitor of the United States but is also being seen increasingly as a key player in matters of international climate policy. Tough international disputes are emerging over responsibility for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; such disagreements put the international system under pressure and can lead to tension in foreign policy matters. At home, the Chinese leadership runs the risk of being overstretched by the combined effects of heightened environmental problems, social polarization and economic and political liberalization. The political elite has recognized this problem and begun to develop mechanisms to protect against and deal with environmental problems and climate impacts. However, the government’s capacity to control and manage the situation has struggled to keep pace with modernization and the dynamism of economic growth (Richerzhagen, 2007). As regards preventing internal conflicts from escalating into violence, much will depend in future on whether the current balance between economic capability, the state’s ability to govern, and social acceptance or the ‘willingness to suffer’ of parts of the population continues to prevail (Heberer and Senz, 2006b). The ability to adapt to the anticipated climate impacts could thus be a crucial factor in China’s further development.

149

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability
Climate change causes water shortages and migration in China, which threaten relations with the rest and instability. John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress and Peter Ogden, Senior National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress, Winter, ‘7 The Security Implications of Climate Change, The Washington Quarterly 31.1
In the coming decades, climate change will pose a growing political and economic challenge to China. The manner in which the Chinese leadership responds will have international security ramifications and will become an important factor in determining the course of U.S.-Chinese relations. China's current pattern of energy production and consumption poses a tremendous long-term threat to the global
environment (see figure 2). China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest national emitter of CO2, although it notably lags far behind on a per-capita basis, while its energy demand is projected to grow at a rate several times that of the United States for decades to come. China's steep carbon-emissions trajectory is to a large extent the result of its reliance on coal. Currently, coal constitutes approximately two-thirds of China's primary energy consumption, and it will continue to be a major fuel source for the foreseeable future. China has enormous coal reserves, and coal is a far more cost-efficient energy source than imported natural gas at today's prices. China is now building traditional coal-fired power plants at a rate of almost one per week, each of which releases approximately 15,000 metric tons of CO2 per day.51 Today, coal use accounts for more than 80 percent of China's carbon emissions, whereas automobile emissions only constitute approximately 6 percent.52 Cars and trucks, however, will be an increasingly important factor in the future. The size of China's vehicle fleet is projected to grow from 37 million to as many as 370 million during the next 25 years.53 Unless its pattern of energy consumption is altered, China's carbon emissions will reinforce or accelerate several

existing domestic environmental challenges, ranging from desertification to water shortages to the deterioration of air quality in urban areas, and become the primary driver of global climate change itself. China's future will be shaped by how its leadership reacts to intensifying domestic and international pressure to address these challenges. The IPCC projects in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report that climate change will "impinge on sustainable development of most developing countries of Asia, as it compounds the pressures on natural resources and the environment associated with rapid urbanization, industrialization, and economic development."54 For instance, according to the report, "[t]he rain-fed crops in the plains of north and northeast China could face water-related challenges
in coming decades, due to increases in water demands and soil-moisture deficit associated with projected decline in precipitation."55 China's first national report on climate change, released in late 2006, estimates that [End Page 126] national wheat, corn, and rice yields could decrease by as much as 37 percent

in the next few decades.56 Even a far smaller decrease, however, would require significant action by the central government. Moreover, China is severely affected by desertification, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) notes that desertification-prone countries are "particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change."57 More than onequarter of China is already desert, and the Gobi is steadily expanding; it grew some 52,400 square kilometers between 1994 and 1999.58 According to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, this threatens the livelihoods of some 400 million people.59 Water shortages will also pose a major challenge to China. In 2004 the United Nations reported that most of China's major rivers had shrunk; in December 2006, it found that the Yangtze River's water level dropped to an all-time low because of climate change.60 Northern China faces the greatest threat in this respect, as it will be subject to heat waves and droughts that will worsen existing water shortages. In addition, two-thirds of China's cities are currently experiencing water shortages, and their predicament will be
exacerbated by shifts in precipitation patterns and increased water pollution.61 [End Page 127] In spite of the colossal development projects that China has initiated in an attempt to mitigate growing environmental stress, such as the South-to-North Water Diversion project, which is anticipated to cost some $59 billion and take a half century to complete, domestic social and political turmoil will increase . One source of unrest will be increased human migration

within China due to environmental factors. Much of this migration will reinforce the current migratory trends from countryside to city, putting added pressure on already overpopulated and dangerously polluted urban centers. Regions of China that benefit from some additional rainfall will also need to cope with an influx of migrants from water-scarce areas. In China's northwestern provinces, where rainfall may increase, the acceleration of the movement of Han Chinese into Muslim Uighur areas will aggravate tensions that have led to low-level conflict for many years. This conflict has intensified as China has begun to extract natural resources from these provinces and as larger numbers of Han Chinese have migrated there in search of employment. The projected increase in Han migration to this area could provoke violent clashes and potentially lead to social turmoil.62 In the
last few years, concerns over environmental issues have provoked thousands of Chinese to demonstrate across the country. In April 2005, as many as 60,000 people rioted in Huaxi village in Zhejiang Province over the pollution from a chemical plant. Just three months later, 15,000 people rioted for three days in the eastern factory town of Xinchang, 180 miles south of Shanghai, over the pollution from a pharmaceutical factory.63 Moreover, the findings of a poll conducted in China last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org indicate widespread recognition among the Chinese public that climate change is a uniquely serious environmental problem. Some 80 percent of respondents concurred that, within 10 years, global warming could pose an important threat to their country's "vital interest."64 At present, robust economic growth is the bedrock of the Chinese leadership's domestic political strategy, but in the

coming years, the leadership will face growing public pressure to play a much more constructive role in managing the environment and addressing its negative impacts. The Chinese people are likely to insist that their leaders assume greater responsibility for protecting the

Warming Bad – Chinese Instability
<CONTINUED> 150

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
environment, addressing and redressing the economic damage that results from environmental degradation, and holding accountable those who violate environmental regulations. On one hand, this may lead to internal political reform designed to address public concern. The central government may assume a much larger role in affairs and policies that to date have been left largely in the hands of regional or local officials. At present, State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) local [End Page 128] officials are selected not by high-level SEPA officials but by local governments.65 These officials do not currently have the necessary incentive to enforce regulations that sacrifice short-term economic growth for longer-term environmental sustainability, and they are also vulnerable to corruption. If the government is to address the underlying environmental challenges and enforce environmental regulations, it will need to change the incentive structure and provide more oversight. Yet, the Chinese leadership may not make the necessary adjustments even as the effects of climate change and

other environmental factors become increasingly severe. This could lead to larger protests and violent clashes with police, as well as more restrictions on the press and public use of the internet. Relations with the West would rapidly deteriorate as a result.

151

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Terrorism
Climate induced migration will throw failing states into turmoil throughout the world, creating safe havens for terrorists.
Paul Smith, Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at the United States Naval War College, Fall, ‘7 (Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response, Orbis Volume 51, Number 4) Another consideration related to climate change is the problem of weak or failed states, which are at high risk of being destabilized by climate change. Mass population movements (both internal and international) may be one mechanism through which this failure is triggered. Large and acute population movements may exacerbate internal social and ethnic tensions, or pose an enormous economic challenge that exceeds the host state's ability to manage. Thus, climate change-induced environmental migration may cause states that are already experiencing social and economic instability to reach a "tipping point" leading to instability or state failure. A National Intelligence Council report assessing key security trends through the year 2020 asserted that "weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in certain regions."(FN55) In addition, as climate change contributes to state weakness or failure--a more likely scenario for poor, developing countries plagued with preexisting social and economic problems--it could lead to additional security challenges for the world community. For example, the 2005 U.S. National Defense Strategy states that "the absence of effective governance in many parts of the world creates sanctuaries for terrorists, criminals, and insurgents."(FN56) Such an environment may invite outside military intervention, although probably at a stage where military forces would be less welcome and less able to restore order or mitigate the underlying causes of state failure. Bangladesh serves as a good example of a state struggling with potential terrorist threats, while at the same time being positioned directly in the crosshairs of likely future climate change events.(FN57) U.S. officials have described Bangladesh, the seventh most populous country in the world, as "a voice of moderation among developing countries, in the Islamic world and in South Asia."(FN58) Bangladesh has been praised by the United States also for achieving "some impressive victories against extremists" as a result of the recent arrests of the leaders of a militant Islamist group known as Jamaat ul Mujahideen Bangladesh UMB).(FN59) Simultaneously, however, Bangladesh suffers from state weakness resulting from bitter divisions between the two major political parties, corruption, criminality and economic challenges.(FN60) Climate change effects are likely to be added to this list, an assessment that should be expected given Bangladesh's history of environmental disasters. In 1991, for instance, Cyclone Marian slammed into the southeast coast of Bangladesh and killed more than 139,000 people, prompting a U.S. military humanitarian intervention known as Operation Sea Angel.(FN61) Testifying before the U.S. Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2005, John Houghton, former co-chairman of the Scientific Assessment for the IPCC from 1988-2002, specifically named Bangladesh as one in a group of countries that will suffer extensively from climate change effects.(FN62) Millions of people are likely to be displaced. Some may attempt to enter India illegally, which could exacerbate tensions between New Delhi and Dhaka. Illegal migration has long been a festering problem in relations between the two states; some Indian politicians have described the influx of Bangladeshi nationals as a major threat to their country's security and have urged that India implement massive deportation measures. (FN63) Thus, instead of being the "valued South Asian partner in the war on terrorism"(FN64) that the U.S. government hopes for, Bangladesh is likely to be plagued by state weakness brought on by climate change and an array of preexisting internal social and economic challenges. Mass migration events could destabilize the government and stimulate tensions and conflict with neighboring states.

152

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Bad – Terrorism
Climate change risks larger anti-American sentiments and terrorist recruitment
Carolyn Pumphrey Triangle Institute for Security Studies May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Climate Change as a U.S. National Security Concern. What about the United States? Is climate change currently expected to bring catastrophic changes in weather? Violent social upheavals? Intractable strategic problems? Or should we expect more subtle changes, more manageable problems? Here, too, scenarios vary. Some models suggest that the North American continent will be among those most significantly (and negatively) affected by climate change.17 Others suggest considerably less dramatic impacts. They say we might expect some serious flooding of coastal areas and rather serious drought in the Southwest. We might also expect more 8 extreme weather patterns.18 In principle, there seems to be agreement that we have the means to cope with most of these eventualities. Our recent experience with Hurricane Katrina, however, demonstrates that we have not yet learned how to take advantage of our existing assets.19 Even if we dismiss the worst case scenarios and assume that we will be spared the worst of what climate change can bring, we should note that climate change does indirectly pose very real national security concerns. Take terrorism, for example. The “war” against terrorists is very high up on the current list of national priorities. And there is persuasive evidence that extremism draws strength from the presence of poverty and inequality.20 While images of streams of displaced persons swarming across the border are likely exaggerated, we know less than we should about how to integrate migrants into our society.21 In some parts of the world, significant population movements could further destabilize volatile regions which we have a profound interest in keeping peaceful. The Middle East, for example, is vulnerable to water shortages, and climate change promises to exacerbate this problem.22 The United States will also certainly have to deal with a rapidly changing strategic picture which may challenge its efforts to preserve world-wide stability. In short, climate change is likely to be a stressmultiplier, to exacerbate tensions, and to complicate American foreign policy in a wide variety of ways.

153

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Warming Good
No turns-the negative conflicts and wars outweigh positive aspects
Richard A. Mathew, Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) Further complicating matters, we also know that there will be winners and losers as the world’s climate changes. Not everyone will experience the same kind of problems, and some areas will find the changes conducive to human settlement and increased 64 agricultural output and so on. But overall, the expected downside massively outweighs any predicted upside. The menu of likely threats includes severe weather events, changes in the food supply, massive flooding, and dramatic changes in microbial activity that will lead to the spread of infectious disease. Indeed, many analysts believe that we are very close to a global pandemic. They anticipate a transfer of disease from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom that will be highly virulent. A lot of these transfers have taken place in the past 3 decades because environmental conditions are changing and because people are being forced into marginal environments where they come into close contact with pathogens with which they have not had any contact in the past.

No turns-the negative conflicts and wars outweigh positive aspects
Richard A. Mathew, Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May, ‘8 (Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, p. google) Further complicating matters, we also know that there will be winners and losers as the world’s climate changes. Not everyone will experience the same kind of problems, and some areas will find the changes conducive to human settlement and increased 64 agricultural output and so on. But overall, the expected downside massively outweighs any predicted upside. The menu of likely threats includes severe weather events, changes in the food supply, massive flooding, and dramatic changes in microbial activity that will lead to the spread of infectious disease. Indeed, many analysts believe that we are very close to a global pandemic. They anticipate a transfer of disease from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom that will be highly virulent. A lot of these transfers have taken place in the past 3 decades because environmental conditions are changing and because people are being forced into marginal environments where they come into close contact with pathogens with which they have not had any contact in the past.

154

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – US Key – Modeling
US action’s key – it sets a model without which global solvency is impossible.
J.R. Pegg, Staff Writer, Environment News Service, 2/1/08, “U.S. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle,”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10.asp

The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U.S. lawmakers Wednesday, encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. "We really don't have a moment to lose," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's climate system are impossible without U.S. leadership, Dr. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "It is essential for the U.S. to take action," said Pachauri, who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. Although China recently emerged as the leading emitter, U.S. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis. Despite broad criticism from across the world, President George W. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. And many U.S. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from China, India and other developing nations. The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced. "The rest of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership [but] the perception round the world is that the U.S. has not been very active in this area," Pachauri said, adding that strong action would "undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U.S. leadership on critical global issues."

U.S. action is key-it’ll spillover and bring China and India on board.
Julianne Smith, Director of the CSIS Europe Program & Derek Mix, Research Associate in the CSIS Europe Program, ‘7 (The Transatlantic Climate Change Challenge, The Washington Quarterly 31.1) In reality, a U.S. commitment to future climate change regimes will be essential to the regimes' success. As the world's greatest producer of greenhouse gases and the world's largest consumer of energy, any solution to this challenge must include the United States. Without it, any hope of bringing China and India on board is futile.

155

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – China Models
China specifically will model our emissions regulations when they see us take the lead
Jim Yardley, Staff Writer, NYT, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/world/asia/07china.html) BEIJING, Feb. 6 — China said Tuesday that wealthier countries must take the lead in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and refused to say whether it would agree to any mandatory emissions limits that might hamper its booming economy. Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, said China was willing to contribute to an international effort to combat global warming but placed the primary responsibility on richer, developed nations that have been polluting for much longer. “It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per capita emissions,” she said, adding that developed countries have responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked.” Ms. Jiang’s comments, combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert, represented China’s first official response to a landmark report issued last week by a United Nations panel of scientists that declared global warming is “unequivocal” and warned that immediate action must be taken to prevent harmful consequences. China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, trailing only the United States. Last November, the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2009. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020, but its soaring consumption of coal has rapidly increased the country’s emissions.

156

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – US Key – Leadership
Despite China’s role in global warming, US action key to global leadership. United states has responsibility to control its greenhouse gas emissions. Jesse Jenkins, graduated from the clark honors college at the University of Oregon, currently co-director of the breakthrough generation fellowship program at the Oakland, CA based institute, 6/22/07, “Eye on China: china passes united states as largest
annual global warming polluter,” http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/06/22/eye-on-china-china-passes-united-states-as-largest-annualglobal-warming-polluter/ China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, according to this Guardian (UK) article. The Guardian writes: The announcement will increase anxiety about China’s growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China’s emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world’s biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year [see previous post]. But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China’s recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes. If China has now passed the United States as the largest annual global warming polluter, it does nothing to absolve the United States of the moral and pragmatic responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions. We in the U.S. will still be the second largest global warming polluter in the world, not exactly a comfortable position; and we will long remain the largest single contributor to climate change, as cumulative greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, not annual emissions, and we will long remain the largest cumulative emitter. To me, China’s now larger role in global CO2 emissions simply highlights the urgency of taking a leadership position in the United States enacting real reforms to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and do our share to solve this global crisis so that we may turn to addressing the global community, particularly China and India, in a global solution. Contrary to President Bush’s usual line of argument, pointing at China’s growing emissions does nothing to absolve the United States of it’s responsibility act to solve the climate crisis; rather it points to the urgent need to both enact smart domestic policies and lead a global response to this global crisis, and time is clearly running out. As James Hansen (among other reputable climate scientists) has repeatedly warned (see here for the latest example), the Earth stands perilously close to tipping points that could send the climate crisis spinning beyond our control. For now, for better or for worse, humans and their activities are solidly in the driver’s seat of the global climate. But perhaps as little as 5 or 10 years of continued business-as-usual could push the climate crisis beyond our ability to change course - we’ll be rudely kicked out of the driver’s seat before we can turn this car around…

157

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

US Action Key – China Models
China will model – cheaper energy tech and leadership spurs a transition
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). As China Goes, So Goes Global Warming New York, N.Y.: Dec 16, 2007. pg. 4.3 Theories abound over how best to help China embrace emissions-reducing policies. One way, many scientists and scholars say, is to make nonpolluting energy sources cheaper than the unfettered burning of abundant fossil fuels. Right now they are far more expensive. That is why several dozen top-flight climate and energy experts sent a letter this month to members of Congress and the presidential candidates seeking a tenfold rise in the federal budget for energy research, now about $3 billion a year. Some economists say the only thing that will speed the change is money, whether it is called aid, technology assistance, or something else. Representatives of developing countries have long made this point, noting that the established powers spent a century building the greenhouse-gas blanket. Speaking in Bali, Munir Akram, Pakistan's United Nations ambassador, said: ''What we have to do is to find a way to reduce emissions by those who can afford to reduce emissions.'' But there are plenty of doubts about the willingness of Congress, particularly, to pay emerging economic competitors. Some experts see the best prospects for change coming from the ground up, pointing to efforts like MetroBus, a program involving the World Resources Institute that greatly expanded the use of mass transit in Mexico City. BinBin Jiang, a research associate in energy and development at Stanford University, sees similar opportunities in creating an efficient infrastructure for China's exploding midsize cities. ''That's where you determine if you are going to leapfrog or go along the old Western path,'' she said. But Ms. Jiang also stressed that meaningful change in energy and climate policy within the United States was critical, too. ''China is clearly responsible for the largest wedge of emissions in the future, but the United States is still the biggest roadblock,'' she said. ''The U.S. is not going to be influential by telling China what to do. It has to lead by example.''

158

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – Adaptation
Even if we can’t completely stop warming, buying time with solutions allows adaptations to avoid the 2-degree critical tipping point.
Dan Ward, Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics; President and Chief Scientist of Quantum Genesis, L.L.C., and CEO and Chancellor, Library of Alexandria; April 2007, “Global Warming,” http://www.halexandria.org/dward176.htm, bchang More recently, it has become apparent that global warming is not merely about dire threats and accusations of who did what. It is now, in the parlance of the time, all about mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is an attempt to reduce the problem -- even potentially reduce the problem. But all such mitigation attempts assume mankind having the primary role in the problem. If solar cycles and the like are having the greatest impact, then the mitigation scenarios can do little but buy time. Such time purchases, on the other hand, may be absolutely vital to the second prong of the global warming defense scheme -- that of adaptation. Time Magazine in their March 29, 2007 issue, includes an article entitled, "On the Front Lines of Climate Change". The article notes the actions of many governments who are already believers in the inevitability of global warming and are taking actions. The article stresses: "The latest science makes it clear that we will be living with global warming for the rest of our lives. That's not a happy thought, but it's not necessarily dire either. The key is to follow the new rules of life under global warming. Think ahead, adapt as necessary and make sure to cut greenhouse emissions in time. Adaptation won't be cheap. It won't be optional either."Such forewarnings need to be taken seriously. An excellent report on global warming has been prepared by Drunvalo Melchizedek, which explains in the clearest possible language the extent of the problem. "Dry / Ice: Global Warming Revealed" is must reading. And once that has been digested, go to EMS, and download the Schwartz/Randall Report. After that you can meditate on the link between global warming and hurricane Katrina and its associated flooding. As is becoming increasingly apparent, The Party's Over. References: [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm [2] Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," Pentagon Report, October 2003. [3] Kate Ravilious, "Global Warming: Death in the Deep-Freeze," http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0928-02.htm. ************* From something of an historical perspective, an older but still excellent status on Global Warming was provided in APRIL 2001, by M. D. Lemonick in his article entitled, “Life in the Greenhouse.” This article is given below as received (via e-mail): “There is no such thing as normal weather. The average daytime high temperature for New York City this week should be 57 oF, but on any given day the mercury will almost certainly fall short of that mark or overshoot it, perhaps by a lot. Manhattan thermometers can reach 65 oF, in January every so often and plunge to 50 oF, in July. And seasons are rarely normal. Winter snowfall and summer heat waves beat the average some years and fail to reach it in others. It’s tough to pick out over-all changes in climate in the face of these natural fluctuations. An unusually warm year, for example, or even three in a row don't necessarily signal a general trend. Yet the earth’s climate does change. Ice ages have frosted the planet for tens of thousands of years at a stretch, and periods of warmth have pushed the tropics well into what is now the temperate zone. But given the normal year-to-year variations, the only reliable signal that such changes may be in the works is a long-term shift in worldwide temperature. And that is precisely what’s happening. A decade ago, the idea that the planet was warming up as a result of human activity was largely theoretical. We knew that since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, factories and power plants and automobiles and farms have been loading the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide and methane. But evidence that the climate was actually getting hotter was still murky. Not anymore. As an authoritative report issued a few weeks ago by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes plain, the trend toward a warmer world has unquestionably begun. Worldwide temperatures have climbed more than 1 oF, over the past century, and the 1990s were the hottest decade on record. After analyzing data going back at least two decades on everything from air and ocean temperatures to the spread and retreat of wildlife, the IPCC asserts that this slow but steady warming has had an impact on no fewer than 420 physical processes and animal and plant species on all continents. Glaciers, including the legendary snows of Kilimanjaro, are disappearing from mountaintops around the globe. Coral reefs are dying off as the seas get too warm for comfort. Drought is the norm in parts of Asia and Africa. El Nino events, which trigger devastating weather in the eastern Pacific, are more frequent. The Arctic permafrost is starting to melt. Lakes and rivers in colder climates are freezing later and thawing earlier each year. Plants and animals are shifting their ranges poleward and to higher altitudes, and migration patterns for animals as diverse as polar bears, butterflies and beluga whales are being disrupted. Faced with these hard facts, scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible. Nor are the changes over. Already, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide the most abundant heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere,

159

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – Adaptation
[CONTINUED]
to 30% above pre-industrial levels--and each year the rate of increase gets faster. The obvious conclusion: temperatures will keep going up. Unfortunately, they may be rising faster and heading higher than anyone expected. By 2100, says the IPCC, average temperatures will increase between 2.5 oF, and 10.4 oF, --more than 50% higher than predictions of just a half-decade ago. That may not seem like much, but consider that it took only a 9 oF, shift to end the last ice age. Even at the low end, the changes could be problematic enough, with storms getting more frequent and intense, droughts more pronounced, coastal areas ever more severely eroded by rising seas, rainfall scarcer on agricultural land and ecosystems thrown out of balance. But if the rise is significantly larger, the result could be disastrous. With seas rising as much as 3 ft., enormous areas of densely populated land -- coastal Florida, much of Louisiana, the Nile Delta, the Maldives, Bangladesh -- would become uninhabitable. Entire climatic zones might shift dramatically, making central Canada look more like central Illinois, Georgia more like Guatemala. Agriculture would be thrown into turmoil. Hundreds of millions of people would have to migrate out of unlivable regions. Public health could suffer. Rising seas would contaminate water supplies with salt. Higher levels of urban ozone, the result of stronger sunlight and warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. More frequent hot spells could lead to a rise in heat-related deaths. Warmer temperatures could widen the range of disease-carrying rodents and bugs, such as mosquitoes and ticks, increasing the incidence of dengue fever, malaria, encephalitis, Lyme disease and other afflictions. Worst of all, this increase in temperatures is happening at a pace that outstrips anything the earth has seen in the past 100 million years. Humans will have a hard enough time adjusting, especially in poorer countries, but for wildlife, the changes could be devastating. Like any other area of science, the case for human-induced global warming has uncertainties -- and like many pro-business lobbyists, President Bush has proclaimed those uncertainties a reason to study the problem further rather than act. But while the evidence is circumstantial, it is powerful, thanks to the IPCC’s painstaking research. The U.N. sponsored group was organized in the late 1980s. Its mission: to sift through climate-related studies from a dozen different fields and integrate them into a coherent picture. “It isn't just the work of a few green people,” says Sir John Houghton, one of the early leaders who at the time ran the British Meteorological Office. “The IPCC scientists come from a wide range of backgrounds and countries.” Measuring the warming that has already taken place is relatively simple; the trick is unraveling the causes and projecting what will happen over the next century. To do that, IPCC scientists fed a wide range of scenarios involving varying estimates of population and economic growth, changes in technology and other factors into computers. That process gave them about 35 estimates, ranging from 6 billion to 35 billion tons, of how much excess carbon dioxide will enter the atmosphere. Then they loaded those estimates into the even larger, more powerful computer programs that attempt to model the planet's climate. Because no one climate model is considered definitive, they used seven different versions, which yielded 235 independent predictions of global temperature increase. That's where the range of 2.5 oF, to 10.4 oF, (1.4 oC to 5.8 oC) comes from. The computer models were criticized in the past largely because the climate is so complex that the limited hardware and software of even a half-decade ago couldn't do an adequate simulation. Today’s climate models, however, are able to take into account the heat-trapping effects not just of CO2 but also of other greenhouse gases, including methane. They can also factor in natural variations in the sun's energy and the effect of substances like dust from volcanic eruptions and particulate matter spewed from smokestacks. That is one reason the latest IPCC predictions for temperature increase are higher than they were five years ago. Back in the mid-1990s, climate models didn’t include the effects of the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions, which threw enough dust into the air to block out some sunlight and slow down the rate of warming. That effect has dissipated, and the heating should start to accelerate. Moreover, the IPCC noted, many countries have begun to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide in order to fight acid rain. But sulfur dioxide particles, too, reflect sunlight; without this shield, temperatures should go up even faster. The models still aren’t perfect. One major flaw, agree critics and champions alike, is that they don't adequately account for clouds. In a warmer world, more water will evaporate from the oceans and presumably form more clouds. If they are billowy cumulus clouds, they will tend to shade the planet and slow down warming; if they are high, feathery cirrus clouds, they will trap even more heat. Research by M.I.T. atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen suggests that warming will tend to make cirrus clouds go away. Another critic, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says that while the models reproduce the current climate in a general way, they fail to get right the amount of warming at different levels in the atmosphere. Neither Lindzen nor Christy (both IPCC authors) doubts, however, that humans are influencing the climate. But they question how much -- and how high temperatures will go. Both scientists are distressed that only the most extreme scenarios, based on huge population growth and the maximum use of dirty fuels like coal, have made headlines. It won't take the greatest extremes of warming to make life uncomfortable for large numbers of people. Even slightly higher temperatures in regions that are already drought- or flood-prone would exacerbate those conditions. In temperate zones, warmth and increased CO2 would make some crops flourish -- at first. But beyond 3 oF of warming, says Bill Easterling, a professor of geography and agronomy at Penn State and a lead author of the IPCC report, “there would be a dramatic turning point. U.S. crop yields would start to decline rapidly.” In the tropics, where crops are already at the limit of their temperature range, the decrease would start right away. Even if temperatures rise only moderately, some scientists fear, the climate would reach a “tipping point” -- a point at which even a tiny additional increase would throw the system into violent change. If peat bogs and Arctic permafrost warm enough to start releasing the methane stored within them, for example, that potent greenhouse gas would suddenly accelerate the heat-trapping process. By contrast, if melting ice caps dilute the salt content of the sea, major ocean currents like the Gulf Stream could slow or even stop, and so would their warming effects on northern regions. More snowfall reflecting more sunlight back into space could actually cause a net cooling. Global warming could, paradoxically, throw the planet into another ice age. Even if such a tipping point doesn’t materialize, the more drastic effects of global warming might be only postponed rather than avoided. The IPCC’s calculations end with the year 2100, but the warming won’t. World Bank chief scientist, Robert Watson, currently serving as IPCC chair, points out that the CO2 entering the atmosphere today will be there for a century. Says Watson: “If we stabilize [CO2 emissions] now, the concentration will continue to go up for hundreds of years. Temperatures will rise over that time.” That could be truly catastrophic. The ongoing disruption of ecosystems and weather patterns would be bad enough. But if temperatures reach the IPCC's worst-case levels and stay there for as long as 1,000 years, says Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, vast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt, raising sea level more than 30 ft. Florida would be history, and every city on the U.S. Eastern seaboard would be inundated.

In the short run, there's

not much chance of halting global warming, not even if every nation in the world ratifies the Kyoto Protocol tomorrow. The treaty doesn’t require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions until 2008. By that time, a great deal of damage will already have been done. But we can slow things down. If action today can keep the climate from eventually reaching an unstable tipping point or can finally begin to reverse the warming trend a century from now, the effort would hardly be futile . Humanity embarked unknowingly on the dangerous experiment of tinkering with the
climate of our planet. Now that we know what we're doing, it would be utterly foolish to continue.

160

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Solvency – Runaway Warming

161

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Feedback – Tundra Methane Bubbles
Siberian tundra will release methane bubbles – pushing the tipping point towards runaway climate change
Carolyn Pumphrey Triangle Institute for Security Studies May 2008 Global Climate Change: National Security Implications “INTRODUCTION” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Timing is a case in point. Most estimates suggest a somewhat gradual timeline for change. However, there are some who fear that our current estimates fail to take into consideration what may happen if crucial tipping points are reached. If, for example, the Siberian tundra melts and releases its methane, this could act as a catalyst to climate change and make things happen a lot faster than expected. Some scenarios envisage sea-level rise sufficiently great to end civilization as we know it.5 While we may acknowledge that these outcomes are less likely than some others, we ignore such possibilities at our peril

162

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Singer
Singer’s a hack – he publicly admitted to accepting check from Exxon ABC News, March 23rd, ‘8
(http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/Story?id=4506059&page=1) ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense." Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once accepted an unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000.

163

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Aerosols

164

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

165

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
***aff impact calculus***

166

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Slight climate change has big impacts
Small changes cause massive effects R. B. Alley et al, Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, 3/28/08, http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt Amplifiers are abundant in the climate system and can produce large changes with minimal forcing. For example, drying causing vegetation dormancy or death reduces the evapotranspiration that supplies moisture for a sizable fraction of the precipitation in many continental regions, further reducing rainfall and reinforcing drought (29). In cold regions, cooling increases surface coverage by snow and ice, increasing reflection of incoming solar radiation and causing even further cooling in an ice-albedo feedback. These positive feedbacks may include their own sources of persistence. Loss of vegetation reduces the ability of roots to capture water and allows subsequent precipitation to run off to streams and the oceans, perhaps leading to desertification (30). If snowfall on land persists long enough, an ice sheet may grow sufficiently thick that its surface becomes high enough and cold enough that melting is unlikely. Persistence also may arise from the wind-driven circulation of the oceans, stratospheric circulation and related chemistry (31), or other processes. Small changes have dramatic impacts OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=110 When investigating the impacts of climate change, it is natural to look first for the impacts of abrupt climate changes. An abrupt climate change—whether warming or cooling, wetting or drying—could have lasting and profound impacts on human societies and natural ecosystems. But it must be remembered that profound impacts are not limited to cases of abrupt climate change. Modest changes or increased variability of climate may be sufficient to produce severe impacts, giving the false appearance that these impacts were caused by an abrupt external forcing. Abrupt impacts result from the fact that economic and ecological processes have adapted to specific climatic patterns and are therefore typically bounded by experience (in the case of society) or history (in the case of ecosystems). Abrupt impacts therefore have the potential to occur when gradual climatic changes push societies or ecosystems across thresholds and lead to profound and potentially irreversible impacts, just as slow geophysical forcing can cross a threshold and trigger an abrupt climate change. Consider that since the nineteenth century, Grand Forks, North Dakota, had successfully fought frequent floods up to a river stage of 49 feet. Then, in 1997, a flood crested at 54 feet and caused catastrophic damages despite the fact that the flood crests were only 10 percent higher than the previous high. This modest difference from typical experience was sufficient to cross an impact threshold (Pielke, 1999). Research by Pearce (2000) explored impact thresholds for migrating species, describing problems encountered by caribou on their 1,500-km-long trek from winter grounds in the mountains to the Arctic coastal plain in spring. Increased winter snowfall has led to delayed migration and increased river volume. In 1999, snowfall was 50 percent above average, snow melted a month later than usual, and none of the females in the herd made it to the coast before calving. A record low number of calves eventually reached the coast, and some were forced to swim the Porcupine River when only a few days old. These events were observed by the native people in the area, who were moved to reduce their traditional harvest of caribou. The size of the herd dropped from 178,000 in 1989 to 129,000 in 1999. Impacts on the migration of many other species are similarly dependent on boundaries linked to climate. The Grand Forks floods also help demonstrate the interaction between societal decisions, perceptions of what constitutes “typical climate,” and impact thresholds. Following the 1997 Grand Forks floods, the community decided to relocate some properties and build additional levees to raise its threshold to catastrophic impacts. Depending on the assessment of the probabilities and consequences of future flood levels as well as the cost and benefit of flood protection, the community could have chosen 55, 60, or 65 feet as the elevation for the levees. Often, such decisions are made based on assumptions of past weather patterns and runoff. However, if climate is changing, or if the underlying climate system is itself variable, decisions based on past precipitation, runoff, and flood patterns are likely to build in thresholds that incorrectly estimate potential threats compared to decisions based on expectations that allow for changes in climatic means or climate variability. (For more information on the flooding and response in Grand Forks and along the Red River, see International Red River Basin Task Force, 2000.)

167

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming impact calculus [time frame]
Don’t listen to their long timeframe arguments, complete global warming can occur within 10 years. OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11 Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies. Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

168

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

prefer warming impacts
Prefer our impacts; policy-makers should focus on mitigating global warming before other impacts. R. B. Alley et al, J. Marotzke, W. D. Nordhaus, J. T. Overpeck, D. M. Peteet, R. A. Pielke Jr., R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. B. Rhines, T. F. Stocker, L. D. Talley, J. M. Wallace, Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Southampton Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, Department of Economics, Yale University, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Institute for Space Studies, New York, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Department of Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego, 3/28/08, http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt The difficulty of identifying and quantifying all possible causes of abrupt climate change, and the lack of predictability near thresholds, imply that abrupt climate change will always be accompanied by more uncertainty than will gradual climate change. Given the deep uncertainty about the nature and speed of future climate changes, policy-making thus must focus on reducing vulnerability of systems to impacts by enhancing ecological and societal resiliency and adaptability. Failure of the Viking settlements in Greenland but persistence of the neighboring Inuit during Little Ice Age cooling [e.g. (64)] underscores the value of developing effective strategies that are favorable in the face of unanticipated abrupt climate change. Research that contributes to identification and evaluation of "no-regrets" policies--those actions that are otherwise sensible and will improve resiliency and adaptability--may be especially useful (2). Slowing the rate of human forcing of the climate system may delay or even avoid crossing of thresholds

169

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming o/ws war
Climate Change is more devastating than war and takes longer to repair Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 46
War has customarily been considered the main threat to international security because of the large number of deaths it causes and the threat it poses to the functioning and survival of the state. Judged by these criteria, it is clear that climate change is potentially as detrimental to human life and economic and political order as traditional military threats.57 Environmental dangers, such as climate change, stem not from competition between states or shifts in the balance of power; rather, they are human-induced disturbances to the fragile balance of nature. But the consequences of these disturbances may be just as injurious to the integrity and functioning of the state and its people as those resulting from military conflict. They may also be more difficult to reverse or repair.

170

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

**Negative**

171

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming is slow
Global warming rate is slowing because it’s not caused by fossil fuels/CO2 (James Hansen, et al, professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, 8-29-2000,
“Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full) A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific longterm global monitoring of aerosol properties. ‘

172

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming inevitable
Global warming won’t lead to their impacts, and it’s inevitable anyway Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We Know It”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Climate change will undoubtedly have losers -- but it will also have winners. There will be a reshuffling of climate zones on earth. And there is something else that we can already say with certainty: The end of the world isn't coming any time soon. Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently embroiled in their own struggle over who owns the truth. While some have always seen themselves as environmental activists aiming to shake humanity out of its complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the unavoidable. One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. "We have to take away people's fear of climate change," Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview (more...). "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people." Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.

Warming impacts will not occur
Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We Know It” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html But even this moderate warming would likely have far fewer apocalyptic consequences than many a prophet of doom would have us believe. For one thing, the more paleontologists and geologists study the history of the earth's climate, the more clearly do they recognize just how much temperatures have fluctuated in both directions in the past. Even major fluctuations appear to be completely natural phenomena. Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. "A warmer climate helps promote species diversity," says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf. Also, more detailed simulations have allowed climate researchers to paint a considerably less dire picture than in the past -- gone is the talk of giant storms, the melting of the Antarctic ice shield and flooding of major cities. Improved regionalized models also show that climate change can bring not only drawbacks, but also significant benefits, especially in northern regions of the world where it has been too cold and uncomfortable for human activity to flourish in the past. However it is still a taboo to express this idea in public. For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with benefiting from global warming.

Can’t Solve- Positive feedbacks overwhelm the aff IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised. {3.2.3} Estimated long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding to the six AR4 Working Group III stabilisation categories is shown in Figure SPM.8. Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m if global average warming were sustained for millennia in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C relative to pre-industrial values. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea level rise. {3.2.3}

No warming
There is no global warming; evidence backing claims of rising temperature were based on El Nino’s effects.
173

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
Patrick J. Michaels, December 31, 1998, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute., Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188. The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Global warming isn’t something to worry about - the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming due to oceanic influence on global temperatures. Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, May 16, 2008, Global-warming myth; Politics
trumps science, Database: NexisLexis. The Keenlyside team found that natural variability in the Earth's oceans will "temporarily offset" global warming from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is oceanic; hence, what happens there greatly influences global temperature. It is now known that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or longer, in relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade, which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming, either.

174

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

No Warming
No global warming – top UN scientists agree Prison Planet, written by Joseph Watson, 4/4/08, “No global warming since 1998 as planet cools off,”
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998. But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! "Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said," reports the BBC. "The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer." "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory." The report admits that La Nina and its counterpart, El Nino, are "two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world."

According to NASA’s satellites global warming doesn’t exist – those who believe it does are using inaccurate readings. NASA, 7/14/97, “how dry is the tropical free troposphere,” http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd14jul97_1.htm
However global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of the Earth's lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. These satellite data are verified by in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. Some scientists now believe that this apparent "disagreement" between the predictions by computer models and the measurements may be due to a less-than-accurate modeling of the role of water-vapor in the atmosphere of the GCM's.

175

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

No Warming – Cycles
No global warming – it’s a part of the natural weather patterns on earth. Models prove. TCC, talk climate change, 7/17/07, “climate change – who is right and are we wrong?”
http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2007/12/17/climate-change-who-is-right-and-we-are-wrong/ Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

176

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Global Cooling
While there is an increase in CO2 in the air earth is going through global cooling – data proves. Daily Tech, 2/26/08, “temperature Monitors Report Wide scale Global Cooling,”
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

177

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Global Cooling Now – Cycles
Warming ended in late 90’s. We are currently in period of global cooling even though CO2 levels are increasing– NASA study and consensus of scientists prove. Dar, Vinod K. Dar is managing director of the Corporate Strategy and Management Group at Hagler Bailly, Inc., based in Arlington, Va, 6/18/08, “As the earth cools: what does it mean for the energy industry,” http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806181211/energyand-environment/as-the-earth-cools-what-does-it-mean-for-the-energy-industry.html The earth warmed strongly between 1915 and 1940, cooled between 1940 and 1975 and then warmed strongly again between 1975 and 1998. The earth has been cooling in the opening years of this century even as carbon dioxide levels have risen appreciably since 1998. Many influential people in the industrialized world believe that global warming is a transcendent issue and human activity, especially the activity of the energy complex, is to blame and carbon management, at any cost, is imperative. A growing number of influential people in the developing world (this includes China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, as well as Russia) are openly rejecting the idea that human activity has any measurable influence on the planetary climate or even that there is anything unusual or abnormal about the climate at present. Some of these people, joined by hundreds of scientists in the U.S. and Western Europe advance the idea that sunspot activity (which is cyclical) and the recently discovered (as recent as 1996) PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation: 20 to 30 year warming and cooling of the north-central Pacific Ocean) explain the cyclicality of global temperatures. According to those who hold this view, the planet has entered into a 30 year or so cooling period and carbon dioxide emissions even if they keep growing, cannot prevent this cooling. In support they cite NASA’s recent study that the global oceans are cooling and expected to cool for several years. NASA is the leading proponent of man-made global warming. They also quote data from the new Jason oceanographic satellite that the PDO is entering a multi-year cooling period. Jason is run jointly by NASA and a French team. Other support for this idea that global cooling not warming, is the planetary future within anyone’s strategic planning horizon comes from experiments conducted by the Danish Space Research Institute, which links global climate behavior to variations in the magnetic wind of the sun, which is changeable, driven by sunspot cycles. Contrary to expectations, the current cycle (Cycle 24) is turning out to be very weak with negligible sunspot activity.

178

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Global Cooling – Scientific Consensus
We are in a period of global cooling – hundreds of scientists agree. John Lott, Author of two books: Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t and The Bias Against Guns, 3/4/08, “No global warming crisis,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott59.html
John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. John McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency. After consulting with Al Gore, Barack Obama feels that the problem is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until he becomes president. Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have been cooling dramatically over the last decade. Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.

179

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Balloon/satelites prove no warming
Satellite and Balloon data indicate that warming isn’t occurring- there more accurate than ground temperature
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama and Alabama's State Climatologist,[C02 science magaszine, 5/28/03 Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggest otherwise. Climate models attempt to describe the ocean/atmospheric system with equations which approximate the processes of nature. No model is perfect because the natural system is incredibly complex. One modest goal of model simulations is to describe and predict the evolution of the ocean/atmospheric system in a way that is useful to discover possible environmental hazards which lie ahead. The goal is not to achieve a perfect forecast for every type of weather in every unique geographic region, but to provide information on changes in large-scale features. If in testing models one finds conflict with even the observed large scale features, this would suggest that at least some fundamental processes, for example heat transfer, are not adequately described in the models. A common feature of climate model projections with CO2 increases is a rise in the global surface temperature as well as an even more rapid rise in the layer up to 30,000 feet called the troposphere. Over the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature indeed show a rise of about 0.7 °F. This is roughly half of the total rise observed since the 19th century. In the lower troposphere, however, various estimates which include the satellite data Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less warming, about 0.3 °F - an amount less than half that observed at the surface. The real world shows less warming in the atmosphere, not more as models predict. Are these data reliable? A new version of the microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, by Remote Sensing Systems or RSS of California. Two weeks ago a paper was published in Science magazine' electronic edition which used a curious means of testing our UAH version against RSS.[1] The paper cited climate model results which agreed more with RSS, because RSS data showed about 0.4°F more warming than UAH's data for this same layer called the mid-troposphere. UAH's total warming for this layer was about 0.05°F. (This layer is higher in the atmosphere than the lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.3°F warming.) The strong implication of the paper was that since RSS was more consistent with the model output, it was likely a more accurate dataset than ours. That same week, with much less fanfare, my latest paper appeared in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.[2] Unlike the paper in Science magazine, I performed several rigorous tests to estimate the potential error of our UAH satellite data. I used real observations from balloon datasets created by independent organizations, some with data from as many as 400 different balloon stations. Our UAH satellite data and the balloon data corroborated each other with remarkable consistency, showing only a slow warming of the bulk of the atmosphere. This evidence indicates that the projected warming of the climate model had little consistency with the real world. This is important because the quantity examined here, lower tropospheric temperature, is not a minor aspect of the climate system. This represents most of the bulk mass of the atmosphere, and hence the climate system. The inability of climate models to achieve consistency on this scale is a serious shortcoming and suggests projections from such models be viewed with great skepticism. Changes in surface temperature have also been a topic of controversy. The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.[3] Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.

180

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Models not reliable
Models are not scientific and nowhere near as reliable as actual data University of Alabama (“Comparing satellite & balloon climate data corroborates slower rate of global warming”, 5/14/2003,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11540). Many climate models forecast that global warming should be happening at a rate much faster than that seen by either the UAH satellite dataset or the weather balloon data. "But models don't provide scientific measurements," Christy said. "Climate models can be valuable for many scientific purposes, but models and their output shouldn't be confused with data or used as a standard for validating real data. "If you have reliable data that disagree with a computer model, it's time to find out what's wrong with the model. To do anything else might lead you to conclude that your theories are correct and the real world is wrong."

Climate change models are inadequate because of dimming David Adam, (“Goodbye Sunshine,” staff writer for the Gaurdian, Farquhar (mentioned in article) is a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra, Dec 18, 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/18/science.research1).
The other major impact global dimming will have is on the complex computer simulations climate scientists use to understand what is happening now and to predict what will happen in the future. For them, global dimming is a real sticking point. "All of their models, all the physics and mathematics of solar radiation in the Earth's atmosphere can't explain what we're measuring at the Earth's surface," Stanhill says. Farquhar agrees: "This will drive what the modellers have to do now. They're going to have to account for this."

Local and Regional Models fail- neglect global climate changes Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806e63190d24817, 1377 7.4. Regional climate models Most of the regional changes mentioned so far have been on the scale of continents; these can be studied with general circulation models of the kind described in section 6. For studies on smaller scales, however, such models possess severe limitations arising from the coarse size of their horizontal grid—typically 300 km. To overcome these limitations, regional climate models (RCMs) have been introduced with much higher resolution, typically about 50 km. They cover a limited region and are ‘nested’ in a global circulation model that defines the varying boundary conditions at the edges of an RCM. They have achieved considerable success in providing simulations of regional detail and extremes, especially for precipitation. However, it is important to realize that, because of the greater natural variability apparent in local climate compared with climate averaged over continental scales, climate change projections on local and regional scales are bound to be more uncertain than those on larger scales.

181

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Models Inaccurate
Models predicting global warming are insufficient and inaccurate – senior IPCC scientists concede. National Post, 12/12/07, “Don’t fight, adapt,” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multidecadal or millennial climate cycling.

182

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC models bad- urban heat
IPCC models fail- don’t account for Urban heat island effect P. D. Jones, member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia at Norwich in the U.K., 2005, “Global
Warming: A fraudulent notion based on corrupted data” accessed via http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ Ever since the beginning of the greenhouse scare, astute observers have suspected that urban heat was responsible for a large slice of the purported warming. The IPCC has stonewalled, telling policymakers that the urban heat island issue has "...been taken account of." This site proves the contrary. There is simply no systematic compensation for urban warming in the Jones dataset. Occasionally there is a slight adjustment in a record for a site change or other anomaly but the majority of records are used “raw”. This applies even to large cities with large, documented heat islands – e.g. Los Angeles, Chicago, Sydney, Johannesburg etc. etc. In recent years, two independent remote sensing methods – nightlight pictures and infrared heat imaging – have clarified the extent of urban heat islands. Their evidence is incontrovertible. Nightlight images show that the bulk of CRU’s records come from lit areas of the surface. Infrared imaging shows that many are from cities with huge heat islands – enough to raise the annual average temperature by 2-3 degrees Celsius compared to the surrounding countryside. The problem should have been obvious all along. The UHI was first identified in London 200 years ago, and many studies have shown that it can raise the temperature even in small towns. But political correctness, a desire not to "rock the boat", the corrupting influence of "greenhouse funding" on the science and sheer wishful thinking have made the urban heat island a tabu subject in the greenhouse debate. This site breaks that tabu. It turns the spotlight on individual city records included in the CRU dataset, and also examines the CRU results for various "grid cells" across the globe. It leaves no doubt that the CRU temperature graphs are contaminated with pervasive and substantial urban heat which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Satellite images of night lights have been published by NASA and give a good indication of the location of urban areas over the entire earth. Taking the same midwest USA area as the Infra Red image above, this is a small preview of how the Jones / IPCC temperature stations are dominantly located in urban regions. The IPCC tell policymakers that the urban heat island issue has "...been taken account of.." Sure, we can see that, their data is collected mainly from UHI areas. Follow the Earthlights link for larger images of the USA with Jones stations located. See "City reviews" link at left for UHI contamination in Chicago compared to more rural neighboring stations. Below is a classic example of century long growth in small town UHI contamination from the region shown above:

183

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Inaccurate
IPCC conclusions inaccurate – don’t take the latest data into account. ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html The I.P.C.C.’s scientific process, which takes five years of study and writing from start to finish, cannot take into account the very latest data on climate change or economic trends, which show larger than predicted development and energy use in China. “The world is already at or above the worst case scenarios in terms of emissions,” said Gernot Klepper, of the Kiel Institute for World Economy in Kiel, Germany. “In terms of emissions, we are moving past the most pessimistic estimates of the I.P.C.C., and by some estimates we are above that red line.”

IPCC concedes that their models were flawed
ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html One such area is the future melting of ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica. In earlier reports, the panel’s scientists acknowledged that their computer models were poor at such predictions, and did not reflect the rapid melting that scientists have recently observed. If these areas melt entirely, seas would rise 40 feet, scientists said. While scientists are certain that the sheets will melt over millennia, producing sea-level rises, there is now evidence to suggest that it could happen much faster than this, perhaps over centuries.

IPCC concedes that data on melting ice sheets are flawed
ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: November 17, 2007 “U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html One such area is the future melting of ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica. In earlier reports, the panel’s scientists acknowledged that their computer models were poor at such predictions, and did not reflect the rapid melting that scientists have recently observed. If these areas melt entirely, seas would rise 40 feet, scientists said. While scientists are certain that the sheets will melt over millennia, producing sea-level rises, there is now evidence to suggest that it could happen much faster than this, perhaps over centuries.

184

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Inaccurate/Biased
IPCC models are inaccurate – National Post, 12/12/07, “Don’t fight, adapt,” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

IPCC results are biased – they publish results and hire scientists with the goal of proving global warming is real in mind, not to find out whether it really is a threat or not. The register, 3/10/08, “IPCC’s evil twin launches climate change sceptic’s creed.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ The report's arguments, however, probably deserve more than satirical remarks in response. The NIPCC, set up by a group of scientists at a workshop in Vienna last year, sets out to provide a "second opinion" on the data used by the IPCC and on its conclusions, factoring in 'inconvenient' research that it claims the IPCC has missed or ignored, and seeking to disrupt the widely-held global consensus that the questions surrounding climate change are settled. "The IPCC seems to be aware of... contrary evidence," says the report, "but has tried to ignore it or wish it away." The report states that climate change has always happened and always will, and accepts that man-made CO2 emissions are growing, but argues that the effect on climate is insignificant. Solar activity, which it says has been pretty much ignored as a possible factor by the IPCC, is in the NIPCC's view the most likely cause of climate change. It further argues that the fatal flaw in the IPCC lies in its brief. It is "preprogrammed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic [man-made] warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Change Treaty." The evidence supporting the consensus, effectively, is being sought after its establishment - scientists are being hired to support a hypothesis, rather than to conduct a broad examination of the possible causes of climate change.

IPCC reports inaccurate information to make global warming seem like a threat. David E. Wojick, Ph.D., 7/13/01, “The UN IPCCC’s artful bias, “http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#author
Specific examples of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics in the UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers include the following: 1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all. (Details here) 2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. (Details here) 3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling. (Details here) 4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored. (Details here) 5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored. (Details here)

185

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC Bad
IPCC conclusions not reliable – don’t test their theories properly and just dismiss data that doesn’t support their conclusions. Peter, geologist and earth scientist, 10/26/07, “The IPCC … call it political propaganda, not science,” http://petesplacepeter.blogspot.com/2007/10/ipcccall-it-political-propaganda-not.html "The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible. Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' nearlimitless ability to absorb CO2. This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements... Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process. In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."Original Source of Segalstad's Criticisms

186

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Scientists Biased – Funding
Scientists that say global warming is a threat are biased—want money from government for research. Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist, wrote many books and articles in scientific journals about climate change, 11/3/04 “is global
warming always bad,” published at the Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2872 Perhaps because there's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement. This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all.

Scientists overstate claims of global warming – want funding. Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist, wrote many books and articles in scientific journals about climate change, 11/3/04 “is global
warming always bad,” published at the Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2872 And there are dozens of other stories where scientists exaggerate global warming, ignore its positive aspects, and where the media only report the bad news. In August 2000, the New York Times headlined on the front page that "The North Pole is Melting" and that "the last time scientists could be certain that the Pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago." It turns out that two United Nations scientists were onboard a Russian icebreaker serving as a tourist ship when they encountered water at the North Pole. They told this to the newspaper without bothering to check the historical record. Open water is occasionally found at the North Pole at the end of summer. The Times ultimately retracted the story -- but that retraction appeared far away from the front page. Why didn't the polar scientists check first before calling the paper? And why didn't the New York Times check the facts before publishing? The answers are obvious. Stories like this sell newspapers and generate government research grants. There's no incentive in telling the larger truth, not for science, not for the media, and certainly not for those public officials who lavish funding on global warming science.

187

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Media Inaccurate
Media is wrong about climate change predictions – empirically proven numerous times. R. Warren Anderson, Research analyst, no date given, “Fire and Ice,”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warming of disastrous climate change. Page six of the New York Times was headlined with the serous concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.” After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature. The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.” In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”

188

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Negative Feedbacks – Clouds
Cloud cover provides a significant reduction in temperature Dr. David M. Chapman, May 2006, Honorary Associate, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney. “Global Warming, are we
hiding behind a smokescreen?” Geodate, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p6-8, 3p Significant growth in (jet) air traffic in the past 50 years has increased cover by high-level cirrus clouds developing from aircraft condensation trails or contrails, which may have led to some reduction in GI. The impact of contrails on temperature was demonstrated when, in the aftermath of the terrorist incident in New York on September 9, 2001, [when] all commercial aircraft in the US were grounded for three days: the average diurnal temperature range over the contiguous US increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius over the period (Travis, et al, 2002).

189

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Negative Feedbacks – Mysterious Forces
Volcanoes and mysteries forces cool the earth- prefer our evidence it’s based on observations not flawed models Physorg, Science Physics Tech Nano News, 4-12-05 Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract
Global Warming http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not accounted for in the computer models scientists currently use to predict the future of the world’s temperature. The researchers, David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, professors of physics, plotted data from satellite measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere in the months and years following the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The results, published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters (and now online), show that global temperatures dropped more and rebounded to normal significantly faster than conventional climate models could have predicted. “All we did was chart the data,” says Douglass. “We can be confident that our numbers are accurate because we aren’t using computer models and assumptions; we’re using simple observations. Despite whatever models might say, the analysis of the actual data says that the atmosphere rebounded from the Pinatubo volcano much faster than was expected.” In addition, the analysis of Douglass and Knox showed that the amount of the cooling measured could be explained only if there was some mechanism producing a kind of selfcorrecting feedback. In other words according to Douglass “ This feedback mechanism prevented the Earth from becoming much colder.” In an attempt to approach the climate warming issue from a data-centered, rather than model-centered, way, Douglass and Knox looked for a global temperature-changing event that was well-recorded and did not occur at the same time as other events, such as El Nino or particularly high solar activity. They found their candidate in the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century. The volcano forced millions of tons of debris into the Earth’s atmosphere, which blocked some of the Sun’s heat from reaching the Earth. The average temperature of the world dropped more than half a degree immediately following the eruption.

190

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Not Anthropogenic
Warming can be explained by the moderate warming cycle and the urban heat island effect Dennis T. Avery, a Senior Fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues, 6/9/08, Thermometers are Doing the Talking, (http://www.cgfi.org/2008/06/09/thermometers-are-doing-the-talking-by-dennist-avery/ Unless the planet starts warming again, quickly and significantly, the Green momentum for a low-carbon society will come to a screeching stop. There are many indications that we are in a long, moderate warming cycle, which began 150 years ago with the end of the Little Ice Age, and may continue for several more hundred years. There is no indication that this modest warming will be bad for humans, or for the wildlife. The thermometers show a net global temperature increase of just 0.2 degree C since 1940 —and even that tiny increase has been inflated by the urban heat island effect.

Warming isn’t anthropogenic – 31,000 scientists agree Victoria Hardy, The American Chronicle, 6/26/08, The Global Warming Scam, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66237
31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting global warming. The petition states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The scientists signing the petition consist of 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a Bachelor of Science or equivalent academic degree. According to research professor of chemistry Art Robinson, "Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse." World Net
Others are beginning to step forward and Daily

Global warming is caused by solar cycles, not human activity. Noah Shachtman, 6-3-08, “Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change,” http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vsglobal.html The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not entirely man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."

The anthropogenic impact on warming is overestimated Noah Shachtman, 6-3-08, “Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change,” http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vsglobal.html West faults the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

191

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Not Anthropogenic
Global warming not anthropogenic – historical documents prove it’s a natural cycle. National Post, 12/12/07, “Don’t fight, adapt,” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

192

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Not Anthropogenic – Models
Warming not anthropogenic – NASA measurements and models prove. NASA, 7/14/97, “how dry is the tropical free troposphere,” http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd14jul97_1.htm
Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced.

193

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 =/= Warming
CO2 and fossil fuels don’t have as much of an impact on global warming as other compounds James Hensen et al (researchers at National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, June 16, 2000, “Global warming in the 21st century: an
alternative situation,” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full.pdf). A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires compositionspecific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

Non-CO2 greenhouse gasses have primarily driven climate change James Hensen et al (researchers at National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, June 16, 2000, “Global warming in the 21st century: an alternative situation,” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full.pdf).
A corollary following from Fig. 1 is that climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 Wym2) is nearly equal to the net value of all known forcings for the period 1850–2000 (1.6 Wym2). Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century.

194

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 =/= Warming
CO2 doesn’t cause warming –no mechanism, oceans regulate, and water vapor would check. Gary Novak, independent scientist, has published in scientific journals before, 7/17/08, “the science of global warming in
perspective, “http://nov55.com/gbwm.html 1. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much. 2. Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium. Equilibrium is rapid and total as indicated by many sources of evidence. One, the graph for CO2 in the air is an extremely precise line. If nothing were regulating, it would vary wildly. Two, if equilibrium were not established, oceans would be absorbing or losing CO2 at a high rate, yet no detectable change occurs beyond the stab-in-the-dark guess that it might have dropped 0.15 pH units over the past century. 3. Water vapor would swamp any effects by CO2, if greenhouse gasses were really creating global warming.Water vapor has three times as much bandwidth for absorption peaks, and there are about 33 times as many water vapor molecules in the atmosphere as CO2 molecules, which means 100 times as much of a supposed greenhouse effect. And it vaporizes and precipitates so rapidly that it would be creating billions of times as much change in temperature as CO2, if the same logic were applied to it.

No scientific evidence or consensus that CO2 emissions cause global warming.
John Lettice, “IPCC’s evil twin launches climate change sceptic’s creed.” 3/10/08, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ A group of dissident scientists and climate researchers has affirmed that there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change, and has called on world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions "forthwith." Issued last week at the close of the International Conference on Climate Change in New York, the Manhattan Declaration challenged the notion that a scientific consensus on climate change exists, and claimed that efforts at emissions reduction would diminish prosperity while having no appreciable impact.

CO2 emissions can’t cause global warming Gary Novak, independent scientist, has published in scientific journals before, 7/19/08, “The 41% Fraud.”,
http://nov55.com/41r.html Supposedly, 41% is the amount of energy leaving the surface of the earth as radiation. The real amount is closer to zero; and this is one of the several reasons why carbon dioxide cannot create global warming. But even with the 41%, the numbers cannot be salvaged for the carbon dioxide fraud, as I show below. The earth's surface is 70% oceans. Their maximum surface temperature is 80°F, with the average much less. Such cold temperatures do not give off significant radiation by any analysis. Propagandists want people to think of asphalt in summer heat. It's a fraud.

195

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 =/= Warming—Propaganda
Attempts are persuading people that CO2 causes global warming is just propaganda – no scientific basis. Gary Novak, independent scientist, has published in scientific journals before, 7/17/08, “the science of global warming in
perspective, “http://nov55.com/gbwm.html The public is being misled through propaganda to assume CO2 is like a sheet of plastic holding in heat. CO2 can only absorb 8% of radiation frequencies available (No one disputes this.), and only about 1% of the heat leaves the earth as radiation—the other 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation. NASA says its 41%, not 1%, but there is no agreement, and night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.

196

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

no consensus
Their evidence references a voted decision and not scientific proof Serge Galam, professor at the University of Paris, 8/30/2007, “Global Warming: The Sacrificial Temptation”. Centre de Recherche enEpistemologie Appliquee (CREA), Ecole Polytechnique and CNRS
To embody the various aspects of the global warming debate it is essential to come back to the supposed certainty of the scientific proof stating man is guilty. All media and journals assert the scientific proof by quoting especially the 2007 UNESCO February meeting of the GICC hold in Paris where 2500 scientists voted in favor of the human guilt. Here stands a major confusion between what is a political decision and what is a scientific proof. In the case of a political decision, the unanimity and the number of voters are essential ingredients in weighting the validity of the decision taken. At contrary science has nothing to do with neither unanimity nor number of voters. Science policy does as well choices for funding but not science itself. One might recall that consensus of scientists regarding erroneous ”truths” has often been used to oppose the acceptance of genuine new discoveries. A scientific proof can be discard by the scientific community for some times as with the famous examples of Galileo and Einstein. Hence if one insists so much on the very broad consensus backing the ”scientific proof” of human guilt for global warming, that in itself proves that the asserted ”proof” is absent. One must be very clear about this matter. At present, contrary to what has taken place during recent years, there exists no scientific certainty about human guilt concerning the global warming that. There is only the strong conviction of thousands of scientists that it is so. This is not a negligible matter in putting priorities in the research objectives but it should not in any case be an argument to forbid parallel research in other directions. The debate must stay wide open within the community of climatologists. The matter is simply not yet resolved scientifically, even if politically it appears to be.

No proof of warming exists and all assertions of human guilty destroy debate Serge Galam, professor at the University of Paris, 8/30/2007, “Global Warming: The Sacrificial Temptation”. Centre de Recherche enEpistemologie Appliquee (CREA), Ecole Polytechnique and CNRS
And it must be clearly recognized that up until now, such proof cannot be given. There exists no proof to innocent mankind. But here stands a fallacious reversal of what should be proved indeed. It is not the duty of the skeptics to have to bring a proof of whatever it is about which they are skeptical as long as they are not stating anything but their doubt about some claimed truth. Rather, it is up to the scientists making the new assertion who must bring the corresponding proof, in this case of human guilt. The terms of the debate have been inverted. Guilt has been erected as the truth, and it is up to the defendants of the opposite view to bring proof of the absence of guilt. This is an absurd trap in which to fall, and which distorts the entire debate. This adroit deception has a pernicious effect. The respective roles of the opponents have been surreptitiously inverted, and all further real inquiry into the matter is now subject to a barrier in the shape of an automatic accusation of superfluity. Man has been declared guilty simply because, at the present time, , and as mentioned above there are moreover some superficially attractive reasons for ascribing guilt to him no other bearer of guilt has been found.

197

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

No consensus
Probability of warming does not constitute scientific proof Serge Galam, professor at the University of Paris, 8/30/2007, “Global Warming: The Sacrificial Temptation”. Centre de Recherche enEpistemologie Appliquee (CREA), Ecole Polytechnique and CNRS
On the contrary, to use the notion of probability in order to define the degree of confidence in the diagnosis of a unique problem may lead to dramatic errors. In order to discover the truth about a specific unique problem, one has to somehow aggregate a large number of indications, many of which are very different from each other, each one revealing only one part of the overall truth. Unlike the repetition of the same event, these different indications have very different statistical weights. Some seem major, other minor. One can gather a very large number of them, all pointing in the same direction (or perhaps not). Progressively, a truth is apprehended in accord with all the available indications, but without necessarily being the truth. There is no question here of a mathematical proof the subtlety of the process of proof (in the non-mathematical sense) of guilt. One may possess 99% of the indications, yet a single additional fact whose veracity is not in doubt can, at the last minute, exonerate the accused person. Each case is unique. It is meaningless to apply statistics in such cases, and to attempt to do so leads to dangerous arbitrariness. Numerous judicial errors have resulted from this fallacy, nor of a unique and incontrovertible relation of cause and effect. Until such proof or incontrovertible demonstration has been accomplished, some new indication found from some previously unsuspected or not investigated source has the potential to annihilate the entire conviction constructed up to that point, and to itself form the basis of the definitive establishment of the real truth.

198

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

No Consensus
No consensus about warming – forced research, media manipulation, and alarmism by Gore. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, 8/1/06, “No Global Warming,” Published in
Environment & Climate News, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19485 The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. ... They just don't know." So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been know since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

No consensus among scientists about global warming. Victoria Taft, statement from the American physical society, 7/18/08, “confirmed: NO global warming consensus,”
http://www.victoriataft.com/2008/07/confirmed-no-global-warming-consensus.html "With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. [Emphasis added] Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

199

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

No Consensus
There isn’t a consensus among scientists that global warming is real – most are simply pressured by media and public to accept that it’s real. Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar at the American enterprise institute, 4/17/08, “The New Dissidents,”
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/the-new-dissidents But there’s one hot-button issue on which virtually no dissent is allowed: climate change. In a style reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, people disagreeing with any element of the agenda pursued by Al Gore and his climate catastrophists have been derided as “deniers,” a term clearly intended to equate dissent with mental illness, if not post hoc complicity in atrocities (as in “Holocaust denier”). “Fifteen per cent of the people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the Earth is flat,” Gore says. “They all get together on a Saturday night and party with the globalwarming deniers.” While only a few hotheads have proposed a physical gulag for the deniers, the mainstream press has created a media gulag. Former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan urged the media to do just that in July 2000: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say,” he told a Washington audience. Analyses of media coverage show that the three big U.S. television networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC) have taken Gelbspan’s message to heart: in the last half of 2007, only 20 percent of stories about climate change mentioned skepticism or dissenting viewpoints. Essentially, climate catastrophism is treated as fact.

No consensus about global warming – organizations such as UN force scientists to say global warming is a real threat. World net daily, “Scientist: ‘Global warming’ scheme to push global tax,” 6/19/08, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?
pageId=67509 A scientist whose reservations about "global warming" have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using "mob rule" to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes. "Science has always progressed on the basis of observations, experiments, and thoughts published by individual scientists and sometimes pairs or small groups of scientific coworkers," Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said in a recent column in Human Events. Except at the U.N., he said

200

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

IPCC inaccurate
The IPCC’s global warming predictions are inaccurate WorldNetDaily.com, 6-10-03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32992
The IPCC's global-warming theory has been widely disputed. WorldNetDaily has reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940. In 1998, 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, saying, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the oreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Then in January 2002, the journal Science published the findings of scientists who had been measuring the vast West Antarctic ice sheet. The researchers found that the ice sheet is growing thicker, not melting. The journal Nature published similar findings by scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues at the University of Illinois. Rather than using the U.N.'s computer models, the researchers took actual temperature readings and discovered temperatures in the Antarctic have been getting slightly colder – not warmer – for the last 30 years. Last September, U.S. scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station announced that, finally, they have been able to measure the temperature of the atmosphere 18 to 68 miles over the pole. They found it to be 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the computer models used to predict global warming showed.

201

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Indict – RANDALL SCWATZ
Randall and Schwartz are unqualified doomsayers—the articles nothing but sensationalist military games Lorne Gunter, staff writer for the Edmonton Journal, February 25th 2004 “Left-leaning, Bush-bashing newspaper engaged in
distortion: Global-warming believers taking in by sexed-up climate-change report” p. A13 One author, Doug Randall is an MBA; the other, Peter Schwartz is a self- described "scenario planning futurist," who "helps organizations think the unthinkable by creating alternative stories or scenarios about how the future might pan out." Hmm, "think the unthinkable" and "alternative" futures -- like, say, creating an alternative story about an unthinkable future climate catastrophe that is more alarmist than even the wildest predictions by David Suzuki or the UN? The Guardian misrepresented Schwartz as a CIA analyst and never mentioned he is the founder of GBN and currently serves as its chairman. He has consulted with the CIA, but is not employed by them. Nor did the Guardian see fit to mention that Schwartz is a frequent script consult on Hollywood sci-fi movies or that his 1999 book, The Long Boom, predicted the dot.com boom could continue for decades. No reader would know any of this from the Guardian's sensationalist story, nor would they have much of a clue that neither co-author is a climate scientist. The story doesn't say they are, but it doesn't state they're not, either. The Guardian also conveniently failed to explain that the Pentagon branch that commissioned the report -- the internal think-tank known as the Office of Net Assessment -- is responsible for "modelling" and "gaming" worst-case scenarios for American national security, then assessing whether the U.S. military is up to the challenge of defending against such possibilities, in manpower, training and equipment. Indeed, the ONA is not mentioned until the 23rd paragraph of a 25-paragraph story, and even then its role as the Pentagon's brainstorming arm, where all sorts of out-there and fringe ideas are rolled into fantastical storylines to test the military's ability to adapt, is never explained.

202

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Skeptics Qualified
Warming deniers are more accomplished than their counterparts H. Sterling Burnett, staff writer for the Heartland Institute, July 2008, A must read book on global warming, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23409
As Solomon's knowledge grew, he found the limits of newspaper writing precluded an adequate in-depth exploration of these skeptical scientists' important observations. Accordingly, selecting some of the scientists discussed in his columns, Solomon wrote The Deniers. As a jacket blurb puts it, "What he found shocked him. Solomon discovered that on every 'headline' global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented,

consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent scientists." Solomon does not attempt to settle the science,
show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or decide what we can expect the future harms or benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Instead, he simply shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the "consensus"

view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible--and often more compelling--than the alarmist point of view.

203

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: resource wars
Resource abundance not shortage causes conflict Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages 29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 43
Many of these projections are highly speculative or simply misleading, betraying the authors’ lack of specialised knowledge of the realities of inter national security. A case in point is the mischaracterisation of LeBlanc’s position. In fact, LeBlanc made a much more sophisticated and in some places contrary argument – that when people live in states they will often starve rather than fight, ‘because the government won’t allow them to fight’.49 Similarly, the proposition that South Korea and Japan would develop nuclear weapons as they diversify away from fossil fuels to nuclear power is highly questionable because it ignores the very real domestic and international constraints on either country going nuclear.50 South Korea and Japan have eschewed nuclear weapons despite the fact that they have long produced much of their electricity from nuclear power plants. It is drawing a long bow indeed to suggest that abrupt climate change alone would lead either to reconsider their long-standing aversion to nuclear weapons.

Economic incentives prevent resource war escalation Emily Meierding PhD Student University of Chicago, March 2007. “Strategic Substitution and the Declining Likelihood of
International Resource Wars” Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference; Chicago, IL; March 2007 The prevailing pessimistic view has met with some dissent, arising from a variety of quarters. In a study of international territorial dispute resolution, Beth Simmons makes the theoretical observation that states possess powerful economic incentives to resolve territorial conflicts. Stable agreements facilitate trade and international investment. 23 Firm international demarcation also functions as a credible signal of participant states’ commitment to the rule of law and their respect for private property rights. These demonstration effects help attract international investment. 24 The presence of natural resources should increase states’ imperative to resolve border disputes. When international borders are contested, resource ownership is ambiguous. This impedes extractive industry development and resource sales. Consequently, states possess a powerful incentive to clarify resource control.

204

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Resource Wars
Resource scarcity theory’s inherently flawed—ignores potential for cooperation while forming broad non-falsifiable arguments
Emily Meierding PhD Student University of Chicago, March 2007. “Strategic Substitution and the Declining Likelihood of International Resource Wars” Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference; Chicago, IL; March 2007 In addition to oversampling cases of resource conflict, the environmental security literature pays little attention to the cooperative activities undertaken by joint resource claimants. States frequently collaborate to develop and distribute shared resources, such as transborder oil pools and rivers that pass through multiple riparian states. Peaceful resource cooperation may actually exceed violent resource conflict in the international system. However, the environmental security literature is ill-equipped to assess that claim. Single case studies of specific resource contests have been more attentive to these dynamics; however, the generalizability of individual investigations to broader questions of resource conflict versus cooperation is uncertain. The environmental security approach has also been criticized for the density of its theoretical propositions. The Toronto School, in particular, is chastised for a lack of theoretical parsimony. The range of environmental changes being examined, combined with the number and density of causal pathways authors identify, make their theories virtually non-falsifiable. The proliferation of variables and mechanisms also calls into question the theories’ predictive utility.

Resource scarcity spurs innovation, preventing war
Emily Meierding PhD Student University of Chicago, March 2007. “Strategic Substitution and the Declining Likelihood of International Resource Wars” Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference; Chicago, IL; March 2007 If these intra-disciplinary critics collectively call into question the resource pessimists’ claim that resource scarcity frequently leads to violent conflict, a more fundamental critique has emerged from resource economists. Resource “cornucopians” argue that the very concept of scarcity is flawed. Julian Simon, the most prominent of these claimants, asserts that market demand for increasingly scarce goods inspires technological innovation, which resolves supply problems through improvements in productive efficiency or through the creation of substitute inputs. When consumers demand a resource, more of it, or of a functional substitute, is supplied. Human knowledge, he claims, is “the ultimate resource.” The cornucopian argument suggests that natural resource scarcity should not have a significant impact on the likelihood of conflict. Future resource-inspired violence will be rare

205

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Wars
Pessimistic resource predictions have empirically failed—increased food production and 70s oil crisis prove
Emily Meierding PhD Student University of Chicago, March 2007. “Strategic Substitution and the Declining Likelihood of International Resource Wars” Prepared for the International Studies Association Conference; Chicago, IL; March 2007 The pessimists’ predictive record is poor. Their apocalyptic expectations have rarely come to pass. Malthus himself provides a prominent example of miscalculation; he predicted that Europe would experience an overpopulation-induced famine during the nineteenth century. Instead, food production consistently kept pace with demand. No Great Power wars were fought over minerals. The 1970s oil crisis did not lead to blows between major oil-consuming states. And, while the two recent Gulf Wars suggest that oil has had a more mixed record than most natural resources, I argue that the amount of petroleum-inspired violence occurring in the background image international system is very low, relative to the extremity of states’ dependence on the commodity. Modern, developed states do not fight over natural resources.

Even in the tensest circumstances, nuclear war will NEVER break out because of warming
Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagner, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/15/08, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/climatewarwp.pdf A potentially more serious example is rapid sea level rise in the major deltas of Asia and Africa. Coastal plains are often fertile and hence densely populated (Nicholls and Small, 2002). Without coastal protection, inundation, erosion and saltwater intrusion would drive many people to higher grounds (Nicholls and Tol, 2006). They may resettle peacefully, or start quarrelling with their new neighbours. One can speculate about the consequences of large-scale migrations today. In West Africa, for instance, the situation is already so tense that additional refugees are unlikely to do any good – note that the coasts of Cameroon, Gabon and Nigeria are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Similarly, forced migration of large numbers of Bengali from the coastal plain to the hills of northern Indian and Bangladesh would not be without problems either, and may even escalate to nuclear war. However, these impacts will not be on today’s world. Sixty-seven years ago, Western Europe was at war. In 2075, South Asia and West Africa may be stable and prosperous.

Turn: warming prevents conflict – models prove.
Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagner, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/15/08, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/climatewarwp.pdf We investigate the relationship between a thousand-year history of violent conflict in Europe and various reconstructions of temperature and precipitation. We find that conflict was more intense during colder periods. This relationship is weakening over time, and is not robust to the details of the climate reconstruction or to the sample period. We thus confirm Zhang et al. (2006, Climatic Change, 76, 459-477) that, at least in temperate climates, global warming would, if anything, lead to reduced violent conflict.

206

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

At: Wars
Warming doesn’t lead to war
Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagner, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/1508, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/climatewarwp.pdf In this paper, we study the relationship between climate change and violent conflict over the past millennium in Europe. Our results do not show a clear-cut picture: We present some evidence that abnormally cold periods were abnormally violent, as do Zhang et al. (2006). However, we also show that this evidence is not particularly robust. If one has strong priors that climate change causes conflict, our results provide confirmation. However, if one has strong priors that there is no link, our results do not overthrow such doubt. If anything, cold implies violence, and this effect is much weaker in the modern world than it was in mediaeval times. This implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries. Should anyone ever seriously have believed that, this paper does put that idea to rest.

207

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Marine Biodiversity
Overfishing’s makes marine biodiversity loss inevitable
United Nations Environment Programme 2006 ”Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity” http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800 Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation. “Overfishing cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs. The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry. According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.

Overfishing destroys biodiversity—slaughters species while destroying habitats
Felicia Coleman, associate scholar scientist in the Department of Biological Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, and Susan L Williams, professor of Environmental Science and Policy at UC, Davis 2002 “Overexploiting marine ecosystem engineers: potential consequences for biodiversity” Trends in ecology & evolution vol. 17, no1, pp. 40-44 Overfishing is a major environmental problem in the oceans. In addition to the direct loss of the exploited species, the very act of fishing, particularly with mobile bottom gear, destroys habitat and ultimately results in the loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, overfishing can create trophic cascades in marine communities that cause similar declines in species richness. These effects are compounded by indirect effects on habitat that occur through removal of ecological or ecosystem engineers. Mass removal of species that restructure the architecture of habitat and thus increase its complexity or influence the biogeochemistry of sediments could have devastating effects on local biodiversity and important water-sediment processes.

208

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Economy
Warming reduces health care costs and boosts millions into the economy Thomas Gale Moore (senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, “Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming,” 5/3/1996, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html).
In the early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Transportation sponsored a series of conferences on climate change that examined, among other things, the effect of climate on health care expenditures and on preferences of workers for various climates. At that time, the government and most observers were concerned about possible cooling of the globe. The Department organized the meetings because it planned to subsidize the development and construction of a large fleet of supersonic aircraft that environmentalists contended would affect the world's climate. The third gathering, held in February 1974, examined the implications of climate change for the economy and people's well-being and included a study of the costs to human health from cooling, especially any increased expenses for doctors' services, visits to hospitals, and additional medication (Anderson 1974). For that meeting, the Department asked the researchers to consider a cooling of 2deg.C and a warming of 0.5deg.C. Robert Anderson, Jr., the economist who calculated health care outlays, made no estimate of the costs or savings should the climate warm; but his numbers show that for every 5 percent reduction in the annual number of heating degree days, a measure of winter's chill, health care costs would fall by $0.6 billion (1971 dollars).[1] In his paper summarizing the various studies on economic costs and benefits of climate change, Ralph D'Arge (1974), the principal economist involved in the DOT project, indicated that a 10 percent shift in degree days would be equivalent to a 1deg.C change in temperature. Thus the gain in reduced health costs from a warming of 2.5deg.C would be on the order of $3.0 billion in 1971 dollars or $21.7 billion in 1994 dollars, adjusting for population growth and price changes (using the price index for medical care).

Warming reduces health care costs by billions Thomas Gale Moore (senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, “Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming,” 5/3/1996, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html).
A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures.

209

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Storms
Global warming won’t lead to storms Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We Know It” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize. "According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. "Only the boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming more severe in Scandinavia and less so in the Mediterranean."

210

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Flooding
Warming won’t cause flooding or melting, it increases ice and sea levels Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We Know It” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will strike major coastal cities, raising horrific scenarios of New York, London and Shanghai sinking into the tide. However this horror story is a relic of the late 1980s, when climate simulations were far less precise than they are today. At the time, some experts believed that the Antarctic ice shield could melt, which would in fact lead to a dramatic 60-meter (197-foot) rise in sea levels. The nuclear industry quickly seized upon and publicized the scenario, which it recognized as an argument in favor of its emissions-free power plants. But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches).

211

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Hurricanes
There are no new hurricanes/hurricanes are not caused by GW NOAA News Releases, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2-21-08, “NOAA: Hurricane frequency and global
warming NOT the cause of increased destruction” http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-andglobal-warming-not-the-cause-of-increased-destruction/ A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes. “We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

212

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Coral
Sediment stress’s the major cause of coral loss- not global warming
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Sediment deposited onto corals interferes with feeding by the polyps and costs the colonies energy to remove (Riegl and Branch, 1995). In the extreme, burial by rapid or prolonged sediment deposition is fatal to corals and other bottom-dwellers. Sediment accumulation also inhibits the establishment of new reefs, because coral communities require hard and stable surfaces. Sediment suspended in the water increases turbidity and reduces available light. Reefs that grow in naturally turbid environments, with organisms that are suited to such conditions, may experience low impacts from a moderately increased sediment supply (Larcombe and Woolfe, 1999), but sediment loading on reefs that are accustomed to low-sediment conditions imposes significant stress (e.g., Cortés, 1994). Sediment on a coral reef can have two sources: transport of soil particles with freshwater runoff from land, or resuspension of sediment already on the seafloor. Human activities have reduced some sediment sources and increased others. Damming of major rivers has dramatically reduced their sediment discharge to the ocean (Meade et al., 1990; Vörösmarty and Sahagian, 2000), but large river outflows represent only a small proportion of the world’s coastline and are usually not near reefs. In smaller coastal watersheds and offshore, human activity has tended to increase sediment dis- charge and resuspension in coastal waters. In Southeast Asia, Burke et al. (2002) calculated that more than 21 percent of all coral reefs are threatened by sedimentation from land-based sources, primarily due to logging and poor agricultural practices. McCulloch et al. (2003) used coral skeletal records (1750–1998) to show that sediment delivery to the near-shore central Great Barrier Reef increased five- to ten-fold with the introduction of European agricultural practices. These findings support the contention that significant portions of the Great Barrier Reef suffer chronic anthropogenic sediment stress (Wolanski et al., 2003). Local dumping, dredging, land reclamation, mining, and construction activities can also result in increased sedimentation or resuspension of sediment in the marine environment.

Sea level rise allows for coral expansion—projected rates assurance adaptation
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change The predicted rise of sea level due to the combined effects of thermal expansion of ocean water and the addition of water from melting icecaps and glaciers is between 0.1 and 0.9 meter (4-36 inches) by the end of this century (Houghton et al.,2001). Sea level has remained fairly stable for the last few thousand years, and many reefs have grown to the point where they are sea-level-limited, with restricted water circulation and little or no potential for upward growth. A modest sea-level rise would therefore be beneficial to such reefs. Although sea-level rise might “drown” reefs that are near their lower depth limit by decreasing available light, the projected rate and magnitude of sea-level rise are well within the ability of most reefs to keep up (Smith and Buddemeier, 1992). A more likely source of stress from sea-level rise would be sedimentation due to increased erosion of shorelines.

213

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Coral
Reef survival’s guaranteed through adaptation—El Nino proves
Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Over the past 5–10 years, evidence for the diversity of zooxanthellae and environmentally correlated coral-algal partnerships has expanded rapidly, and experiments have shown that the processes required for adaptation driven by bleaching occur in nature (Baker, 2001; Kinzie et al., 2001). Buddemeier et al. (in press) review the evidence and conclude that adaptive bleaching is real, but its operational significance will not be fully known until we have a better understanding of the detailed mechanisms and of the functional taxonomy of the zooxanthellae (Coles and Brown, 2003). Field data indicate that coral bleaching on some eastern Pacific reefs was much worse during the 1982-83 El Niño than in 1997-98, although temperature extremes during the two events were similar (Glynn et al., 2001; Guzmán and Cortés, 2001; Podestá and Glynn, 2001). The difference in responses to these two comparable events offers some support for the idea that corals or communities can adapt to higher temperatures over decades, either through adaptive bleaching (Baker, 2003) or through evolutionary selection for more heat/irradiance-tolerant corals that survive bleaching events (Glynn et al., 2001).

214

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: warming hurts oceans
The Labrador Sea which is the most sensitive to water formation won’t even form water in the event of elevated warming Andrew J. Weaver and Claude-Marcel Hillaire (Gordon head of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the
University of Victoria and a 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 and professor at l'Université du Québec à Montréal, 4/16/2004, “Global Warming and the next Ice Age,” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=5e63d5e2-5a5a-4141-a53a-7826e5e7c1bb%40sessionmgr2) Unquestionable evidence for a substantial reduction of AMO has been found only for intervals such as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and some short, particularly cold, intervals of the last ice ages (such as those during Heinrich events). During these time periods, vast ice sheets occupied the Northern Hemisphere, providing a large freshwater source to the North Atlantic through either the dispersal of huge quantities of icebergs (Heinrich events) or the direct release of meltwater into the most critical sector associated with the AMO — the northeast Atlantic. On the other hand, the most critical site with respect to sensitivity to enhanced freshwater supplies from the Arctic has been, and would be, the Labrador Sea ( 10). Indeed, convection could stop there in response to global warming, as demonstrated by recent modeling experiments, apparently without any major effect on the overall rate of AMO ( 11). Worthy of mention is the fact that the strong east-west salinity gradient of the North Atlantic, with more saline waters eastward, seems a robust and permanent feature that was maintained even during the Last Glacial Maximum, when the rate of AMO was considerably reduced ( 12). A clear picture of the North Atlantic under high freshwater supply rates arises from its recent history. High freshwater supplies may indeed impede convection in the Labrador Sea because of their routing along western North Atlantic margins, but this would result in an increased eastward branch of AMO (see the figure). Further indication for such behavior is found in records of the Last Interglacial Interval. Relatively dilute surface water existed in the Labrador Sea, preventing intermediate water formation. However, a high-velocity WBUC existed throughout the whole period, indicating a high AMO along the "eastern route" ( 10).

Oceans and forests are too saturated to absorb any more CO2
David Biello, staff writer from Scientific American, 10-22-07, “Climate Change Pollution Rising—Thanks to Overwhelmed Oceans and Plants,” http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-pollution-rising-thanks-to-overwhelmed-oceans The world may finally acknowledge that global warming is a major environmental hazard. But new research shows that reducing the main greenhouse gas behind it may be even more difficult than previously believed. The reason: the world's oceans and forests, which scientists were counting on to help hold off catastrophic rises in carbon dioxide, are already so full of CO2 that they are losing their ability to absorb this climate change culprit.

215

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1nc can’t solve warming
China is a horrible leader in alternative energy, they adulterate our air and pollute in astonishing numbers Cliff, Steven, atmospheric scientist at the University of California, 2006, “We are Breathing Chinese Polution”, NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p78-79
Expanding deserts, coal-fired growth and auto emissions in China are not only threats to the health and well-being of the Chinese, but also to that of Americans. At least one-third of the background aerosol pollution (soot, smoke and dust particles, collectively called aerosols) in California today has floated across the Pacific from Asia, and this fraction is increasing. I collect and analyze air samples from four sites in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains, and the filters in my samplers are tracking this trend. Of California’s annual average limit for particulate matter—12 micrograms per cubic meter of air—Asian pollution already accounts for 4–6 micrograms at these mountain sites. China’s economic boom, combined with population growth in the western United States, is bound to push pollution levels beyond all California and US air quality standards. Oceans, we now understand, do not insulate land masses from atmospheric conditions elsewhere. Any pollution that does not dissipate quickly will, with some variation, be transported by the prevailing westerly winds across the Pacific Ocean in less than a week. In the springtime, which is the dry season, a dust storm in the Gobi Desert of China and Mongolia can send a huge cloud over the US within three to five days, which then moves on to Greenland and Europe mixed with North American pollution. One of the largest documented events of this kind happened in the spring of 2001 and was tracked by satellite. People throughout the West noted the hazy skies and asked about the location of the “fire.” In early April of this year, satellites tracked a large carbon cloud from

Chinese coal-burning smokestacks crossing the Pacific.

Carbon emissions are out of control, even a 70% decrease would not stop rising temperatures Shermer, Michael, 2006, “The Flipping Point” Scientific American, Vol. 294 Issue 6, p28
It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)—too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm—just right. Today levels

are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century—too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip. According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide

emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March. 24 issue of
Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

216

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1nc can’t solve warming
No solvency: If we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases today it would taken centuries for them to decline
Hillman, Mayer and Fawcett, Tina, 2007, The Suicidal Planet: How To Prevent Global Climate Catastrophe, pg. 25-26 The effects of climate change cannot quickly be reversed by reducing or even eliminating future emissions of greenhouse gases. There are two reasons for this. First, greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere linger for decades (in the case of relatively short-lived gases like methane), or hundreds of years (for carbon dioxide), or even thousands of years (for the long-lived gases like per-fluorocarbons). Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are respectively one-third and more than twice as high as those at any time over the last 650,000 years. Even if no additional carbon dioxide were emitted from now on, atmospheric concentrations would take centuries to decline to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. While elevated levels of greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, additional warming will occur.

Less than 5 percent of global warming stems from the combustion of fossil fuels; water effects global warming more. ROBERT H. ESSENHIGH, professor of mechanical engineering whose main focus is in the area of combustion. June 23, 2008, Small Parts of Greenhouse Man-Made, Lexis Nexis Database. Reading the June 7 letter "Fight against warming can't wait," from David A. Scott of the Sierra Club, I was astonished that his organization believes global warming is due to carbon-dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, since the numbers just don't support it. Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water and carbon dioxide are about 99 percent of the total, at relative proportions of roughly 80 percent water and 20 percent carbon dioxide. So, if we want to "control" global warming by reducing the greenhouse gases, shouldn't we start with water? And, since its source is natural -- evaporation from rivers, lakes and seas, with return as rain -- how do we do that? Carbon dioxide's primary source also is nature: vegetation and the sea. Using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and can the IPCC be wrong?), the annual in/out carbon tonnage (carried as carbon dioxide) is about 60 gigatons per year from vegetation and 90 gigatons per year from the sea, for a total of 150 gigatons per year. And from combustion? Currently, it measures about 6 or 7 gigatons per year, which is less than 5 percent of the total. Combine the carbon dioxide with the water emissions, and 5 percent of 20 percent is 1 percent. So this is a problem? Exactly why and how? But the real kicker is that it's not the rising carbon dioxide that is driving up the temperature; it's the rising temperature that is driving up the carbon dioxide, and this has been going on since the bottom of the last Ice Age.

217

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1nc ice age da
A. Uniqueness – Ice age now Doug McDougall, President of MacDougall Biomedical Communications, 4/05,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_3_114/ai_n13665002 It may seem counterintuitive, but it's no secret to geologists that we are living in an ice age. The simple fact is that throughout most of the 4.5 billion years of history on our planet, the climate has seldom been as frigid as it has been of late. By "of late" I don't mean the past century or so, which has been characterized by warming trends, but the past several million years, when planetary temperatures took a nosedive. The result has been a succession of massive ice sheets that bulldozed their way into what were once temperate, or even tropical, lands. Of course, even ice ages have occasional respites--warm periods during which the ice retreats. We are living in one now, a kind of global Indian summer. It is so temperate these days that it is hard to imagine the ice-locked world of 18,000 years ago, when glaciers sometimes two miles thick covered North America as far south as central Pennsylvania. Signs of the most recent glaciation are all around us, though.

B. Link – Warming prevents the ice age Andrea Thompson (Staff writer for Livescience, 8/7/07, “Global Warming Good News: No more Ice Ages,”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070907_co2_iceage.html) Ice ages naturally occur about every 100,000 years or so as the pattern of Earth's orbit changes with time and alters the way the sun strikes the planet's surface. When less solar energy hits a given area of the surface, temperatures become cooler (this is what causes the difference in temperatures between summer and winter). Long-term changes in Earth's orbit that cause less solar energy to hit the surface can cool down summer temperatures so that less ice melts at the poles. If ice sheets and glaciers don't melt a bit in the summer, the ice accumulates and starts to advance—in past ice ages, sheets of ice covered all of Canada and most of the Northern United States. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also an important factor in triggering an ice age. In the past, lower carbon dioxide levels (caused by natural processes) helped cool the Earth and again allowed ice to advance. Rising carbon dioxide levels, as is the case with global warming, can have the opposite effect. No more ice ages Through the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is now accumulating in the atmosphere. Tyrrell and his colleagues used a model to study what would happen if carbon dioxide continued to be emitted and how that would affect the long-term balance of carbon dioxide in the air and the ocean's chemistry. The ocean is absorbing some of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air, which is causing it to become more acidic (similarly, the bubbles of carbon dioxide dissolved in your soda are what give it acidity). Tyrrell and his team's model shows that carbon dioxide levels will be higher far into the future than previously predicted, because the acidifying ocean will dissolve more calcium carbonate from the shells of marine organisms, which acts as a buffer against acidification. But this buffer can only help to a certain point, and eventually the ocean won't be able to take up any more carbon dioxide. "It can't just keep taking it up," said Joan Kleypas of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not involved in the study. The model results, detailed in a recent issue of the journal Tellus, project that 8 to 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will remain there for thousands of years, causing levels of the greenhouse gas to equilibrate in the atmosphere at twice their pre-industrial levels. "It won't go back to original levels," Kleypas told LiveScience. Even if we burn only a quarter of the Earth's total reserves of fossil fuels (currently we have burned less than one tenth of reserves), the carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere could cause the next ice age to be skipped because ice sheets and glaciers will have melted and won't be able to reform substantially, Tyrrell found. In fact, burning up all of Earth's reserves would prevent the next five ice ages, the model shows, he said. "Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels," Tyrrell said. "It shows that if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."

218

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1nc ice age da
C. Impact – Ice Ages will lead to extinction L.David Roper, Virginia, Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1/23/05, http://www.roperld.com/science/tempsolinsatc.pdf
Surely, prior to the Next Glacial Maximum about 100 kiloyears in the future surviving Humans will migrate to European, Asian and also American refugia. (See Figure 12.) Surviving North Americans will probably migrate to Central America. A glance at Figure 12 should convince that an exodus to refugia could happen as early as 50, or even 20, kiloyears in the future. With the Human development of weapons of mass and indiscriminant destruction and demonstrated willingness to use them when challenged by other Humans, it is likely that Humans will contribute to their own die offs as they struggle for survival as the Next Major Ice Age begins to take its Human toll. It is not clear that Humans will survive all of the three predicted coldest periods of the Next Major Ice Age. (See Figure 12.) The first and mildest, at about 20 kiloyears in the future, is probably the most dangerous, as there may be still enough of the destructive technology around then.

219

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ice age now
Another ice age is coming Andrew C. Revkin (“When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer, 11/11/2003, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6D61539F932A25752C1A9659C8B63).
The maxim ''what goes around comes around'' applies to few things more aptly than ice ages. In a rhythm attuned to regular wiggles in Earth's orbit and spin, 10 eras of spreading ice sheets and falling seas have come and gone over the last million years. Through that span, in fact, the cold spells have so dominated that geophysicists regard warm periods like the present one, called the Holocene, as the oddities. Indeed, the scientific name for these periods -- interglacials -- reflects the exceptional nature of such times. The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years, but debate persists about how soon it will begin, with the latest theory being that the human influence on the atmosphere may substantially delay the transition. This is no mere intellectual exercise. The equable conditions of the Holocene, which has lasted 10,000 years so far, have enabled the flowering of agriculture, technology, mobility and resulting explosive population growth that has made the human species a global force.

Ice ages are periodic Godfrey Hewitt (professor at the school of biological sciences, former President, European Society for Evolutionary Biology, “the genetic legacy of the Quaternary Ice age,” June 22, 2000, http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/courses/Hewitt%20ice%20age.pdf).
While the Antarctic ice cap grew from the Oligocene (35Myr), the Arctic ice cap became established about 2.4Myr ago, the beginning of the Quaternary. From then until 0.9Myr ago, the ice sheets advanced and receded with a roughly 41,000-yr (41-kyr) cycle; thereafter they have followed a 100-kyr cycle and become increasingly dramatic. Such periodicity suggests a controlling mechanism, and the Croll–Milankovitch theory proposes that the regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are the pacemakers of the ice-age cycles1,2. The main orbital eccentricity has a 100-kyr cycle, variation in the Earth’s axial tilt has a 41kyr cycle, and precession due to the Earth’s axial wobble has a 19–23-kyr cycle; these all modify the insolation of the Earth and the energy it receives. Much energy is transported by the oceanic circulation system, and the interaction of orbital variation and currents leads to significant climate changes2,3.

We may have an ice age before the 2100- huge temperature changes John Houghton (“Global warming” 5/4/2005, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/00344885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=089cf8fd-4311-4421-a041-68fb57103cef, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.).
To develop projections of future climate, it is necessary first to turn the emission scenarios into greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (see section 4 and figure 18(b)) and then to radiative forcing (see section 5). Climate models incorporating the profiles of radiative forcing can then be run into the future so as to provide simulations of future climate. We have noted earlier that a measure for climate change that has been widely used is the change in global average temperature. Figure 19 shows projections of global atmospheric temperature rise from pre-industrial times to the end of the 21st century. It shows an increase of about 0.6°C up to the year 2000 and an increase ranging from about 2°C to about 6°C by 2100, the wide range resulting from the very large uncertainty regarding future emissions and also from the uncertainty that remains regarding the feedbacks associated with the climate response to the changing atmospheric composition (as described in section 6)9. Compared with the temperature changes normally experienced from day to day and throughout the year, changes of between 2°C and 6°C may not seem very large. But it is in fact a large amount when considering globally averaged temperature. Compare it with the 5°C or 6°C change in global average temperature that occurs between the middle of an ice age and the warm period in between ice ages (figure 8). The changes projected for the 21st century are from one-third to a whole ice age in terms of the degree of climate change!

220

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ice age now
Next Ice Age is coming L.David Roper, Virginia, Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1/23/05, http://www.roperld.com/science/tempsolinsatc.pdf
In this article a “Major Ice Age” is defined as the period of about 115 kiloyears between two Major Interglacials surrounding the Major Ice Age. (See Figure 1.) The “Major Interglacials” are of about 5-15 kiloyears duration and are the times when the Earth’s temperature is at a high maximum at the edges of a Major Ice Age period. The temperature differential between the low point (Glacial Maximum) of a Major Ice Age and the Major Interglacial that follows it is about 9-12 degrees Celsius. The Earth left the Last Major Ice Age to enter the Present Major Interglacial about 10 kiloyears ago and is on the verge of entering the Next Major Ice Age. That is, the Earth is on the high-time edge of the Present Major Interglacial. The Last Glacial Maximum was about 20 kiloyears ago. There have been eight Major Ice Ages of varying severity and variability over the last 900 kiloyears (Alley, 2001; Wilson, 2000). The Last Major Interglacial is called the Eemian Interglacial.

221

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming solves Ice Age
Warming prevents Ice age FRED HOYLE and CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE, School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, 7/27/00,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ng20078362640715/fulltext.pdf

The most important factor that controls the Earth’s climate is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s temperature by about 40 _C above what it would otherwise have been. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be locked into a permanent ice-age. This fact gives the lie to those constantly seeking to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a bad thing greatly to be feared. The reverse is true. The greenhouse effect is an exceedingly good thing, without which those of us who happen to live in temperate latitudes would be buried under several hundreds of metres of ice. Water vapour and carbon dioxide are
the main greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide produces essentially the whole of its effect through absorption at infrared wavelengths from about 13.5 _m to 17.5 _m. Because the blocking by carbon dioxide over this interval is large, the band having steeply-falling wings, additions of carbon dioxide have only a second-order influence on the greenhouse effect and are inconsequential compared to the major factors which control the Earth’s climate. The blocking effect of water vapour rises all the way from 17.5 _m to almost 100 _m.

Warming prevents the start of another Ice Age Berger and M. F. Loutre, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut d'Astronomie et de Géophysique G. Lemaître, 2 Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 8/23/02, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287
When paleoclimatologists gathered in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm period would end (1), a slide into the next glacial seemed imminent. But more recent studies point toward a different future: a long interglacial that may last another 50,000 years. An interglacial is an uninterrupted warm interval during which global climate reaches at least the preindustrial level of warmth. Based on geological records available in 1972, the last two interglacials (including the Eemian, ~125,000 years ago) were believed to have lasted about 10,000 years. This is about the length of the current warm interval--the Holocene--to date. Assuming a similar duration for all interglacials, the scientists concluded that "it is likely that the present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene" (1, p. 267). Some assumptions made 30 years ago have since been questioned. Past interglacials may have been longer than originally assumed (2). Some, including marine isotope stage 11 (MIS-11, 400,000 years ago), may have been warmer than at present (3). We are also increasingly aware of the intensification of the greenhouse effect by human activities

222

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming solves Ice Age
CO2 prevents Ice Ages by stopping glacier formation Berger and M. F. Loutre, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut d'Astronomie et de Géophysique G. Lemaître, 2 Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 8/23/02, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287
Such a long interglacial appears to have occurred only once in the last 500,000 years, at MIS-11 (2, 3, 16). At this time, astronomical insolation and some proxy climate indicators were similar to those of today. The CO2 concentration was at an interglacial level [slightly above 280 ppmv (8)]. Simulations with these values (16) also show a particularly long interglacial, illustrating the importance of CO2 concentrations during periods when the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the climate system. The present-day CO2 concentration of 370 ppmv is already well above typical interglacial values of ~290 ppmv. Taking into account anthropogenic perturbations, we have studied further in which the CO2 concentration increases to up to 750 ppmv over the next 200 years, returning to natural levels by 1000 years from now (13, 15). The results suggest that, under very small insolation variations, there is a threshold value of CO2 above which the Greenland Ice Sheet disappears (see the bottom panel of the figure). The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of human activities during the early third millennium. In this case, an "irreversible greenhouse effect" could become the most likely future climate. If the Greenland and west Antarctic Ice Sheets disappear completely, then today's "Anthropocene" (17) may only be a transition between the Quaternary and the next geological period. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. already predicted in 1972 that "The net impact of human activities on the climate of the future decades and centuries is quite likely to be one of warming and therefore favorable to the perpetuation of the present interglacial" [(1), p. 436]. This scenario will have to be confirmed with models that better simulate ice sheets and ocean circulation. Recent results by Peltier and Vettoretti (18) are encouraging. With the Canadian climate general circulation model, they showed that under the present-day insolation regime and preindustrial CO2 concentration, no glacial inception is possible. In contrast, the model is able to simulate a glacial transition at the end of the Eemian.

223

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming solves Ice age
Increased oceanic C02 absorption prevents next ice age Fred Pierce (environmental reporter for the New Scientist, 7/22/04, ” Fossil-fuel hangover may block ice ages,”
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/106ns_004.htm) The fossil fuels we burn today may leave an atmospheric "hangover" lasting hundreds of thousands of years, which may cause enough residual warming to prevent the onset of the next ice age. This is the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes carbon dioxide as having a lifetime in the atmosphere of between five and 200 years before it is ultimately absorbed by the oceans. In fact, as much as one-tenth of the CO2 we are emitting now will linger in the air for at least 100,000 years, and perhaps much longer, says Toby Tyrrell of the UK's National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. "It is often assumed that the Earth will always recover from perturbations. But our research shows that it doesn't necessarily behave like this," says Tyrrell. "It isn't always inherently selfrectifying." Tyrrell and his colleagues used mathematical models to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a greenhouse world. As the ocean absorbs ever more CO2 from the atmosphere, it becomes more acid and so dissolves more calcium carbonate from the shells of marine organisms. This in turn reduces the oceans' ability to absorb more CO2 (see Diagram), leaving more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Even with the most modest estimates, warming will stave off the next ice age for half a million years Fred Pierce (environmental reporter for the New Scientist, 7/22/04, ” Fossil-fuel hangover may block ice ages,”
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/106ns_004.htm) This complication has been suggested before, notably by David Archer of the University of Chicago. Tyrrell's analysis substantiates Archer's suspicions, providing a firm estimate of just how big, and how long-lasting, the fossil-fuel hangover is likely to be (Tellus B, vol 59, p 664). The effect may be great enough to prevent the next ice age, Tyrrell found. Ice ages occur roughly every 100,000 years. The chill begins when wobbles in the planet's orbit marginally change where solar radiation hits the Earth. This is enough to trigger the growth of ice caps. But for reasons that are not yet clear, this initial cooling also causes the oceans to draw CO2 out of the air. Starved of this greenhouse gas, the atmosphere's temperature nosedives until much of the planet is covered in ice. Atmospheric CO2 is now at 380 parts per million, up from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. An analysis by Archer two years ago, using models linking climate and ice sheets, suggested that atmospheric CO2 levels above 560 ppm would almost certainly be enough to prevent the global cooling that now triggers an ice age every 100,000 years or so. Even levels of 400 ppm would make such cooling less likely. Tyrrell's new analysis of ocean chemistry suggests that if CO2 levels in the air rise to 900 ppm by 2100, as predicted by the IPCC's "business as usual" scenario, there would be little chance they would fall below 560 ppm in time for the next ice age to appear on schedule or, possibly, at all. While that might sound to some like a good thing, the shortterm warming caused by that much carbon dioxide is likely to cause such severe disruption that it would not be good policy. Further CO2 releases, from the burning of all known fossil fuels, for example, could postpone the next ice age for at least half a million years. Only by then could nature reabsorb the excess carbon - mainly because it would be used up as part of the slow chemical weathering of rock.

224

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming solves Ice age
Burning fossil fuels prevents Ice Ages Toby Tyrrell (the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, 7/27/07, “Next Ice age delayed by rising CO2 levels,” http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2007/aug/07_100.shtml)
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. According to New Scientist magazine, which features Dr Tyrrell's research this week, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. Dr Tyrrell's team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The world's oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed. Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon. The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age. Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.' Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important. Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

225

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming stops ice age
Global warming ultimately delays the effects of an ice age- a net positive outcome Andrew C. Revkin (“When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer, 11/11/2003, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6D61539F932A25752C1A9659C8B63).
Others have proposed that an earlier warm era that lasted even longer -- 30,000 years -- was a better model for the Holocene. But many experts still say they are convinced that the current warmth should, under the influence of orbital cycles alone, near an end ''any millennium now,'' as Dr. Richard A. Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, puts it. But the planet is feeling a new influence, that of people. Humans may delay the dawn of the next ice age by a millennium or two, or even longer, many climate experts say, as Earth's long-buried stores of coal, oil and other carbon-rich fossil fuels are burned, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. That insulating blanket has a bigger climatic influence than the slight flux in incoming solar energy from changes in Earth's orientation relative to the Sun, said Dr. James A. Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ''We have taken over control of the mechanisms that determine the climate change,'' he said. Other scientists, while agreeing with this thesis for the short term, say that eventually the buffering properties of the atmosphere, ocean and Earth will restore balance, returning most of the liberated carbon to long-term storage and allowing the orbital rhythm once again to dominate. ''Orbital changes are in a slow dance leading to a peak 80,000 years from now,'' said Dr. Eric J. Barron, the dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn State. ''I can hardly imagine that human influences won't have run their course by that time.'' It may seem that human-driven global warming, although perhaps a disaster on the scale of centuries, may be a good thing in the long run if it fends off the next ice age awhile.

226

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ice age causes extinction
A coming Ice age will wipe out the world Phil Chapmen (Staff writer for the Australian, 4/23/08, “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh,”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

227

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ice age causes extinction
Ice ages and global cooling have empirically lead to complete extinction Agençe France-Presse (“Earth’s wobble linked to extinctions,” 10/12/2006, http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1763328.htm).
Climate change, naturally induced by tiny shifts in Earth's rotational axis and orbit, periodically wipes out species of mammals, a study says. Palaeontologists have long puzzled over fossil records that, remarkably, suggest mammal species tend to last around two and a half million years before becoming extinct. Climate experts and biologists led by Jan van Dam at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, overlaid a picture of species emergence and extinction with changes that occur in Earth's orbit and axis. The Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle. It is slightly elliptical, and the ellipticality itself goes through cycles of change that span roughly 100,000 and 400,000 years. Its axis, likewise, is not perfectly perpendicular but has a slight wobble, rather like a poorly-balanced child's top, which goes through cycles of 21,000 years. In addition, the axis, as schoolbooks tell us, is also tilted, and this tilt also varies in a cycle of 41,000 years. These three shifts in Earth's pattern of movement are relatively minor compared with those of other planets. But they can greatly influence the amount of heat and light the Earth receives from the Sun. The effect can be amplified, causing global cooling, affecting precipitation patterns and even creating ice ages in higher latitudes, when two or all the cycles peak together.

228

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: warming causes cooling
Global warming doesn’t cause cooling S Rahmstorf and A Ganopolski (Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, 1999, “LONG-TERM GLOBALWARMING
SCENARIOS COMPUTED WITH AN EFFICIENT COUPLED CLIMATE MODEL,” http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search) Based on the past instability of the Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ and on physical considerations, warnings have been raised repeatedly that anthropogenic climate change might trigger another instability of the circulation and a severe cooling over the North Atlantic and parts of Europe (Broecker, 1987, 1997; White, 1993). A large number of model simulations (reviewed in Rahmstorf et al., 1996) have confirmed the sensitivity of the circulation to freshwater input and the fact that a collapse would cause a strong cooling. The pattern of this cooling, seen in atmospheric models driven by cold North Atlantic conditions (Schneider et al., 1987) and in coupled models (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1988, and also in the CLIMBER-2 model, Ganopolski et al., 1998c), is similar to the pattern of anomalous warmth shown in Figure 1. Until now, however, the hypothesis that global warming could lead to a cooling of Europe has not been supported by model simulations. None of the published greenhouse scenarios shows such a cooling, even though most show a decline and some even a complete shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf, 1997).

Climate and freshwater models are certain that warming won’t cause an ice age 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-b8b409eaa15d2a36%40sessionmgr8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=12965894). In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO — despite the appealing possibility raised in two recent studies ( 18, 19) — although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.

229

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: warming causes cooling
Even if they’re right only minor climate changes will occur, Global warming won’t lead to an ice age or a collapse of the AMO Andrew J. Weaver and Claude-Marcel Hillaire (Gordon head of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the
University of Victoria and a 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 and professor at l'Université du Québec à Montréal, 4/16/2004, “Global Warming and the next Ice Age,” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=5e63d5e2-5a5a-4141-a53a-7826e5e7c1bb%40sessionmgr2) Models that eventually lead to a collapse of the AMO under global warming conditions typically fall into two categories: (i) fluxadjusted coupled general circulation models, and (ii) intermediate-complexity models with zonally averaged ocean components. Both suites of models are known to be more sensitive to freshwater perturbations. In the first class of models, a small perturbation away from the present climate leads to large systematic errors in the salinity fields (as large flux adjustments are applied) that then build up to cause dramatic AMO transitions. In the second class of models, the convection and sinking of water masses are coupled (there is no horizontal structure). In contrast, newer non — flux-adjusted models find a more stable AMO under future conditions of climate change ( 11, 13, 14). Even the recent observations of freshening in the North Atlantic ( 15) (a reduction of salinity due to the addition of freshwater) appear to be consistent with the projections of perhaps the most sophisticated non — flux-adjusted model ( 11). Ironically, this model suggests that such freshening is associated with an increased AMO ( 16). This same model proposes that it is only Labrador Sea Water formation that is susceptible to collapse in response to global warming. In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO — despite the appealing possibility raised in two recent studies ( 18, 19) — although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.

THC shut down won’t cause an ice age-- comparisons ignore crucial climate differences
W. S. Broecker, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, January 1999 "What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment," Geological Society of America Today 9(1):1-7 http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsat9901.htmroyalties But is it realistic to believe that a shutdown of the conveyor a century or so from now would produce the conditions that characterized the last glacial period? The answer is very likely "no," for several reasons. The first has to do with the fact that during the Younger Dryas, Canada and Scandinavia still had sizable ice caps. The second is that the abrupt part of the warming at the close of the Younger Dryas brought climate only about halfway to its interglacial state (Severinghaus et al., 1998). The other half of the transition was more gradual, reflecting perhaps the post-Younger Dryas retreat of the residual ice caps in Canada and Scandinavia. Finally, modeling studies (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993; Stocker and Schmittner, 1997) that forecast a greenhouseinduced conveyor shutdown do so only after a substantial global warming (4 to 5°C) has occurred. Hence, the global climate conditions prevailing at the time of the shut-down would be substantially warmer than those that existed just before the onset of the Younger Dryas. For these reasons, the analogy to the conditions that prevailed during the Younger Dryas surely constitutes a worst case scenario.

230

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: warming causes cooling
Studies conclude that a collapse of the THC kills little vegetation and it would come back later anyways MICHAEL VELLINGA AND RICHARD A. WOOD, Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 9/02, www.springerlink.com/fulltext.pdf
Response is strongest around the North Atlantic but significant changes occur over the entire globe and highlight rapid teleconnections. Precipitation is reduced over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. A southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone over the Atlantic and eastern Pacific creates changes in precipitation that are particularly large in South America and Africa. Colder and drier conditions in much of the Northern Hemisphere reduce soil moisture and net primary productivity of the terrestrial vegetation. This is only partly compensated by more productivity in the Southern Hemisphere. The total global net primary productivity by the vegetation decreases by 5%. It should be noted, however, that in this version of the model the vegetation distribution cannot change, and atmospheric carbon levels are also fixed. After about 100 years the model’s thermohaline circulation has largely recovered, and most climatic anomalies disappear

The THC is resilient to change and collapse would happen thousands of years later
OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=110 Possible instabilities of the THC also have important implications for the predictability of future climate change. Model simulations show that as an instability is approached, small deviations in initial or boundary conditions can determine whether a transition to a different equilibrium will occur, which inherently limits predictability. This behavior has been investigated with a climate model of reduced complexity (Knutti and Stocker, 2001). The threshold is approached by a prescribed global warming over about 140 years, equivalent to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Small random fluctuations, as produced by atmospheric disturbances at the ocean surface, can excite large changes in the THC when the system is close to a threshold (Figure 4.1). Many experiments with the same model but slightly different initial conditions (Monte Carlo simulations) indicate that the North Atlantic THC can undergo many oscillations before it settles in an active or a collapsed state. In some cases, a rapid collapse of the THC occurs many thousands of years after the perturbation. Obviously, beyond the problem of approaching an instability point and the increased vulnerability of the THC to further perturbation, such an evolution results in a much more unpredictable climate system (Figure 4.1).

231

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: warming causes cooling
Although the THC shutdown is caused by global warming, it won’t lead to an Ice age
OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=110 A question of great societal relevance is whether the North Atlantic THC will remain stable under the global warming expected for the next few centuries. A possible shutdown of the THC would not induce a new glacial period, as press reports suggested; however, it clearly would involve massive changes both in the ocean (major circulation regimes, upwelling and sinking regions, distribution of seasonal sea ice, ecological systems, sea level) and in the atmosphere (land-sea temperature contrast, storm paths, hydrological cycle, extreme events). The most pronounced changes are expected in regions that are today most affected by the influence of the North Atlantic THC (e.g., Scandinavia and Greenland). Current knowledge of the evolution of the THC is summarized in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001b). Several comprehensive coupled climate models were run with a scenario of increasing greenhouse gas forcing for the next 100 years. Most models show a reduction in the THC in response to the forcing (Plate 7). This is due to enhanced warming of the sea surface in the high latitudes and a stronger poleward atmospheric transport of moisture, leading to more precipitation in the North Atlantic region. Those two effects, in concert, lead to an increase in buoyancy of the North Atlantic surface waters, which reduces the THC. Although the relative strength of the two mechanisms is debated and uncertain (Dixon et al., 1999; Mikolajewicz and Voss, 2000), most climate models seem to show a general reduction in the Atlantic THC in response to global warming. The exceptions to this behavior remind us of the inherent uncertainties present in the simulations. It is not clear whether all relevant feedback mechanisms are considered properly in the current generation of climate models and whether their strength is simulated realistically. A simulation by Latif et al. (2000) suggested that changes in the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) frequency and amplitude might change the freshwater balance of the tropical Atlantic in such a way that increases in buoyancy in the high latitudes are compensated for by drier (and hence more saline) conditions in the tropics. Gent (2001) reported on a simulation in which evaporation from a warmer sea surface in the North Atlantic is not compensated for by enhanced precipitation, and this simulation results in a stabilization of the THC. While it is not currently possible to decide which simulations are more realistic—those of Plate 7 showing a THC decrease or those that do not—the two simulations by Latif et al. (2000) and Gent (2001) illustrate that the quantitatively correct simulation of heat and freshwater flux changes is essential for the projection of the evolution of the THC under global warming.

Probability of THC collapsing in the next century is below 10 percent Timothy M. Lenton et al, Hermann Held‡, Elmar Kriegler‡,§, Jim W. Hall¶, Wolfgang Lucht‡, Stefan Rahmstorf‡, and Hans
Joachim Schellnhuber, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Newcastle NE1 7RU, United Kingdom; and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 11/21/07, http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search The proximity of the present climate to this tipping point varies considerably between models, corresponding to an additional North Atlantic freshwater input of 0.1–0.5 Sv (44). The sensitivity of North Atlantic freshwater input to anthropogenic forcing is also poorly known, but regional precipitation is predicted to increase (12) and the GIS could tribute significantly (e.g., GIS melt over 1,000 years is equivalent to 0.1 Sv). The North Atlantic is observed to be freshening (49), and estimates of recent increases in freshwater input yield 0.014 Sv from melting sea ice (18), 0.007 Sv from Greenland (29), and 0.005 Sv from Eurasian rivers (50), totaling 0.026 Sv, without considering precipitation over the oceans or Canadian river runoff. The IPCC (12) argues that an abrupt transition of the THC is “very unlikely” [the probability is lower than 10%] (probability <10%) to occur before 2100 and that any transition is likely to take a century or more. Our definition encompasses gradual transitions that appear continuous across the tipping point; hence, some of the IPCC runs (ref. 12, p. 773 ff) may yet meet our criteria (but would need to be run for longer to see if they reach a qualitatively different state). Furthermore, the IPCC does not include freshwater runoff from GIS melt. Subsequent OAGCM simulations clearly pass a THC tipping point this century and undergo a qualitative change before the next millennium (48). Both the timescale and the magnitude of forcing are important (51), because a more rapid forcing to a given level can more readily overwhelm the negative feedback that redistributes salt in a manner that maintains whatever is the current circulation state.

232

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: US Key – China
Chinese action key – pollutes more than US and amount of pollution projected to increase. Asia news, 4/15/08, “China pollutes more than united states but the air will be clean for the olympics,”
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12020&size=A Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) – China is probably the top carbon dioxide and green house gas producer in the world ahead of the United States. On the short run though the authorities are planning to shut local factories in an attempt to clean up the air for the Olympics in Beijing. When released research results by a University of California team will show that the mainland’s greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, warning Beijing that unchecked future growth will dwarf any emissions cuts made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol. The team admits there is some uncertainty over the date when China may have become the biggest emitter of CO2 since their analysis is based on 2004 data, but it indicates that previous studies underestimated the problem, thus re-launching the issue of environmental degradation in developing countries. With the backing of the United Nations developing countries want the opt out of emissions controls to fight poverty; they also want help to develop cleaner energies. Beijing for instance has pointed out that US emissions are five to six times greater than those of China on a per capita basis. Experts note however that the fight must be global and that Chinese pollution is equal if not greater than that of industrialised countries without reaching the same pro-capita income.

China will surpass US as leader in emissions – absent Chinese action to decrease emission global warming can’t be stopped
NYT, 6/5/07, “China issues plan on global warming, rejecting mandatory caps on greenhouse gases,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/world/asia/05china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin China, with the world’s fastest-growing major economy, had been projected to surpass the United States by 2009 or 2010 as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which scientists say cause global warming. But China’s coal-based, high-polluting economy is growing so rapidly that the chief economist for the International Energy Agency is now predicting the country could become the global emissions leader as soon as this year. Fatih Birol, the agency’s chief economist, warned that China must begin curbing its current rate of emissions. If not, he predicted that within 25 years China’s output of carbon dioxide emissions could amount to twice the combined emissions of the world’s richest nations — including the United States, members of the European Union and Japan. At his news conference on Monday, Mr. Ma applauded Mr. Bush’s proposal but emphasized that any effort in Washington should complement, not replace, the existing framework, including the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, sponsored by the United Nations. Under the Kyoto Protocol, participating industrialized nations are subjected to caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, while developing countries, including China and India, are exempt.

Chinese action key to stopping global warming – second in emissions World view of global warming, 06, “global warming in Alaska,”
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/chinareport.html China is the rousing giant of global warming. It stands as a developing nation outside the guidelines of the Kyoto treaty, yet with more than one billion people and a huge energy-gobbling economy, it is one of the most influential countries in climate change. It is first in coal consumption and the number two nation in carbon dioxide emissions behind the United States. Many of its cities are thick with air pollution and large regions are beset with drought, failing crops and sandstorms linked to global warming. China's leaders remain fixed on rapid development and increasing energy use, yet the first steps are being taken toward emissions control and alternative energy. These few photos represent the first attempt by World View of Global Warming to bring China into focus among all the other effects documented. More information and photos will be added soon.

233

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: US Key – China/Other
China won’t model
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). As China Goes, So Goes Global Warming New York, N.Y.: Dec 16, 2007. pg. 4.3 So, presuming the industrialized and industrializing nations are serious, who or what can realistically turn the carbon tide? As always, the fingers of many experts on energy and the environment point both west and east -- to the United States and China. The established superpower arose riding a wave of fossil-fueled prosperity. The emerging one, sitting on a wealth of coal, sees few reasons not to follow suit; after all, it has only just caught its wave (with India and others in hot pursuit). Yet the tide can only be turned, a host of scientists and economists with varied perspectives agree, if China and other rising powers like India speed through the familiar path in nation building -- resource extraction, industrial and economic growth, accompanying despoliation, and then environmental restoration and protection. If they don't, their emissions will eventually swamp all other sources, according to many analyses.

Poorer countries will net produce more carbon dioxide
Andrew C. Revkin a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). As China Goes, So Goes Global Warming New York, N.Y.: Dec 16, 2007. pg. 4.3 Richard Richels, an economist at the Electric Power Research Institute, helped produce an ominous forecast: even if the established industrial powers turned off every power plant and car right now, unless there are changes in policy in poorer countries the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could still reach 450 parts per million -- a level deemed unacceptably dangerous by many scientists -- by 2070. (If no one does anything, that threshold is reached in 2040.) Libertarians say that once countries get rich, they'll do the right thing for the climate. But critics of this view say the long life of carbon dioxide (and of sources like the coal-burning plants China is building at the rate of one a week) mean that waiting just compounds the problem beyond fixing.

234

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

***AFF AT ICE AGE***

235

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ice age not coming
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-b8b409eaa15d2a36%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.

236

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ice melting won’t lead to ice age
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.

237

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ice Age =/= Extinction
ice age wouldn’t cause extinction.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., D.Sc. Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protectio, (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf)

‘4

Also, it does not seem possible that we will ever gain influence over the Sun’s activity. However, I think that in the next centuries we shall learn to control sea currents and clouds, and this could be sufficient to govern the climate of our planet. The following “thought experiment” illustrates how valuable our civilization, and the very existence of man’s intellect, is for the terrestrial biosphere. Mikhail Budyko, the leading Russian climatologist (now deceased), predicted in 1982 a future drastic CO2deficit in the atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire surface of the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said, would survive on the active volcano edges.60 Budyko’s hypothesis is still controversial, but 10 years later it was discovered that 700 million years ago, the Earth already underwent such a disaster, changing into “Snowball Earth,” covered in white from Pole to Pole, with an average tempera- ture of minus 40°C.15 However let’s assume that Budyko has been right and that everything, to the very ocean bottom, will be frozen. Will mankind survive this? I think yes, it would. The present technology of nuclear power, based on the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, would secure heat and electricity supplies for 5 billion people for about 10,000 years. At the same time, the stock of hydrogen in the ocean for future fusionbased reactors would suffice for 6 billion years. Our cities, industrial plants, food-producing greenhouses, our livestock, and also zoos and botanical gardens turned into greenhouses, could be heated virtually forever, and we could survive, together with many other organisms, on a planet that had turned into a gigantic glacier. I think, however, that such a “passive” solution would not fit the genius of our future descendants, and they would learn how to restore a warm climate for ourselves and for everything that lives on Earth.

238

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

warming causes cooling
Global warming causes Flushing Failure which triggers cooling William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The great climate flip-flop,"
The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64) There are a few obvious precursors to flushing failure. One is diminished wind chill, when winds aren't as strong as usual, or as cold, or as dry — as is the case in the Labrador Sea during the North Atlantic Oscillation. This El Niño-like shift in the atmosphericcirculation pattern over the North Atlantic, from the Azores to Greenland, often lasts a decade. At the same time that the Labrador Sea gets a lessening of the strong winds that aid salt sinking, Europe gets particularly cold winters. It's happening right now: a North Atlantic Oscillation started in 1996. Another precursor is more floating ice than usual, which reduces the amount of ocean surface exposed to the winds, in turn reducing evaporation. Retained heat eventually melts the ice, in a cycle that recurs about every five years. Yet another precursor, as Henry Stommel suggested in 1961, would be the addition of fresh water to the ocean surface, diluting the salt-heavy surface waters before they became unstable enough to start sinking. More rain falling in the northern oceans — exactly what is predicted as a result of global warming — could stop salt flushing. So could ice carried south out of the Arctic Ocean. There is also a great deal of unsalted water in Greenland's glaciers, just uphill from the major salt sinks. The last time an abrupt cooling occurred was in the midst of global warming. Many ice sheets had already half melted, dumping a lot of fresh water into the ocean. A brief, large flood of fresh water might nudge us toward an abrupt cooling even if the dilution were insignificant when averaged over time. The fjords of Greenland offer some dramatic examples of the possibilities for freshwater floods. Fjords are long, narrow canyons, little arms of the sea reaching many miles inland; they were carved by great glaciers when the sea level was lower. Greenland's east coast has a profusion of fjords between 70°N and 80°N, including one that is the world's biggest. If blocked by ice dams, fjords make perfect reservoirs for meltwater. Glaciers pushing out into the ocean usually break off in chunks. Whole sections of a glacier, lifted up by the tides, may snap off at the "hinge" and become icebergs. But sometimes a glacial surge will act like an avalanche that blocks a road, as happened when Alaska's Hubbard glacier surged into the Russell fjord in May of 1986. Its snout ran into the opposite side, blocking the fjord with an ice dam. Any meltwater coming in behind the dam stayed there. A lake formed, rising higher and higher — up to the height of an eight-story building. Eventually such ice dams break, with spectacular results. Once the dam is breached, the rushing waters erode an ever wider and deeper path. Thus the entire lake can empty quickly. Five months after the ice dam at the Russell fjord formed, it broke, dumping a cubic mile of fresh water in only twenty-four hours. The Great Salinity Anomaly, a pool of semi-salty water derived from about 500 times as much unsalted water as that released by Russell Lake, was tracked from 1968 to 1982 as it moved south from Greenland's east coast. In 1970 it arrived in the Labrador Sea, where it prevented the usual salt sinking. By 1971-1972 the semi-salty blob was off Newfoundland. It then crossed the Atlantic and passed near the Shetland Islands around 1976. From there it was carried northward by the warm Norwegian Current, whereupon some of it swung west again to arrive off Greenland's east coast — where it had started its inch-per-second journey. So freshwater blobs drift, sometimes causing major trouble, and Greenland floods thus have the potential to stop the enormous heat transfer that keeps the North Atlantic Current going strong.

239

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

ext -- warming shuts down thc
Melted icecaps dilute the ocean’s salinity, slowing the thermohaline system
Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” As melting of the Greenland ice sheet exceeds the annual snowfall, and there is increasing freshwater runoff from high latitude precipitation, the freshening of waters in the North Atlantic Ocean and the seas between Greenland and Europe increases. The lower densities of these freshened waters in turn pave the way for a sharp slowing of the thermohaline circulation system.

Global warming will lead to an ice age instead of delay it Andrew C. Revkin (“When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer, 11/11/2003, 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.

CO2 and warming collapses the THC which offsets global warming by making the world cooler Jochem Marotzke, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, 2/15/00,
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1347.full Abrupt climate change may not have been merely a feature of the past but may be induced by the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled model studies (23) have shown that global warming can lead to a collapse of the North Atlantic THC: Higher atmospheric temperatures lead to a generally wetter atmosphere and hence increased moisture transport from low to high latitudes. The increased precipitation in the North Atlantic leads to reduced surface salinity and density, interrupting deep convection and bringing the Atlantic THC to a halt. As a consequence, northern Europe might cool even under global warming and, more alarming, this cooling might occur much more rapidly than the gradual global warming, thus making adaptation far more difficult. The critical question is, How close to a transition is the real climate system?

Warming melts ice sheets that cause changes in the THC OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11
Ice sheets are linked to abrupt climate change because melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would add directly to global sea level rise and to possible changes in the thermohaline circulation (Manabe and Stouffer, 1997). Much attention has been focused on the possibility of a rapid collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Recent geological and glaciological evidence points to a stable but net decay since the last ice age (Conway et al., 1999), but with considerable uncertainty about future trends and the possibility of rapid dynamic response to future warming. The Greenland ice sheet has the potential for rapid surface melting and perhaps enhanced ice flow with continued greenhouse warming. Laser-altimeter surveys in the 1990s indicated an overall negative mass balance for Greenland ice that results in a 0.13 mm per year sea level rise (Krabill et al., 2000). Since the late 1800s the margin of the Greenland ice sheet has retreated 2 km in some places (Funder and Weidick, 1991) indicating that Greenland ice is responding to twentieth century warming. The influence of the Greenland ice sheet system on potential abrupt climate change appears to be linear except for the possibility of threshold changes in ocean circulation, but the existence of dynamically controlled ice streaming at least suggests the possibility of dynamical changes (Fahnestock et al., 1993).

240

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Warming Shuts Down THC
Warming causes changes in the THC which causes abrupt climate change OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php? record_id=10136&page=11
Changes in ocean circulation, and especially THC in the North Atlantic, have been implicated in abrupt climate change of the past, such as the Younger Dryas and the Dansgaard/Oeschger and Heinrich/Bond oscillations (Broecker et al., 1988; Alley and Clark, 1999; Stocker, 2000). Today, relatively warm waters reach high latitudes only in the North Atlantic. The high salinity of the Atlantic waters allows them to sink into the deep ocean when they cool, and warmer waters flowing along the surface then replace them. This yields a net heat transport into the high northern latitudes of the Atlantic and northward heat transport throughout the South Atlantic, carrying heat into the North Atlantic (Ganachaud and Wunsch, 2000; see also Plate 4b.) Outburst floods, which would have freshened the North Atlantic and reduced the ability of its waters to sink, immediately preceded the coolings of the Younger Dryas and the short cold event about 8,200 years ago (Broecker et al., 1988; Barber et al., 1999); this suggests causation. Evidence of reduction or elimination of northern sinking of waters during cold times (Sarnthein et al., 1994; Boyle, 2000) provides further support, as does the see-saw relation between Greenland and Antarctic temperatures on millennial scales (Blunier and Brook, 2001; see also Plate 2), which suggests that reduction in heat transport to the north allowed that heat to remain in the south. Those and other considerations focus attention on changes in the THC as one cause of abrupt climate change. However, additional processes presumably were active in the past abrupt changes exemplified by the Younger Dryas, as indicated by the difficulty of fully explaining the paleoclimatic data on the basis of the single mechanism of North Atlantic THC changes. Therefore, the ocean’s role in climate is developed more fully in the following. Water has enormous heat capacity—oceans typically store 10-100 times more heat than equivalent land surfaces over seasonal time scales, and the solar input to the ocean surface for a year would warm the upper kilometer only 1 degree—so the oceans exert a profound influence on climate through their ability to transport heat from one location to another and their ability to sequester heat away from the surface. The deep ocean is a worldwide repository of extremely cold water from the polar regions. If much of this water were brought to the surface in temperate or tropical regions, it could cause substantial cooling that, although transient, could last for centuries. It is not easy to bring cold water to the surface against a stable gradient, though, and this can happen only in special circumstances. Such localized change could, however, have a wider impact through atmospheric teleconnections. Fluctuations in ocean heat transport can also affect climate; for example, an increase in equator-to-pole heat transport would warm the polar regions (melting ice) and cool the tropics. The implications of fluctuation in heat transport by the Atlantic THC have received particular attention, especially as a mediator of Younger Dryas and Dansgaard/Oeschger abrupt change. Deep water forms only in the North Atlantic and around the periphery of Antarctica, where extremely cold, dense waters occur. There is no deep-water formation in the North Pacific, because the salinity is too low to allow high enough density to drive deep convection, despite the low temperatures. By analogy, change in the freshwater balance of the North Atlantic, which might be caused by glacial discharge or warming of the planet through increases in carbon dioxide, potentially can act as a trigger to turn the THC on or off.

Global warming causes thermohaline shut down John Houghton, cochair of the IPCC, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS
ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403

The second concerns possible changes in the ocean’s thermohaline circulation (THC). This is a current that circulates in the deep ocean (figure 23) driven to a large degree by the descent of water in the Greenland sea and Labrador sea areas of the north Atlantic ocean. Water that has originated in the tropics and moved north in the Atlantic, undergoing a lot of evaporation, is both salty and cold—hence it is unusually dense and readily sinks. With global warming, there is additional fresh water input at high latitudes because of increased precipitation and ice melt. As a result, the THC will weaken and less heat will flow northward from tropical regions to the north Atlantic. All coupled ocean–atmosphere GCMs show this occurring, although in varying degrees, resulting in less warming in the region of the north Atlantic (including north-west Europe)—although none show actual cooling occurring in this region during the 21st century. There is also evidence that large changes in the THC have occurred in the past [83]. In the longer term, some models show the THC actually cutting off completely after two or three centuries of increasing greenhouse gases. Intense research is being pursued—both observations and modelling—to elucidate further likely changes in the thermohaline circulation and their possible impact. 241

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Thc shutdown  Ice Age
Thermohaline shut down freezes the northern atlantic region, destroying agriculture and water supplies Peter Schwartz and, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security” After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010, disrupting the temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm flows of the Gulf Stream (the North Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less warm water north and causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North America. The North Atlantic Ocean continues to be affected by fresh water coming from melting glaciers, Greenland’s ice sheet, and perhaps most importantly increased rainfall and runoff. Decades of high-latitude warming cause increased precipitation and bring additional fresh water to the salty, dense water in the North, which is normally affected mainly by warmer and saltier water from the Gulf Stream. That massive current of warm water no longer reaches far into the North Atlantic. The immediate climatic effect is cooler temperatures in Europe and throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere and a dramatic drop in rainfall in many key agricultural and populated areas. However, the effects of the collapse will be felt in fits and starts, as the traditional weather patterns re-emerge only to be disrupted again—for a full decade. The dramatic slowing of the thermohaline circulation is anticipated by some ocean researchers, but the United States is not sufficiently prepared for its effects, timing, or intensity. Computer models of the climate and ocean systems, though improved, were unable to produce sufficiently consistent and accurate information for policymakers. As weather patterns shift in the years following the collapse, it is not clear what type of weather future years will bring. While some forecasters believe the cooling and dryness is about to end, others predict a new ice age or a global drought, leaving policy makers and the public highly uncertain about the future climate and what to do, if anything. Is this merely a "blip" of little importance or a fundamental change in the Earth’s climate, requiring an urgent massive human response? Cooler, Drier, Windier Conditions for Continental Areas of the Northern Hemisphere Each of the years from 2010-2020 sees average temperature drops throughout Northern Europe, leading to as much as a 6 degree Fahrenheit drop in ten years. Average annual rainfall in this region decreases by nearly 30%; and winds are up to 15% stronger on average. The climatic conditions are more severe in the continental interior regions of northern Asia and North America. The effects of the drought are more devastating than the unpleasantness of temperature decreases in the agricultural and populated areas. With the persistent reduction of precipitation in these areas, lakes dry-up, river flow decreases, and fresh water supply is squeezed, overwhelming available conservation options and depleting fresh water reserves. The Mega-droughts begin in key regions in Southern China and Northern Europe around 2010 and last throughout the full decade. At the same time, areas that were relatively dry over the past few decades receive persistent years of torrential rainfall, flooding rivers, and regions that traditionally relied on dryland agriculture. In the North Atlantic region and across northern Asia, cooling is most pronounced in the heart of winter -December, January, and February -- although its effects linger through the seasons, the cooling becomes increasingly intense and less predictable. As snow accumulates in mountain regions, the cooling spreads to summertime. In addition to cooling and summertime dryness, wind pattern velocity strengthens as the atmospheric circulation becomes more zonal. While weather patterns are disrupted during the onset of the climatic change around the globe, the effects are far more pronounced in Northern Europe for the first five years after the thermohaline circulation collapse. By the second half of this decade, the chill and harsher conditions spread deeper into Southern Europe, North America, and beyond. Northern Europe cools as a pattern of colder weather lengthens the time that sea ice is present over the northern North Atlantic Ocean, creating a further cooling influence and extending the period of wintertime surface air temperatures. Winds pick up as the atmosphere tries to deal with the stronger poleto-equator temperature gradient. Cold air blowing across the European continent causes especially harsh conditions for agriculture. The combination of wind and dryness causes widespread dust storms and soil loss. Signs of incremental warming appear in the southern most areas along the Atlantic Ocean, but the dryness doesn’t let up. By the end of the decade, Europe’s climate is more like Siberia’s.

242

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: warming shuts down thc
Collapse of THC drops temperature around the world MICHAEL VELLINGA AND RICHARD A. WOOD, Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 9/02, www.springerlink.com/fulltext.pdf
The collapse of the THC causes rapid global change in surface air temperature (Figure 2). Within 20 years after the shutdown of the THC persistent anomalies (lasting two or more decades) have covered most of the Northern Hemisphere. In the Southern Hemisphere the response takes longer to become apparent, up to three decades. The reduction of northward heat transport and surface heat release in the North Atlantic lead to significant cooling of the air in that area. Maximum cooling of up to 8 ◦C occurs over the northwest Atlantic. Over Europe the cooling is 1–3 ◦C in the third decade after the THC collapse (Figure 3). The comparatively strong cooling over the northwest Atlantic and Labrador Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk is caused by increased sea-ice cover (Vellinga et al., 2002) that isolates the atmosphere from the relatively warm sea surface and augments the cooling. The atmospheric circulation effectively spreads the signal over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. This results in significant cooling up to 2 ◦C over Asia and North America.

A salinity spike collapses the THC and stops continental warming MICHAEL VELLINGA AND RICHARD A. WOOD, Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 9/02, www.springerlink.com/fulltext.pdf
Within 10 years after the salinity perturbation is applied the Atlantic THC (as measured by the zonally averaged meridional circulation) collapses (Figure 1). This eliminates the northward heat transport and associated heat release in the North Atlantic. As mentioned already the model is not in equilibrium during the first 100 years of the experiment. Even so, the transient climate response allows an assessment of the impact that a permanent THC collapse would have because of the rapid response in important ocean and atmosphere variables, such as ocean heat transport, sea surface temperature (‘SST’), precipitation etc. The effects of the slowest components of the climate system (e.g., heat uptake by the deep ocean) on surface variables may, however, be underestimated in this transient climate state. To see to what extent anomalies spread globally we mostly present fields for years 20–30 of the experiment, even though the response around the North Atlantic is sometimes stronger in the first decade.

243

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: THC Brink
Thermohaline shut down will begin in 2010 Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm, and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security” After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010, disrupting the temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm flows of the Gulf Stream (the North Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less warm water north and causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North America. The North Atlantic Ocean continues to be affected by fresh water coming from melting glaciers, Greenland’s ice sheet, and perhaps most importantly increased rainfall and runoff. Decades of high-latitude warming cause increased precipitation and bring additional fresh water to the salty, dense water in the North, which is normally affected mainly by warmer and saltier water from the Gulf Stream. That massive current of warm water no longer reaches far into the North Atlantic. The immediate climatic effect is cooler temperatures in Europe and throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere and a dramatic drop in rainfall in many key agricultural and populated areas. However, the effects of the collapse will be felt in fits and starts, as the traditional weather patterns re-emerge only to be disrupted again—for a full decade.

244

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: THC K Ocean
THC affects the overturning of the ocean Peter U. Clark et al ([Nicklas G. Pisias² Thomas F. Stocker & Andrew J. Weaver ]* Department of Geosciences, Oregon State
University, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, 2/21/02, “The role of the thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change,” http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/thermohalinecirculation.pdf) The ocean affects climate through its high heat capacity relative to the surrounding land, thereby moderating daily, seasonal and interannual temperature ¯uctuations, and through its ability to transport heat from one location to another. In the North Atlantic, differential solar heating between high and low latitudes tends to accelerate surface waters polewards whereas freshwater input to high latitudes together with low-latitude evaporation tend to brake this ¯ow. Today, the former thermal forcing dominates the latter haline (freshwater) forcing and the meridional overturning in the Atlantic drives surface waters northward, while deep water that forms in the Nordic Seas ¯ows southward as North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). This thermohaline circulation (THC) is responsible for much of the total oceanic poleward heat transport in the Atlantic, peaking at about 1:2 6 0:3 PW (1 PW equals 1015 watts) at 248N (ref. 1).

245

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

THC Impact: Fisheries
Reduced oceanic circulation caused by global warming will destroy fisheries Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Physics of the Oceans Potsdam University and Member of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, 7/28/97, “Risk of sea-change in the Atlantic,” http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/spb/ovidweb.cgi?
QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c8aa94c0b9249362ccb8a0647773dcb8b8e0160721288b22d6ee14f018578a72e4686988b58f11a12baa14c1 8c9df54c29766a799b5a256137f4f52ae3462a018e66655ea2208f162a20c75b509468795e37f73d70c48234b83ecb9ea66d8fd75cd86 5acf5b4e65efa79ae20a5629450d87cceb0806bd57df239313dd3baeea5acd44a84323f9d0747d555699daea53c5ab9ab7fc3fd1de77d2 e933b46f8851ea287fd19113aa022a437358ae52000ff14f62ff928c711a4730138b335f0f965a5f6209c8aca32efb236b55fa008448047 36404b153d5b1e05b5c5d7d54b3c0a3) Global warming can roughly compensate for the reduced oceanic heat transport in these experiments, because the ocean circulation winds down only slowly. There are several caveats here. That the maximum effect is south of Greenland points at the overflow problem mentioned above. One can only speculate whether the response would be larger if the models formed more deep water north of the sills, so that the 'conveyor belt' would reach further north and interact with sea ice as it does in the real world. And a much faster circulation change (such as those seen in the ice-age climate records) may be possible through a different, convective type of instability [3], which has its own critical thresholds and depends on regional detail poorly represented in present climate models. But whatever the effects of air temperature, such as change in ocean circulation would certainly have a severe effect on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Even small fluctuations in ocean currents have led to the collapse of fish stocks and sea-bird populations in the past. Another concern is that a reduced thermohaline circulation would weaken the carbon dioxide uptake of the ocean [9], effectively making the climate system more susceptible to anthropogenic emissions. So a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation would probably have serious consequences, involving risks that no nation bordering the North Atlantic would willingly take. Climate models are still too coarse to accurately predict how vulnerable the ocean circulation is, but they suggest that crossing a critical limit is within the range of possibilities for the next century. A disruption of the thermohaline circulation cannot be ruled out if we continue to pollute the atmosphere at the present rate. The work of Stocker and Schmittner is a timely reminder, before the Kyoto climate summit in December, that swift action is needed to reduce the risk of unwelcome climatic surprises.

Fisheries are key to the global economy and human nutrition
Earth Trends, environmental information, 10-31-06, http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/info_guides/EarthTrends-InformationGuide-Fisheries.pdf For centuries, fisheries have supported local economies by providing steady employment and income, and have served as a primary source of protein, particularly in developing countries. The importance of fisheries to the global economy and human nutrition has only increased as advances in technology have made it easier to harvest marine resources. However, unsustainable fishing practices have caused dramatic declines in most fish stocks, decimating wild populations and jeopardizing the long-term utilization of fisheries resources.

246

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

THC Impact: Biodiversity
Even if collapse of THC doesn’t cause Ice age, it will still result in a loss of biodiversity
OSB , Ocean Studies Board, 2002, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=110 If the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration leads to a collapse of the Atlantic THC, the result will not be global cooling. However, there might be regional cooling over and around the North Atlantic, relative to a hypothetical global-warming scenario with unchanged THC. By itself, this reduced warming might not be detrimental. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of net cooling over the North Atlantic if the THC decrease is very fast. Such rapid cooling would exert a large strain on natural and societal systems. The probability of this occurring is unknown but presumably much smaller than that of any of the more gradual scenarios included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (Plate 7). The probability is not, however, zero. Obtaining rational estimates of the probability of such a low-probability/high-impact event is crucial. It is worth remembering that models such as those used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report consistently underestimate the size and extent of anomalies associated with past changes of the THC; if the underestimate results from lack of model sensitivity possibly linked to overly coarse resolution or other shortcomings rather than from improper specification of forcing, future climate anomalies could be surprisingly large. Even if no net cooling results from a substantial, abrupt change in the Atlantic THC, the changes in water properties and regional circulation are expected to be large, with possibly large effects on ecosystems, fisheries, and sea level. There are no credible scenarios of these consequences, largely because the models showing abrupt change in the THC have too crude spatial resolution to be used in regional analyses. To develop these scenarios would require the combination of physical and biological models to investigate the effects on ecosystems, and the “nesting” of large-scale and coastal models to investigate sea-level change.

247

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

THC Impact: Starvation
Thermohaline shutdown causes mass starvation
Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, winner of the 2006 Crafoord Prize (the ‘Nobel for GeoScience), chairman of the Geochemical Society 28 November 1997 “Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?” Science: Vol. 278. no. 5343, pp. 1582 - 1588 Through the record kept in Greenland ice, a disturbing characteristic of the Earth's climate system has been revealed, that is, its capability to undergo abrupt switches to very different states of operation. I say "disturbing" because there is surely a possibility that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases might trigger yet another of these ocean reorganizations and thereby the associated large atmospheric changes. Should this occur when 11 to 16 billion people occupy our planet, it could lead to widespread starvation, for in order to feed these masses, it will be necessary to produce two to three times as much food per acre of arable land than we now do. More problematic perhaps than adapting to the new global climate produced by such a reorganization will be the flickers in climate that will likely punctuate the several-decade-long transition period (Fig. 3, right panel).

248

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

THC Impact: Coral
A THC shut down would devastate coral populations—lowers key temperatures Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of
Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Circulation,from local (wind-driven upwelling) to global (thermohaline) scales,is likely to change with global climate. Virtually all coral reefs at high latitudes occur where boundary currents deliver warm waters from tropical regions (e.g., Bermuda near the Gulf Stream, Lord Howe Island in the East Australia Current, and the Ryukyus of Japan in the Kuroshio Current). Changes in the path or strength of these currents would impose different temperature regimes on these reefs. There has been concern that ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) will shut down in the future due to changes in ocean temperature and freshwater runoff (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993). Recent modeling predicts a 0–40 percent slowing of THC within this century, but most models do not predict a complete shutdown (Gent, 2001). A slowing of THC would lead to significant changes in oceanic circulation and upwelling patterns that could potentially affect coral reef ecosystems (Vellinga and Wood, 2002), but how THC will be affected by global climate change remains uncertain (Broecker, 2003).

Reefs are key to marine biodiversity—serves as a biological and structural safeguard Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of
Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change Coral reefs,which support more biodiversity than any other marine ecosystem,also alter water energy and circulation in many near-shore environments. This shapes other habitats and protects them from wave impact and coastal erosion. Mangrove systems, for example, often develop in quiet near-shore environments protected by reefs and are highly productive nurseries for many important marine species. Loss of reefs as both biological and structural entities would impoverish the marine biota and potentially reduce the large-scale resilience of tropical and subtropical marine ecosystems.

249

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

North Atlantic Current Key
Failure of the North Atlantic Current drops temperature by 18 degrees. William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The great climate flip-flop,"
The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64) EUROPE is an anomaly. The populous parts of the United States and Canada are mostly between the latitudes of 30° and 45°, whereas the populous parts of Europe are ten to fifteen degrees farther north. "Southerly" Rome lies near the same latitude, 42°N, as "northerly" Chicago — and the most northerly major city in Asia is Beijing, near 40°N. London and Paris are close to the 49°N line that, west of the Great Lakes, separates the United States from Canada. Berlin is up at 52°, Copenhagen and Moscow at about 56°. Oslo is nearly at 60°N, as are Stockholm, Helsinki, and St. Petersburg; continue due east and you'll encounter Anchorage. Europe's climate, obviously, is not like that of North America or Asia at the same latitudes. For Europe to be as agriculturally productive as it is (it supports more than twice the population of the United States and Canada), all those cold, dry winds that blow eastward across the North Atlantic from Canada must somehow be warmed up. The job is done by warm water flowing north from the tropics, as the eastbound Gulf Stream merges into the North Atlantic Current. This warm water then flows up the Norwegian coast, with a westward branch warming Greenland's tip, at 60°N. It keeps northern Europe about nine to eighteen degrees warmer in the winter than comparable latitudes elsewhere — except when it fails. Then not only Europe but also, to everyone's surprise, the rest of the world gets chilled. Tropical swamps decrease their production of methane at the same time that Europe cools, and the Gobi Desert whips much more dust into the air. When this happens something big, with worldwide connections, must be switching into a new mode of operation. The North Atlantic Current is certainly something big, with the flow of about a hundred Amazon Rivers. And it sometimes changes its route dramatically, much as a bus route can be truncated into a shorter loop. Its effects are clearly global too, inasmuch as it is part of a long "salt conveyor" current that extends through the southern oceans into the Pacific.

250

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

North Atlantic Current Collapse  Extinction
Failure of North Atlantic Current would lead to extinction William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The great climate flip-flop,"
The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64) I hope never to see a failure of the northernmost loop of the North Atlantic Current, because the result would be a population crash that would take much of civilization with it, all within a decade. Ways to postpone such a climatic shift are conceivable, however — old-fashioned dam-and-ditch construction in critical locations might even work. Although we can't do much about everyday weather, we may nonetheless be able to stabilize the climate enough to prevent an abrupt cooling.

251

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1NC SO2 DA
Sulfur has a absorbing effect on CO2 molecules and decreases global temperatures William Cotton– Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University “Human Impacts on Weather And Climate, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Press” April 9, 2007 http://icecap.us/docs/change/aerosols.pdf
Clouds, we have seen, are good reflectors of solar radiation and therefore contribute significantly to the net albedo of the Earth system. We thus ask, how might aerosol particles originating through anthropogenic activity influence the radiative properties ofclouds and thereby affect climate? First of all, there are indications that in urban areas aerosols make clouds `dirty' andthereby decrease the albedo of the cloud aerosol layer and increase the absorptance of the clouds Kondrat'yev et al., 1981. This effect appears to be quite localized; being restricted to over and immediately downwind of major urban areas, particularly cities emitting large quantities of black soot particles. Kondrat'yev et al.\ noted that the water samples collected from the clouds they sampled were actually dark in color. A potentially more important impact of aerosol on clouds and climate is that they can serve as a source of cloud condensation nuclei CCN and thereby alter the concentration of cloud droplets. Twomey 1974 first pointed out that increasing pollution results in greater CCN concentrations and greater numbers of cloud droplets, which, in turn, increase the reflectance of clouds. Subsequently, Twomey 1977 showed that this effectwas most influential for optically thin clouds; clouds having shallow depths or littlecolumn integrated liquid water content. Optically thicker clouds, he argued, are already very bright, and are therefore susceptible to increased absorption by the presence of dirty aerosol. In Twomey's words: ``it an increase in global pollution could, at the same time, make thin clouds brighter and thick clouds darker, the crossover in behavioroccurring at a cloud thickness which depends on the ratio of absorption to the cube root of drop nucleus concentration. The sign of the net global effect, warming or cooling,therefore involves both the distribution of cloud thickness and the relative magnitude ofthe rate of increase of cloud-nucleating particles vis-a-vis particulate absorption.}"Subsequently, Twomey et al. 1984 presented observational and theoretical evidence indicating that the absorption effect of aerosols is small and the enhanced albedo effect plays a dominate role on global climate. They argued that the enhanced cloud albedo has a magnitude comparable to that of greenhouse warming see Chapter 11 and acts to coolthe atmosphere. Kaufman et al.1991 concluded that although coal and oil emit 120 times as many CO2 molecules as SO2 molecules, each SO2 molecule is 50-1100 times as effective in cooling the atmosphere than each CO2 molecule is in warming it. This is by virtue of the SO2 molecules' contribution to CCN production and enhanced cloud albedo.Twomey suggests that if the CCN concentration in the cleaner parts of the atmosphere, such as the oceanic regions, were raised to continental atmospheric values, about 10%more energy would be reflected to space by relatively thin cloud layers. He also points out that an increase in cloud reflectivity by 10% is of greater consequence than a similar increase in global cloudiness. This is because while an increase in cloudiness reduces the incoming solar radiation, it also reduces the outgoing infrared radiation. Thus both cooling and heating effects occur when global cloudiness increases. In contrast, an increase in cloud reflectance due to enhanced CCN concentration does not appreciably affect infrared radiation but does reflect more incoming solar radiation which results in a net cooling effect.

252

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Data has proved that aerosol significantly conceals global warming
Spencer Weart (Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, PhD in Physics and Astrophysics, 2007, “Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds and Climate,” http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm). Haze from small particles surely affected climate, but how? Old speculations about the effects of smoke from volcanoes were brought to mind in the 1960s, when urban smog became a major research topic. Some tentative evidence suggested that aerosols emitted by human industry and agriculture could change the weather. A few scientists exclaimed that smoke and dust from human activities would cause a dangerous global cooling. Or would pollution warm the atmosphere? Theory and data were far too feeble to answer the question, and few people even tried to address it. Among these few, the uncertainties fueled vigorous debates, in particular over how adding aerosols might change the planet's cloud cover. Finally, in the late 1970s, powerful computers got to work on the stupefyingly complex calculations, helped by data from volcanic eruptions. It became clear that overall, human production of aerosols was cooling the atmosphere. Pollution was significantly delaying, and concealing, the coming of greenhouse effect warming.

SO2 significantly offsets global warming Dr. P.J. Crutzen (Professor of metereology, majored in Academic Studies and Research activities, Worldwide most cited author in
the Geosciences with 2911 citations from 110 publications during the decade 1991-2001, ISI (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia), Senior Scientist and Director of the Air Quality Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA., ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA?, 2007, http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19632.pdf). Fossil fuel burning releases about 25 Pg of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which leads to global warming (Prentice et al., 2001). However, it also emits 55 Tg S as SO2 per year (Stern, 2005), about half of which is converted to sub-micrometer size sulfate particles, the remainder being dry deposited. Recent research has shown that the warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation by the sulfate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influence the micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precipitation patterns, and increasing cloud albedo (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2000; Ramanathan et al., 2001; Ramaswamy et al., 2001).

Data has proved that aerosol significantly conceals global warming Spencer Weart (Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, PhD in Physics and Astrophysics, 2007, “Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds and Climate,”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm). Haze from small particles surely affected climate, but how? Old speculations about the effects of smoke from volcanoes were brought to mind in the 1960s, when urban smog became a major research topic. Some tentative evidence suggested that aerosols emitted by human industry and agriculture could change the weather. A few scientists exclaimed that smoke and dust from human activities would cause a dangerous global cooling. Or would pollution warm the atmosphere? Theory and data were far too feeble to answer the question, and few people even tried to address it. Among these few, the uncertainties fueled vigorous debates, in particular over how adding aerosols might change the planet's cloud cover. Finally, in the late 1970s, powerful computers got to work on the stupefyingly complex calculations, helped by data from volcanic eruptions. It became clear that overall, human production of aerosols was cooling the atmosphere. Pollution was significantly delaying, and concealing, the coming of greenhouse effect warming.

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Switch to alternative energy means dimming won’t offsets global warming David Sington 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, 1/13/ 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm, “Why the sun seems to be dimming”). 253

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius. This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought. If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. "That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox. Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.

254

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Experts believe aerosol leads to net cooling Spencer Weart (Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, PhD in Physics and Astrophysics, 2007, “Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds and Climate,”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm). Later, beginning around 2002, climatologists were surprised by evidence that hazes were having an even bigger effect than they had supposed. As far back as 1989, Atsumu Ohmura in Switzerland had published evidence that sunlight had been growing dimmer throughout the 20th century. Ohmura’s work had attracted scarcely any attention, even though some computer modellers had begun to worry that their models did not seem to include enough aerosol absorption. Now evidence turned up by other scientists convinced many experts that the Northern Hemisphere, at least, had seen a dimming of 10 percent or more — much more than the experts had thought, indeed probably great enough to affect agriculture. Aerosol pollution was the only plausible cause. "There could be a big gorilla sitting on the dining table, and we didn't know about it," Ramanathan admitted in 2004. Many aerosol specialists now suspected that they had seriously underestimated how strongly greenhouse warming had been held back by the cooling effect of aerosols. If so, then temperatures would now rise more sharply. For the "global dimming" trend was not really global but regional, and during the 1980s it had reversed in many regions. Nobody could explain why this had happened. Perhaps one cause was the pollution controls imposed by some nations, which had certainly been reducing sulfates. The way these sulfates and other aerosols had previously kept some sunlight from reaching the surface had given the world "a false sense of security" about global warming, the respected atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen warned in 2003. Whatever was happening, it was more obvious than ever that the world urgently needed better measurements of aerosols, and better models for how they blocked sunlight.(93a*) = Milestone Large uncertainties also remained in figuring how aerosols interacted with gases, and above all with water vapor (the main "indirect effect”"or "Twomey effect"). Questions were raised once again by detailed observations that confirmed the speculation that had first started scientists worrying back in the 1960s — cirrus clouds did grow from jet contrails, visibly influencing the climate in regions beneath heavily traveled air routes.(94*) Experts published widely divergent models for the formation of such clouds and their absorption of radiation. Controversial measurements published in 1995 claimed that clouds absorbed much more radiation than the conventional estimates said, raising a specter of "missing physics." As one researcher complained, "The complexity of this problem seems to grow with each new study." It was reasonable to expect that improvements in theoretical models and measuring techniques would eventually lead to a reconciliation (indeed within the next decade theory and observations would largely converge), but meanwhile, Ramanathan admitted, "If I wake up with a nightmare, it is the indirect aerosol effect." And this effect was only one of several areas where new studies kept showing that, as Ramanathan and a colleague remarked, people were still "in the early stages of understanding the effects" of aerosols.(95*) This persistent ignorance about aerosols — their direct and indirect effects, and even their concentrations — was the largest single obstacle to attempts to predict future climate, especially for a given region. Funding agencies accordingly pushed vigorous and costly efforts to measure aerosol effects, and significant results accumulated in the early 21st century. Yet different computer models still gave substantially different results, and if some issues were settled, new puzzles appeared in theoretical papers or field studies to provoke new controversies. Nevertheless, most experts felt that they could at least fix a rough range for the gross global consequences. They grew increasingly certain that the sum of human aerosol emissions had a net cooling influence, at least in most parts of the world. Estimates of the magnitude of the cooling (both directly, and indirectly through clouds) ranged from fairly small to quite strong. Pollution was delaying the appearance of greenhouse warming in some industrialized regions and perhaps everywhere. As greenhouse gas emissions continued to accumulate, few doubted that the warming would soon leap past any possible aerosol cooling effects.

255

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Aerosols have the capability to balance our CO2 Judith White, 7-16-2001, Professor at Texas A&M University, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/tau-aph071601.php
Sure, air pollution is bad, but new research indicates that a limited amount of aerosol pollutants in the air could partially counteract global warming, at least on a local scale. Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Don Collins has received grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to design instruments to measure the impacts of aerosol pollution on climate. Collins will use funds from the three-year NASA grant to develop an aircraft-mounted device to study the interaction of aerosols with light, while the five-year NSF grant money will go toward an instrument to determine exactly which particles will form droplets in clouds. "Aerosols are man-made chemical particles that accumulate in our atmosphere," said Collins, who teaches and conducts research in the College of Geosciences' Department of Atmospheric Sciences. "Aerosols are the primary cause of the haze over a city on a polluted day. Certain aerosol particles can absorb sunlight, while others scatter or reflect light. Increased concentrations of particles can also modify clouds, which causes more energy to be reflected back into space." "As the atmosphere becomes more polluted by man's activities, more sunlight may be reflected back into space, leading to a cooling effect on Earth's climate," Collins said. "Although this cooling won't be enough to offset global warming over the entire Earth, it will compete with warming effects on a small scale."

Aerosols counteract at least 75% of CO2 effects WorldNetDaily.com, 6-10-03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32992
It turns out there's a silver lining to the cloud of smog that drapes large cities around the world, as an international team of atmospheric scientists conclude pollution protects the planet from "global warming." The revelation, reported by New Scientist, came out of a workshop in Dahlem, Berlin, earlier this month that was attended by the likes of Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, the former chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. "It looks like the warming today may be only about a quarter of what we would have got without aerosols," Crutzen told New Scientist. "You could say the cooling has done us a big favor." The IPCC and other proponents of global warming believe the past century of human economic activities – especially the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal – have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Proponents say this acceleration of the "greenhouse effect," has caused an estimated increase in the Earth's temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. Using computer models, the IPCC predicts this global warming could amount to an increase in the earth's average temperature by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next century. The panel has warned the long term consequences of this warming range from warmer winters and hotter summers to the melting of the polar icecaps and a rise in mean sea level that will inundate coastal cities and cause devastating droughts, floods, violent storms and spark outbreaks of cholera and malaria. According to New Scientist, IPCC scientists have long suspected aerosols, particles from burning rainforests, crop waste and fossil fuels that block sunlight counteract the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent. Now the news out of the Berlin workshop is the aerosols thwart 75 percent of the warming effect. That would mean they prevented the planet from becoming almost two degrees warmer than it is now. Scientists examined direct measurements of the cooling effect of aerosols reported in the May issue of Science by Theodore Anderson of the University of Washington in Seattle. Earlier calculations only had been inferred from "missing" global warming predicted by climate models.

256

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Reductions of Aerosols have lead to full fledged global warming effects Dr. David M. Chapman, May 2006, Honorary Associate, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney. “Global Warming, are we
hiding behind a smokescreen?” Geodate, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p6-8, 3p In recent years, there has been significant reduction in particulate pollution, especially in the developed world. The outcome has been partly due to replacement of old industrial plant by newer, more efficient technology, but there has also been considerable public pressure on political decision-makers to ‘clean up’ the air. Enforcement of tough emission controls requires technological progress, and can even lead to job creation, so that particulate pollution control measures have been easy for the public to accept. On the other hand, reduction of GHGs is a long-term goal (longer than the period between elections!) and success will entail significant behaviour modification by luxury-loving consumers in the developed world, an unattractive prospect for political decision-makers. It is therefore possible that well-meaning efforts in reducing visible atmospheric pollution such as aerosols will allow the full global warming impact of greenhouse gas emissions to be felt.

Aerosols counteract global warming but when reduced, global warming accelerates. Christian Ruckstuhl, May 2008, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich,
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0812/2008GL034228/ A strong reduction in anthropogenic aerosol concentrations since the 1980s is not surprising given the tremendous efforts made to cut air pollutant emissions. In its recent 25 year report entitled “Clearing the Air”, Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) [2004] reported a 60% reduction in annual SO2 emissions in Europe from 1986 to 2000. Concentrations measured at rural sites in Switzerland and Germany [European Monitoring Evaluation Programme, 2004] show that amongst other gases and particles, SO2 decreased by 80 to 90 % mainly during the first part of the 1990s. But LRTAP also reported a strong increase in SO2 emissions before 1980. These facts and our measurements, as well as recent reports on aerosol reduction over western continents [Streets et al., 2006] and the oceans [Mishchenko et al., 2007] show that solar dimming and the subsequent brightening – or rather solar recovery – is very likely related to changes in anthropogenic aerosols. With respect to the temperature evolution in central Europe, increasing aerosols were apparently effective in masking greenhouse warming after the 1950s [Wild et al., 2007], whereas the observed direct solar forcing due to the strong aerosol decline since the mid-1980s has reinforced greenhouse warming, although the reduction of absorbing aerosols (such as black carbon) might have dampened the reinforcement. [18] Our analyses show that AOD in the lower troposphere over mainland Europe has drastically decreased since 1986, and it is virtually certain that this is due to the strong reduction in anthropogenic aerosol emissions. MODTRAN™ simulations have adequately confirmed the relationship between decreasing AOD and increasing SDRcf [Ruckstuhl, 2008]. Surface radiation measurements show that solar brightening is more related to direct aerosol effects under cloud-free skies than to indirect aerosol cloud effects. The fact that indirect aerosol cloud effects remain small despite the 60% decline in aerosol concentrations is very surprising. However, it is possible that part of the cloud mediated aerosol effect has been compensated by increasing cloudiness due to changing large-scale atmospheric circulation. With respect to the impact on climate or surface temperature, the forcing due to the direct aerosol effect under cloud-free skies is about five times larger than the total net forcing TNR cloud due to changing cloudiness, which to a large part is compensated by longwave cloud effects and results in a week climate forcing of Overall, the aerosol and cloud induced radiative surface climate forcing over mainland Europe has since the 1980s, and has very likely strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

257

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: SO2  Cooling
Aerosols create more, reflective cloud cover Dr. David M. Chapman, May 2006, Honorary Associate, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney. “Global Warming, are we
hiding behind a smokescreen?” Geodate, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p6-8, 3p But that is not all. Aerosols provide the condensation nuclei for most cloud droplets and studies have shown that aerosols of human origin increase the density of cloud droplets, but result in smaller-sized droplets. The small cloud droplets do not form into raindrops as readily as do the larger natural droplets. Studies comparing clouds over pollution tracks with adjacent less-polluted zones have shown that clouds in both zones were of similar size and contained similar amounts of water, but average droplet size in the polluted clouds was much smaller; when precipitation was observed outside pollution tracks, there was lower or nil precipitation within them (Ramanathan, et al, 2001). It is also true that clouds of smaller droplets have higher albedo or reflectivity, leading to further reductions in global irradiance.

258

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: SO2 Hurts Plants
Global dimming increases photosynthesis leading to healthier plants David Adam, (“Goodbye Sunshine,” staff writer for the Gaurdian, Farquhar (mentioned in article) is a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra, Dec 18, 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/18/science.research1).
More importantly, what impact could global dimming have? If the effect continues then it's certainly bad news for solar power, as darker, cloudier skies will reduce its meagre efficiency still further. The effect on photosynthesis, and so on plant and tree growth, is more complicated and will probably be different in various parts of the world. In equatorial regions and parts of the southern hemisphere regularly flooded with light, photosynthesis is likely to be limited by carbon dioxide or water, not sunshine, and light levels would have to fall much further to force a change. In fact, in some cases photosynthesis could paradoxically increase slightly with global dimming as the broken, diffuse light that emerges from clouds can penetrate deep into forest canopies more easily than direct beams of sunlight from a clear blue sky.

Aerosols cause plants to take in more CO2 Dr. David M. Chapman, May 2006, Honorary Associate, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney. “Global Warming, are we
hiding behind a smokescreen?” Geodate, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p6-8, 3p The impact of global dimming on agriculture is largely via photosynthesis and the principal limitation on this process in full sunlight is the concentration of CO2. Most plant canopies usually consist of several leaf layers in which the incoming solar radiation decreases exponentially from layer to layer; therefore low light levels at which photosynthesis is light-limited are common within crop canopies. However, shade within vegetation canopies is greatly reduced on cloudy and/or very hazy days, compared to clear sunny days. On sunny days the rays of the sun shine directly on the plants, but when it is hazy or cloudy much or all of the incoming radiation is bounced off cloud droplets or atmospheric particles, forming what is called the diffuse fraction of solar radiance. Vegetation is sensitive to changes in the diffuse fraction, and Roderick et al (2001) concluded that an unexpected decline in atmospheric CO2 observed following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 was, at least in art, caused by increased vegetation uptake of CO2 as a response to enhancement of the diffuse fraction by volcanic aerosols. Because aerosols in the atmosphere increase the diffuse fraction, it may seem that they would help to enhance plant productivity, but light is not the only limiting factor: there is also water.

259

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

***AFF AT: sO2 da***

260

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

At: SO2 solves warming
Global dimming already killed hundreds of thousands and may kill billions more- causes droughts David Sington (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, 1/13/ 2005, 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."

Global dimming prevents adequate rainfall- has led to millions of deaths and starvation Horizon (BBC program- “Global Dimming,” Jan 15, 2005, PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: Professor of
Applied Ocean Sciences, Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Director, Center for Clouds, Chemistry & Climate (C4), Chief Scientist, Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml). RAMANATHAN: Basically the Global Dimming we saw in the North Indian Ocean, it was contributed on the one hand by the particles themselves shielding the ocean from the sunlight, on the other hand making the clouds brighter. So this insidious soup, consisting of soot, sulphates, nitrates, ash and what have you, was having a double whammy on the Global Dimming. NARRATOR: And when he looked at satellite images, Ramanathan found the same thing was happening all over the world. Over India. Over China, and extending into the Pacific. Over Western Europe... extending into Africa. Over the British Isles. But it was when scientists started to investigate the effects of Global Dimming that they made the most disturbing discovery of all. Those more reflective clouds could alter the pattern of the world's rainfall. With tragic consequences. NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER: Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers here is the closest thing to hell on earth. NARRATOR: The 1984 Ethiopian famine shocked the world. It was partly caused by a decade's long drought right across sub-Saharan Africa - a region known as the Sahel. For year after year the summer rains failed. At the time some scientists blamed overgrazing and poor land management. But now there's evidence that the real culprit was Global Dimming. The Sahel's lifeblood has always been a seasonal monsoon. For most of the year it is completely dry. But every summer, the heat of the sun warms the oceans north of the equator. This draws the rain belt that forms over the equator northwards, bringing rain to the Sahel. But for twenty years in the 1970s and 80s the tropical rain belt consistently failed to shift northwards - and the African monsoon failed. For climate scientists like Leon
Rotstayn the disappearance of the rains had long been a puzzle. He could see that pollution from Europe and North America blew right across the Atlantic, but all the climate models suggested it should have little effect on the monsoon. But then Rotstayn decided to find out what would happen if he took the Maldive findings into account. DR LEON ROTSTAYN (CSIRO Atmospheric Research): What we found in our model was that when we allowed the pollution from Europe and North America to affect the properties of the clouds in the northern hemisphere the clouds reflected more sunlight back to space and this cooled the oceans of the northern hemisphere. And to our surprise the result of this was that the tropical rain bands moved southwards tracking away from the more polluted northern hemisphere towards the southern hemisphere. NARRATOR: Polluted clouds stopped the heat of the sun getting through. That heat was needed to draw the tropical rains northwards. So the life giving rain belt never made it to the Sahel. DR LEON ROTSTAYN: So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the 1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting the properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere. NARRATOR: Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If

his model is correct, what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system. Let me take you to anther part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point six billion people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the Global Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people. NARRATOR: For Ramanathan the implications are clear. PROF 261

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao
VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: There is no choice here we have to cut down air pollution, if not eliminate it altogether.

At: SO2 solves warming
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=getabstract&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.

262

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

SO2 hurts ozone
Aerosols destruct the ozone furthering global warming NASA Facts Online (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html, August 1996)
Aerosols also can act as sites for chemical reactions to take place (heterogeneous chemistry). The most significant of these reactions are those that lead to the destruction of stratospheric ozone. During winter in the polar regions, aerosols grow to form polar stratospheric clouds. The large surface areas of these cloud particles provide sites for chemical reactions to take place. These reactions lead to the formation of large amounts of reactive chlorine and, ultimately, to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. Evidence now exists that shows similar changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations occur after major volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, where tons of volcanic aerosols are blown into the atmosphere (Fig. 1).

263

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

SO2  Acid Rain
SO2 and NO causes acid rain harming the environment and even causing death US EPA (2007, http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/peg/acidrain.html, “Reducing Acid Rain: Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act”).
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.

264

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Impact: Acid Rain – Forests
Acid Rain seriously harms forests, even killing them USEPA (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html, “Effects of Acid Rain- Forests,” June 8th 2007).
Over the years, scientists, foresters, and others have noted a slowed growth of some forests. Leaves and needles turn brown and fall off when they should be green and healthy. In extreme cases, individual trees or entire areas of the forest simply die off without an obvious reason. After much analysis, researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth, injury, or death of forests. Acid rain has been implicated in forest and soil degradation in many areas of the eastern U.S., particularly high elevation forests of the Appalachian Mountains from Maine to Georgia that include areas such as the Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountain National Parks. Of course, acid rain is not the only cause of such conditions. Other factors contribute to the overall stress of these areas, including air pollutants, insects, disease, drought, or very cold weather. In most cases, in fact, the impacts of acid rain on trees are due to the combined effects of acid rain and these other environmental stressors. After many years of collecting information on the chemistry and biology of forests, researchers are beginning to understand how acid rain works on the forest soil, trees, and other plants. Acid Rain on the Forest Floor A spring shower in the forest washes leaves and falls through the trees to the forest floor below. Some trickles over the ground and runs into streams, rivers, or lakes, and some of the water soaks into the soil. That soil may neutralize some or all of the acidity of the acid rainwater. This ability is called buffering capacity, and without it, soils become more acidic. Differences in soil buffering capacity are an important reason why some areas that receive acid rain show a lot of damage, while other areas that receive about the same amount of acid rain do not appear to be harmed at all. The ability of forest soils to resist, or buffer, acidity depends on the thickness and composition of the soil, as well as the type of bedrock beneath the forest floor. Midwestern states like Nebraska and Indiana have soils that are well buffered. Places in the mountainous northeast, like New York's Adirondack and Catskill Mountains, have thin soils with low buffering capacity. How Acid Rain Harms Trees Acid rain does not usually kill trees directly. Instead, it is more likely to weaken trees by damaging their leaves, limiting the nutrients available to them, or exposing them to toxic substances slowly released from the soil. Quite often, injury or death of trees is a result of these effects of acid rain in combination with one or more additional threats. Scientists know that acidic water dissolves the nutrients and helpful minerals in the soil and then washes them away before trees and other plants can use them to grow. At the same time, acid rain causes the release of substances that are toxic to trees and plants, such as aluminum, into the soil. Scientists believe that this combination of loss of soil nutrients and increase of toxic aluminum may be one way that acid rain harms trees. Such substances also wash away in the runoff and are carried into streams, rivers, and lakes. More of these substances are released from the soil when the rainfall is more acidic. However, trees can be damaged by acid rain even if the soil is well buffered. Forests in high mountain regions often are exposed to greater amounts of acid than other forests because they tend to be surrounded by acidic clouds and fog that are more acidic than rainfall. Scientists believe that when leaves are frequently bathed in this acid fog, essential nutrients in their leaves and needles are stripped away. This loss of nutrients in their foliage makes trees more susceptible to damage by other environmental factors, particularly cold winter weather.

265

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

***c02***

266

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1NC CO2 Ag DA
A. Unique Link – C02 is the lifeblood of plants – it increases their water use efficiency, enhances stomatas, allows for plants and animals to live in uninhabitable places, prevents soil erosion, solves all sorts of environmental stress, and solves worldwide starvation
All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 37] 9/10/03 In a broad review of the scientific literature, Idso (2001) describes a number of biological consequences of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The best known of these important impacts is probably CO2's aerial fertilization effect, which works its wonders on plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways of photosynthesis (C3, C4 and CAM). In the case of herbaceous plants, this phenomenon typically boosts their productivities by about a third in response to a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 content, while it enhances the growth of woody plants by 50% or more (see our website's Plant Growth Data section). Next comes plant water use efficiency, which may be defined as the amount of organic matter produced per unit of water transpired to the atmosphere. This parameter is directly enhanced by the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, as well as by its anti-transpirant effect, which is produced by CO2-induced decreases in the number density and degree of openness of leaf stomatal apertures that occur at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here, too, CO2-induced percentage increases as large as, or even larger than, those exhibited by plant productivity are commonplace. One of the important ramifications of this CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency is the fact that it enables plants to grow and reproduce in areas that were previously too dry for them. With consequent increases in ground cover in these regions, the adverse effects of wind- and water-induced soil erosion are also reduced. Hence, there is a tendency for desertification to be reversed and for vast tracts of previously unproductive land to become supportive of more abundant animal life, both above- and below-ground, in what could appropriately be called a "greening of the earth." In addition to helping vegetation overcome the stress of limited water supplies, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 help plants to better cope with other environmental stresses, such as low soil fertility, low light intensity, high soil and water salinity, high air temperature, various oxidative stresses and the stress of herbivory. When confronted with the specter of global warming, for example, many experiments have revealed that concomitant enrichment of the air with CO2 tends to increase the temperature at which plants function at their optimum, often making them even better suited to the warmer environment than they were to the cooler environment to which they were originally adapted. Under the most stressful of such conditions, in fact, extra CO2 sometimes is the deciding factor in determining whether a plant lives or dies. These benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment apply to both agricultural and natural ecosystems; and as Wittwer (1995) has noted, "the rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food production and total biological output in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer." This phenomenon is thus a means, he says, "of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active ecosystems," and that "the effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally."

267

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

1NC CO2 Ag DA
B. Impacts – 1. Decrease in crops yields cause resource wars, mass starvation, atrocity, and World War III. William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The great climate flip-flop,"
The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64) The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem — and could easily lead to a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic. There is another part of the world with the same good soil, within the same latitudinal band, which we can use for a quick comparison. Canada lacks Europe's winter warmth and rainfall, because it has no equivalent of the North Atlantic Current to preheat its eastbound weather systems. Canada's agriculture supports about 28 million people. If Europe had weather like Canada's, it could feed only one out of twenty-three present-day Europeans. Any abrupt switch in climate would also disrupt food-supply routes. The only reason that two percent of our population can feed the other 98 percent is that we have a well-developed system of transportation and middlemen — but it is not very robust. The system allows for large urban populations in the best of times, but not in the case of widespread disruptions. Natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are less troubling than abrupt coolings for two reasons: they're short (the recovery period starts the next day) and they're local or regional (unaffected citizens can help the overwhelmed). There is, increasingly, international cooperation in response to catastrophe — but no country is going to be able to rely on a stored agricultural surplus for even a year, and any country will be reluctant to give away part of its surplus. In an abrupt cooling the problem would get worse for decades, and much of the earth would be affected. A meteor strike that killed most of the population in a month would not be as serious as an abrupt cooling that eventually killed just as many. With the population crash spread out over a decade, there would be ample opportunity for civilization's institutions to be torn apart and for hatreds to build, as armies tried to grab remaining resources simply to feed the people in their own countries. The effects of an abrupt cold last for centuries. They might not be the end of Homo sapiens — written knowledge and elementary education might well endure — but the world after such a population crash would certainly be full of despotic governments that hated their neighbors because of recent atrocities. Recovery would be very slow. A slightly exaggerated version of our present know-something-do-nothing state of affairs is know-nothing-do-nothing: a reduction in science-as-usual, further limiting our chances of discovering a way out. History is full of withdrawals from knowledge-seeking, whether for reasons of fundamentalism, fatalism, or "government lite" economics. This scenario does not require that the shortsighted be in charge, only that they have enough influence to put the relevant science agencies on starvation budgets and to send recommendations back for yet another commission report due five years hence.

2. C02 increases the ability of plants to act as sinks which solves warming
All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 42] 10/15/03 In light of these observations, plus the fact that Saxe et al. (1998) have determined that a doubling of the air's CO2 content leads to more than a doubling of the biomass production of coniferous species, it logically follows that the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is increasing carbon sequestration rates in the soils upon which conifers grow and, hence, is producing a significant negative feedback phenomenon that slows the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, which would be assumed by many to be reducing the rate of global warming.

268

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General
CO2 can double international crop yields while counter acting the negative effects of pollutants
CO2 science magazine, staff writer, October 2001, [“Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could Dramatically Increase Agricultural Production by Thwarting the Adverse Effects of Ozone Pollution, www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n43edit.htm // e.berggren] In a recent study of the effects of ozone pollution in the Punjab region of Pakistan, Wahid et al. (2001) periodically applied a powerful ozone protectant to soybean plants growing in three different locations in the general vicinity of the city of Lahore - a suburban site, a remote rural site, and a rural roadside site - throughout two different growing seasons (one immediately postmonsoon and one the following spring or pre-monsoon). The results were truly astounding. At the suburban site, application of the ozone protectant increased the weight of seeds produced per plant by 47% in the post-monsoon season and by 113% in the pre-monsoon season. At the remote rural site, the corresponding yield increases were 94% and 182%; and at the rural roadside site, they were 170% and 285%. Averaged across all three sites and both seasons of the year, the mean increase in yield caused by countering the deleterious effects of this one major air pollutant was nearly 150%. Due to their somewhat surprising finding that "the impacts of ozone on the yield of soybean are larger in the rural areas around Lahore than in suburban areas of the city," the authors concluded "there may be substantial impacts of oxidants on crop yield across large areas of the Punjab." In addition, they noted that earlier studies had revealed similar large ozone-induced losses in the productivity of local cultivars of wheat and rice. Hence, it is clear that whatever could be done to reduce these massive crop losses - or, ideally, eliminate them altogether - would be a godsend to the people of Pakistan and the inhabitants of many other areas of the globe. Fortunately, such a savior is silently working its wonders throughout the entire world. That of which we speak, of course, is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, which counteracts the negative effects of ozone - and those of many other air pollutants (Allen, 1990; Idso and Idso, 1994) - by restricting the noxious molecule's entry into plant leaves via induced reduction of leaf stomatal apertures (Reid and Fiscus, 1998), and by ameliorating its adverse biochemical activities when it does penetrate vegetative tissues (Reid et al., 1998). In a number of studies of these beneficial consequences of atmospheric CO2 enrichment for the crop studied by Wahid et al., i.e., soybeans, it has been found that a nominal doubling of the air's CO2 concentration is sufficient to greatly reduce - and in some cases completely eliminate - the yield-reducing effects of ozone pollution (Heagle et al., 1998a and 1998b; Miller et al., 1998; Reid and Fiscus, 1998; Reid et al., 1998). The same conclusion follows from the results of several studies that have looked at wheat in this regard (Heagle et al., 2000; McKee et al., 2000; Pleijel et al., 2000; Tiedemann and Firsching, 2000). In fact, the work of Volin et al. (1998) suggests that these CO2-induced benefits will likely be experienced by all plants. As the researchers directly state in the title of their paper: "species respond similarly regardless of photosynthetic pathway or plant functional group." Think about the implications of these findings. A doubling of the air's CO2 content could well double agricultural production in many areas of the world by merely eliminating the adverse effects of but one air pollutant, i.e., ozone. Then, consider the fact that by the mid-point of the current century, we will likely face a food production crisis of unimaginable proportions (see our Editorials of 21 February 2001 and 13 June 2001). Finally, ask yourself what the Precautionary Principle has to say about this state of affairs (see our Editorial of 4 July 2001). We conducted such an exercise in our review of the paper of Hudak et al. (1999), concluding that perhaps our new mantra should be: Free the Biosphere! Let the air's CO2 content rise. And we still feel that way. CO2 is the elixir of life. It is one of the primary raw materials - the other being water - out of which plants construct their tissues; and it is essential to their existence and our existence. Without more of it in the air, our species - as well as most of the rest of the planet's animal life - will not survive the 21st century intact. The biosphere will continue to exist, but not as we know it; for most of its wild diversity of life will have been extinguished by mankind's mad rush to appropriate ever more land and water to grow the food required to feed itself (Tilman et al., 2001).

269

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General
Unchecked CO2 emissions will be barely sufficient to meet the growing food demand Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President of CO2 science magazine and climatologist, 7-4-01, [“Carbon Dioxide and Global Environmental
Change: The Proper Roles of Reason and Religion in Developing Policies Related to Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htm //e.berggren] So what extra measures could humanity take to meet this "greatest global challenge?" This is the question Idso and Idso (2000) address, concluding that if the air’s CO2 concentration is allowed to rise unimpeded by overt actions designed to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the extra plant productivity provided by the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be just barely sufficient to make up for the shortfall in agricultural production that would still remain fifty years from now in spite of everything else man could possibly do to increase the global supply of food.

CO2 increase agricultural production – fertalizes plants, lengthens growing seasons, and increases precipitaion – decreasing food prices Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution/ Standford University, 9-8-00, [Prepared for for the conference on global
climate change, “It is the best of Climates; It will be the worst of Climates?”, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/ClEffects.pdf //e.berggren] In many parts of the world, warmer weather should mean longer growing seasons. Should the world warm, the hotter climate would enhance evaporation from the seas and lead probably to more precipitation worldwide. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 would fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth . Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 fertilization would enhance output by 15 percent (NCPO 1989). The United States Department of Agriculture in a cautious report reviewed the likely influence of global warming and concluded that the overall effect on world food production would be slightly positive and that agricultural prices would be likely to decrease.

CO2 enrichment stimulates plants to grow faster and bigger producing larger yields. Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President of CO2 science magazine and climatologist, 7-4-01, [“Carbon Dioxide and Global Environmental
Change: The Proper Roles of Reason and Religion in Developing Policies Related to Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htm //e.berggren] With respect to plant life, we encounter a somewhat different situation: we need not worry about any direct deleterious effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, for there are none! Right from the very first whiff of extra CO2, nearly all of earth’s plants respond by doing everything they do better than they do under current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They typically grow bigger and faster, producing more and larger leaves, more and larger roots, more and larger flowers, more and larger seeds, grains and fruit, and on and on, as is demonstrated by the many biological Journal Reviews posted on our web site that describe direct experimental investigations of these subjects. In addition, there are literally thousands – and that is no exaggeration – of other such studies not highlighted on our web site that show the very same things. These facts have become so well established over the past several decades that many scientists are now directing their attention to investigating the propensity for atmospheric CO2 enrichment to not only induce plants to produce more biomass, but to promote the production of greater concentrations of health-promoting and medicinal substances within that biomass, as noted in our reviews of the papers of Idso et al. (2000) and Idso and Idso (2001). This effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment could well provide a number of health benefits to humans and animals alike, as the foods they eat become more nutritious and provide greater protection against a number of degenerative diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and immune system decline. In fact, it is possible that the people of the earth and its animal life may already be benefiting from these potential CO2-induced improvements in their diets, as noted in our editorial of 20 June 2001.

270

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General
Doubling CO2 would boost agriculture growth by over 50% Thomas Gale Moore, ]Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution/ Standford University, no month 1998, Climate of fear pg. 114//
e.berggren] In addition, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for plant growth. It boosts both photosynthetic capacity and water-use efficiency. According to peer-reviewed research, a doubling of carbon dioxide would on average boost growth by 52 percent (Wittwer 1997, 12). Moreover, the improved water-use capacity of plants means that less rainfall would be needed to grow crops, thereby economizing on irrigation and perhaps offsetting partially any local reduction in rainfall (Baker and Allen 1994). As a consequence, a boost in carbon dioxide would have a strong beneficial effect on food production.

History proves agriculture does better with warming Thomas Gale Moore, ]Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution/ Standford University, no month 1998, Climate of fear pg. 114//
e.berggren] As Professors Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza put it (1984, 16), ‘‘One of the few variables that would seem to be shared is timing: early experiments at plant domestication occurred in southwest Asia, east Asia, and Central America during the period between 8000 B.C. and 5500 B.C.’’ The coincidence of the invention of agriculture with a general warming of the climate, an increase in rainfall, and a rise in carbon dioxide levels, all of which would have made plant growth more vigorous and more plentiful, cannot be accidental.

Warming increases agricultural outputs IPCC , Habiba Gitay(reporter) et al. Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Mitigation
and Adaptation, Chapter 5: Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services, http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg2/216.htm //e.berggren] Is there an amount of climate change to which the global food production system can adapt with little harm but beyond which it is likely to impose serious hardship? An answer can be sketched only with very low confidence at this time because of the combination of uncertainties noted above. As noted in Section 5.3.2, prices are the best indicator of the balance between global food supply and demand. They determine the access of a majority of the world's populations to an adequate diet. Two of three global studies reviewed here project that real agricultural output prices will decline with a mean global temperature increase of as much as 2.5 degrees C, especially if accompanied by modest increase in precipitation. Another study (Parry et al, 1999) projects that output prices will rise with or without climate change, and even a global mean temperature increase of -1degree C (projected by 2020) causes prices to rise relative to the case with no climate change. When studies from the SAR are included with these more recent ones, there is general agreement that a mean global temperature rise of more than 2.5 degrees C could increase prices (Reilly et al, 1996; Adams et al, 1998; Parry et al, 1999), with one exception (Darwin et al, 1995). Thus with very low confidence, it is concluded from these studies that a global temperature rise of greater than 2.5 degrees C is likely to exceed the capacity of the global food production system to adapt without price increases. However, results are too mixed to support a defensible conclusion regarding the vulnerability of the global balance of agricultural supply and demand to smaller amounts of warming than 2.5 degrees C.

271

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General
CO2 enrichment stimulates crop growth and makes them more easily sustainable 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, 9-5-07, “Global Warming and Chinese Food Security”, http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N36/B1.php // [E.Berggren] The authors used "the A2 (medium-high GHG emission pathway) and B2 (medium-low) climate change scenarios produced by the Regional Climate Model PRECIS, the crop model CERES, and socio-economic scenarios described by IPCC SRES, to simulate the average yield changes per hectare of three main grain crops (rice, wheat, and maize) at 50 km x 50 km scale" for the entire country of China. What was learned: The four researchers from the Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing report finding that "the yield per hectare for the three crops would fall consistently as temperature rises beyond 2.5°C." However, they also found that "when the CO2 fertilization effect was included in the simulation, there were no adverse impacts [our italics] on China's food production under the projected range of temperature rise (0.9-3.9°C)." What it means: if air temperatures continue to rise throughout the next few decades - for whatever reason - it would appear to be imperative that the air's CO2 concentration continue to rise right along with them; for only under such conditions will China, as well as most of the rest of the nations of the world, be able to adequately feed the larger numbers of people that will reside within their boundaries just a few decades hence, without usurping unconscionable amounts of land and freshwater resources from what could be called wild nature, which actions would inevitably lead to the extinctions of innumerable species of both plants and animals.

High levels of CO2 are needed to sustain and increase rice production for a growing population CO2 Science.org, 1-14-04, “Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment: Boosting Rice Yields of Asia”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V7/N2/B2.php // [E.Berggren] "On the basis of both area and tonnage harvested," according to the authors, "Oryza sativa L. (rice) is the most important crop in Asia, providing a significant proportion of the people's dietary needs (Alexandratos, 1995)." Hence, they say that "in view of the expected growth in Asia's population, there is a need to determine how the predicted increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will affect rice yield." What was done: In order to determine the interactive effects of elevated CO2 and nitrogen (N) availability on the grain yield of rice crops grown under temperate flooded paddy conditions, Kim et al. grew rice crops from the seedling stage to maturity at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ambient and ambient plus 200 ppm using FACE technology and three levels of applied nitrogen -- low (LN, 4 g N m-2), medium (MN, 8 and 9 g N m-2), and high (HN, 15 g N m-2) -- for three cropping seasons (1998-2000). What was learned: The authors report that "the yield response to elevated CO2 in crops supplied with MN (+14.6%) or HN (+15.2%) was about twice that of crops supplied with LN (+7.4%)," confirming the importance of N availability to the response of rice to atmospheric CO2 enrichment previously determined by Kim et al. (2001) and Kobaysahi et al. (2001). What it means: In terms of the more common increase in CO2 concentration used to express plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, i.e., 300 ppm, the results of Kim et al. suggest we could likely expect something on the order of a 22% increase in rice yield for the MN treatment, which they say is "similar to that recommended to local farmers." Such a yield increase, courtesy of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, would go a long way towards helping the people of Asia meet the future dietary needs of their expanding population.

272

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – General
Increasing CO2 is necessary to grow adequate amounts of food for the expanding global population – absent CO2 increase “wild nature” goes extinct. 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, and Craig D. Idso is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 5-28-08, “The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”, http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N22/EDIT.php// [E.Berggren] For comparative purposes, the researchers had also included one C3 species in their study -- Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch -and they report that it "showed a near-doubling in biomass compared with [the] 40% increase in the C4 species under growth treatments equivalent to the postglacial CO2 rise." In light of these several findings, it can be appreciated that the civilizations of the past, which could not have existed without agriculture, were largely made possible by the increase in the air's CO2 content that accompanied deglaciation, and that the peoples of the earth today are likewise indebted to this phenomenon, as well as the additional 100 ppm of CO2 the atmosphere has subsequently acquired. With an eye to the future, we have long contended that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will similarly play a pivotal role in enabling us to grow the food we will need to sustain our still-expanding global population in the year 2050 without usurping all of the planet's remaining freshwater resources and much of its untapped arable land, which latter actions would likely lead to our driving most of what yet remains of "wild nature" to extinction. Rising CO2 has served both us and the rest of the biosphere well in the past; and it will do the same in the future ... unless we turn and fight against it.

CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and live in drier climates – with out more CO2 the earth will be in jeopardy Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers and other multiple peer reviewed science journals, June 7, 2008, [“In praise of CO2; With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less
green”, L/N //e.berggren] Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent studies, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century." Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again. This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed -- CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool -- will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.

273

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Peer Reviewed
159 Peer-reviewed scientific journanls conclude that CO2 increases agriculture growth Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service
at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith Idso, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig Idso, Chairman Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, July 2002, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n42edit.htm // e.berggren] In a recent analysis of 159 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published between 1983 and 2000, dealing with the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the reproductive growth characteristics of several domesticated and wild plants, Jablonski et al. (2002) calculated some interesting mean responses. For increases in the air's CO2 concentration ranging from approximately 150 to 450 ppm (rough average of 300 ppm), they found that, across all species studied, the extra CO2 supplied to the plants resulted in more flowers (+19%), more fruits (+18%), more seeds (+16%), greater individual seed mass (+4%), greater total seed mass (+25%, equivalent to yield), and greater total mass (+31%).

274

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants –Water Efficiency
CO2 increases plants’ ability to retain more water and for longer periods of time – allowing them to grow in periods of drought Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service
at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith Idso, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig Idso, Chairman Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, june 2004, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N25/EDIT.php //e.berggen] Another important finding of the group of Colorado researchers was, in their words, that when averaged over the study period, "leaf water potential was enhanced 24-30% under elevated CO2 in the major warm- and cool-season grass species of the SGS (Bouteloua gracilis, C4, 28.5%; Pascopyrum smithii, C3, 24.7%; Stipa comata, C3, 30.4%)." They say these results are similar to those of "studies involving other C3 and C4 grass species (Owensby et al., 1993; Jackson et al., 1994)," and that the enhanced leaf water potential - "which reflects improved plant water status and increased drought tolerance (Tyree and Alexander, 1993)" may lead to increased leaf turgor and allow the grasses "to continue growth further into periods of drought." Hence, it is not surprising that, averaged over the five years of the study, Nelson et al. found that "water-use efficiency (g aboveground biomass harvested / kg water consumed) was 43% higher in elevated than ambient CO2 plots."

CO2 increases water efficiency in plants and allows them to flourish with minimal water supply CO2 Science.org, 10-7-07, “Drought Stress Effects on Wheat and the Mitigating Effect of CO2”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N41/B1.php //[E.Berggren] The authors grew spring wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Minaret) in open-top chambers on an experimental field of the Federal Agricultural Research Center in Braunschweig, Germany, in two different growing seasons at either current or future (current + 280 ppm) atmospheric CO2 concentrations and under sufficient-water-supply (WET) or drought-stress (DRY) conditions, the latter of which was imposed just after the crop first-node stage was reached (approximately 35 days after emergence) by halving the subsequent water supplied to the plants. What was learned: Manderscheid and Weigel found that, "in both years, biomass and grain yield were decreased by drought and increased by CO2 enrichment," with the positive CO2 effect being greater under drought conditions. "Averaged over both years," as they describe it, "CO2 enrichment increased biomass and grain yield under WET conditions by <=10% and under DRY conditions by >=44%." In addition, they likewise determined that the CO2-induced increase in crop water-use efficiency was 20% in the sufficient-water-supply treatment and 43% in the drought-stress treatment. What it means: Based on their findings, the two German researchers concluded that "negative effects on wheat yield resulting from increased water shortage, as predicted from global climate models for the future [our italics], may be mitigated by the higher CO2 concentration and yield may be decreased to a lesser extent if all other environmental conditions remain the same." But the truth is even better than that. As recently noted by Wentz et al. (2007), for example, one of the most important environmental conditions pertaining to this conclusion is clearly not "remaining the same," for as stated in the mini-abstract of the latter researchers' paper in Science's table of contents, "humidity and precipitation unexpectedly increased at the same rate in response to global warming during the past 20 years, yielding more rainfall than predicted by models [our italics]." As a result, we can realistically expect future wheat yields to be significantly enhanced by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content throughout the coming decades of continued fossil fuel utilization.

275

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Drought Resistance
Data shows that warming increases drought resistancy
Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, 7-31-02, “Responses of Agricultural Crops to Free-Air CO2 Enrichment”, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N31/EDIT.php // e.berggren] In discussing these several observations, Kimball et al. note that "growth stimulations were as large or larger under water-stress compared to well-watered conditions." They also note that "roots were generally stimulated more than shoots," and that "woody perennials had larger growth responses to elevated CO2, while at the same time their reductions in stomatal conductance were smaller." Also, although "growth stimulations of non-legumes were reduced at low-soil nitrogen," they note that "elevated CO2 strongly stimulated the growth of the clover legume both at ample and under low nitrogen conditions." All of the above observations are consistent with what has been observed in other types of CO2 enrichment experiments over the years, with one significant exception. The CO2-induced decreases in stomatal conductance observed in the FACE studies are about 50% greater than those observed in prior non-FACE experiments, which suggests that the water use efficiency of these particular crops - and perhaps other plants as well - may be increased considerably more by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content (perhaps by as much as 50% more) than what had previously been thought likely. In conclusion, we can safely say that the wealth of FACE data that has been obtained since 1989 has only served to strengthen our positive view of the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Earth's biosphere, of which we are an integral part, has already benefited immensely from the 100-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration brought to us as an unanticipated consequence of the Industrial Revolution; and we and all of nature will benefit still more from increases yet to come.

276

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Photosynthesis
CO2 stimulates plant growth and photosynthesic responses to rising temperature. Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service
at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith Idso, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig Idso, Chairman Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, june 2003, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/extinction/mr1ch2.php ] Possibly helping warmer temperatures to produce this unique biological phenomenon during the Tertiary were the higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations of that period (Volk, 1987), as has been suggested by Idso (1989). It is a well known fact, for example, that elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 significantly stimulate plant growth rates (Kimball, 1983) – especially those of trees (Saxe et al., 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001) – and that they also greatly enhance their water use efficiencies (Feng, 1999). Even more important, however, is how atmospheric CO2 enrichment alters plant photosynthetic and growth responses to rising temperatures, as we discuss in the following section.

277

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Pollution Resistance
CO2 has a positive effect on plants making them grow faster and larger, resistant to temperature extremes and to injury from air pollutants. Sylvan H. Wittwer, Professor of Horticulture and Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University. 1992 “Rising Carbon
Dioxide Is Great for Plants” http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation. This good news about carbon dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible global climate changes.

278

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 K to Plants – Adaptation
CO2 stimulates plant growth, enables them to growth faster and larger even in dryer climates. Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. and professor of climate change, Fall 2007, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide”, http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf] The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth. Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification. Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence—actual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate—shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

279

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2 Solves Species Extinction
Its try or die either increase CO2 for agriculture productivity or watch the extinction of millions of unique species. Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith Idso, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, September 4, 2002, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php In conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-thirds of all species of plants and animals on the face of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, if world agricultural output is not dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence will occur simply because we will need more land to produce what is required to sustain us and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase, because we will simply take that land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in agricultural productivity is not possible, even with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, however, Idso and Idso (2000) have shown that we should be able - but just barely - to meet our expanding food needs without bringing down the curtain on the world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist this reality is truly incredible. More CO2 means life for the planet; less CO2 means death ... and not just the death of individuals, but the death of species. And to allow, nay, cause the extinction of untold millions of unique and irreplaceable species has got to rank close to the top of all conceivable immoralities.

280

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Warming Good – Food
Sattelites show human-induced warming has caused increase growth of plants & increased food production Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist, wrote many books and articles in scientific journals about climate change, 11/3/04 “is global
warming always bad,” published at the Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2872 Objectively speaking, any environmental change should have both positive benefits and negative effects. For example, theory predicts and observations confirm that human-induced warming takes place primarily in winter, lengthening the growing season. Satellite measurements now show that the planet is greener than it was before it warmed. There are literally thousands of experiments reported in the scientific literature demonstrating that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations -- cause by human activity -dramatically increase food production. So why do we only hear one side about global warming?

281

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

Ag O/W Warming
The Agricultural crisis dwarfs any possible impact of global warming and is more probable
Dr. Craig D. Idso, President co2 science magazine and climatologist and Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President and climatologist, 6-13-01, [“Two Crises of Unbelievable Magnitude: Can We Prevent One Without Exacerbating the Other?”, http://co2science.org//articles/V4/N24/EDIT.php Two potentially devastating environmental crises loom ominously on the horizon. One is catastrophic global warming, which many people claim will occur by the end of the next century. The other is the need to divert essentially all usable non-saline water on the face of the earth to the agricultural enterprises that will be required to meet the food and fiber needs of humanity's growing numbers in but half a century (Wallace, 2000; Tilman et al., 2001). This necessary expansion of agriculture will also require the land that currently supports a full third of all tropical and temperate forests, savannas and grasslands, according to Tilman, et al., who also correctly state that the destruction of that important natural habitat will lead to the extinction of untold numbers of plant and animal species. How do the magnitudes of the two crises compare? Tilman et al. suggest that the coming agriculturally-driven crisis is likely to rival that of predicted climate change, placing the two disasters on pretty much an equal footing. Wallace, however, is unequivocal in his contention that the agricultural crisis dwarfs the climate crisis. "There can be," he says, "no greater global challenge today on which physical and social scientists can work together than the goal of producing the food required for future generations." It is our judgment that the conclusion of Wallace is the more robust of the two, based on the simple fact that the agriculturally-driven crisis is almost certain to occur, whereas there is still doubt about the climate crisis. We also believe that Tilman et al. would probably not dispute this contention; for it is their own conclusion that "even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems," meaning the future scarcity of food, fiber, land and water described above. This conclusion as to the unavoidability of the agricultural crisis is further buttressed by the fact that Tilman et al.'s analysis even assumed a reasonable rate of advancement in technological expertise, as we also assumed in an earlier analysis of the identical problem that arrived at essentially the same conclusion (Idso and Idso, 2000).

282

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Impact—Starvation (Billions Die)
Billions will starve without more food Jerusalem Post 11/15/01
Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP, said: "Billions of people across the tropics depend on crops such as rice, maize and wheat for their very survival. These new findings indicate that large numbers are facing acute hunger and malnutrition unless the world acts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." "The population of Asia is expected to increase by 44 percent in the next 50 years and yields must at least match that growth rate if famine is to be avoided. Currently more than half the people in South East Asia have a calorie intake that is inadequate for an active life, and ten million children die annually from diseases related to malnutrition.

283

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Sinks
Recent studies show that increased CO2 content increases plants’ ability to develop necessary carbon sinks. 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, 1-4-08, http://co2science.org//articles/V5/N3/COM.php Woody plant encroachment upon arid and semiarid grasslands and savannas has been an ubiquitous natural phenomenon experienced throughout the entire world over the course of the past century or more (Idso, 1995), driven - at least partially, many believe - by the contemporaneous rise in the air's CO2 concentration (Knapp and Soule, 1998, Soule and Knapp, 1999). Is it possible this phenomenon may be responsible for sequestering much of the planet's so-called missing carbon, an unidentified but growing repository of organic matter needed to explain the less-than-predicted rate-of-rise of the air's CO2 content that is calculated on the basis of known sources and sinks of this important greenhouse gas? A recent study sheds new light on this critical subject, suggesting the answer is yes. Working in the La Copita Research Area southwest of Alice, Texas, Hibbard et al. (2001) analyzed several chemical and physical properties of the top ten centimeters of soils in remnant herbaceous areas and patches of woody vegetation in various stages of invasive development. Compared to soils beneath herbaceous vegetation, they found that the soils beneath the tree/shrub areas had much greater concentrations of both carbon (C) and nitrogen (N); and a companion study of soil C and N across woody patches ranging in age from 10 to 110 years indicated that these variables had experienced a linear increase through time. What was the source of these C and N increases? In a word, roots. The authors write they "were surprised by the magnitude of root biomass in surficial soils of woody patches, which greatly exceeded that of herbaceous patches and which greatly exceeded that of foliar litter inputs." Citing a number of studies of rates of root turnover in herbaceous and woody-plant ecosystems, they concluded that "the role of belowground inputs in fueling changes in surficial soil C and N stocks ... accompanying shifts from grass to woody plant domination may therefore be more substantial than previously appreciated." How much more substantial? In broaching this question, the authors began by noting that "the contrasts between woody and herbaceous patches reported here are conservative in that they do not include an assessment of whole plant C and N stocks," i.e., root biomass below ten centimeters depth and woody biomass aboveground. With respect to the first of these factors, they cite several studies that have detected greater soil C concentrations beneath woody vs. herbaceous vegetation to depths of 100 to 400 centimeters. With respect to the second factor, they likewise cite evidence suggesting that "plant C mass has increased tenfold with the conversion of grassland to savanna woodland over the past 100 years." So what do these findings imply about the world as a whole? The authors note that since "woody plant expansion into drylands has been geographically widespread over the past century," and since "40% of the terrestrial biosphere consists of arid and semiarid savanna, shrubland, and grassland ecosystems, this type of vegetation change may be of significance to the global C and N cycle." To fully quantify the significance of this phenomenon, however, they say we must obtain better information on "the historic or modern rate, areal extent, and pattern of woody plant expansion in the world's drylands." Vigorous pursuit of this information via remote sensing techniques that show promise of quantifying grass vs. woody plant biomass in grasslands and savannas, coupled with everevolving ecosystem modeling techniques, may soon provide the answers we seek. From what we already know, however, it's a good bet that Hibbard, Archer, Schimel and Valentine have laid the necessary groundwork for resolving the dilemma of the world's missing carbon. It's likely to be found in the soils and standing biomass of woody plants that have invaded earth's grasslands and savannas over the period of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration that has accompanied the progression of civilization since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

284

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Sinks
Data in New York revealed that trees absorb and store greenhouse gasses removing pollution from the air. Science Daily Magazine, sudy and report on works cited for carbon sequestration, 5-7-07, [“Right Mix Of Trees Fights Global
Warming Environmental Scientists Find Tree Combo For Carbon Sequestration”, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:sAMnVURIYyoJ:www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0504right_mix_of_trees_fights_global_warming.htm+carbon+sequestration+global+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a Cities in the United States have lost more than 20 percent of their trees in 10 years. Richard Smardon, Ph.D., is an Environmental Planner at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York, attributes the disappearing trees to more construction around the country. Dr. Smardon says one huge benefit of trees is that they store so much carbon, which is good for the environment. He explains, "The more carbon we store in the tree, the less goes into the atmosphere." Dr. Smardon and forester Allan Drew, Ph.D., have found the perfect mix of trees for Syracuse, New York, a combination that packs a hefty environmental punch. Dr. Drew says they are working on changing one city at a time. He told Ivanhoe, "We are making a conscious effort to produce communities that have better air quality and better health for the people that live there." In a yearround venture, Dr. Smardon and Dr. Drew found 31 trees that are high performers in the region, like the sycamore. Their goal is to get people to protect and plant those trees in their neighborhoods, so everyone can make a change. Dr. Smardon says it's easy, "It's like using solar cells on your roof or driving a hybrid car. It's something the individual can do so they know they are making a difference." Trees absorb and store greenhouse gases. A USDA study shows the trees in New York City alone remove 1,800 metric tons of air pollution from the local atmosphere. They provide shade, which also reduces how much energy we use.

285

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: Sinks
The rising temperatures are allowing plants to store and take more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses creating a negative feedback. 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, and Craig D. Idso is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2004, http://co2science.org/articles/V4/N2/COM.php The amount of carbon stored above and beneath a unit area of land is basically a function of two biochemical processes, photosynthesis and respiration. During photosynthesis, plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere and utilize it to construct their tissues, where it is safely retained until it is respired back to the atmosphere. Thus, if the total amount of photosynthesis occurring over a given area of land is greater than the total amount of respiration occurring above and beneath its surface, that area of land is said to be a carbon sink. Conversely, if the amount of photosynthesis is less than the amount of respiration, the area is said to be a carbon source. For many years, theoretical models of ecosystem dynamics suggested that global warming would reduce both the magnitude and number of terrestrial carbon sinks by increasing ecosystem respiration more than it increased ecosystem photosynthesis. If true, this result would dash all hopes of mitigating CO2-induced global warming via biological carbon sequestration. However, like model-based predictions of climate change, there are a number of problems with this prediction as well. The primary problem is the simple fact that most observational evidence does not support the model predictions of reduced soil carbon storage under elevated temperatures. Fitter et al. (1999), for example, evaluated the effect of temperature on plant decomposition and soil carbon storage, finding that upland grass ecosystem soils artificially heated by nearly 3°C increased both root production and root death by equivalent amounts. Hence, they concluded that in these ecosystems, elevated temperatures "will have no direct effect on the soil carbon store." Similarly, Johnson et al. (2000) warmed Arctic tundra ecosystems by nearly 6°C for eight full years and still found no significant effect of that major temperature increase on ecosystem respiration. Furthermore, Liski et al. (1999) showed that carbon storage in soils of both high- and low-productivity boreal forests in Finland actually increased with warmer temperatures along a natural temperature gradient. Why the big discrepancy between model predictions and reality? According to a recent paper in the Annals of Botany, there are two potential explanations: (1) ecosystem modelers are over-estimating the temperature dependency of soil respiration, and (2) warming may increase the rate of certain physico-chemical processes that transfer organic carbon to more stable soil organic matter pools, thereby enabling the protected carbon to avoid or more strongly resist decomposition (Thornley and Cannell, 2001). That the first of these explanations is viable is demonstrated by the results of the studies just described. The second explanation is also reasonable. Thornley and Cannell hypothesize, for example, that the pertinent physico-chemical processes require a certain amount of activation energy to attach organic materials onto soil minerals or bring them together into aggregates that are less subject to decomposition; and they suggest that higher temperatures can provide that energy. Taking their hypothesis one step further, Thornley and Cannell developed a dynamic soil model in which they demonstrate that if their thinking is correct, "longterm soil carbon storage will appear to be insensitive to a rise in temperature, even if the respiration rates of all [soil carbon] pools respond to temperature as assumed by [most models]," which is, in fact, what experimental and real-world data clearly indicate to be the case. The upshot of these several observations is that global warming does not cause terrestrial carbon sinks to release additional CO2 to the atmosphere and thereby exacerbate the warming, as was fervently believed up until the last few years. In fact, it is much more likely that rising temperatures may do just the opposite, inducing a negative feedback phenomenon that enables greater amounts of carbon to be sequestered, which would tend to decrease the rate of CO2induced warming. Clearly, the biosphere is well adapted to responding to environmental challenges; and this one is no exception. When the going gets hot, the earth knows how to keep its cool.

286

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

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 CO2induced 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.

287

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Weeds
CO2 increases contribute to the invasiveness of plants allowing them to combat weeds, also population growth in weeds drop with warming increases.
CO2 Science.org, 4-2-08, “Invasive Species in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer World”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N14/B2.php//[E.Berggren] The authors write that "it is generally believed that characteristics that contribute to the invasiveness of a plant, namely broad environmental tolerance, high relative growth rate and high fecundity, are the very traits that would be favored in a warmer, high-CO2 world," and they note that "previous research has demonstrated substantial impacts of elevated CO2 on selected invasive species, mostly indicating that elevated CO2 does increase weed invasion success, particularly when the invasive species [are] C3 plants." What was done: Among other things, Williams et al. investigated this hypothesis at the Tasmanian FreeAir CO2 Enrichment (TasFACE) facility, which is located in a native lowland grassland in the southern midlands region of Tasmania, Australia, where they studied the impacts of an imposed 170-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and a 2°C rise in air temperature over the period stretching from the spring of 2003 to the summer of 2006, during which time they documented annual seed production, seedling emergence, seedling survival and adult survival of four abundant perennial species, including the two most dominant invading weeds: Hypochaeris radicata L. and Leontodon taraxacoides (Vill.) Merat, which are members of the Asteraceae family. What was learned: The six researchers determined there were no significant CO2-induced differences in the population growth rates of either weed species; but they found that the population growth rates of both of them "were substantially reduced by warming." What it means: Williams et al. concluded from their findings that "global warming may be a more important determinant of the success of invasive species than CO2 concentration," and they say their results suggest that both of the invading weed species they studied in Tasmania "are likely to be excluded [our italics] from the grassland community by increasing temperatures."

288

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

AT: Soil Erosion
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.

289

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

***aff AT: co2 ag da***

290

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2  Weeds
Increased CO2 alters vital growth patterns in weeds – These alterations inherently make them more combustable and will spark wide-spread wild fires on a scale never seen. Tom Christopher, studied and frequently writes about horticulture for the New York times, June 29, 2008, [works cited from
Lewis Ziska, a –weed ecologist with the Agriculture Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’, L/N//E.Berggren] The spread of cheatgrass has been widely attributed to the degradation of native grasslands by overgrazing -- cattle prefer and selectively eat the native grasses -- and more especially to its exceptional combustibility. Periodic fires are an integral part of the rangeland ecology, but when the rangeland is still dominated by native grasses, fires occur in some areas at average intervals of every 60 to 110 years. In areas overrun by cheatgrass, however, fire sweeps through every three to five years. While cheatgrass can tolerate such frequent burns, the native flora cannot. Cheatgrass's combustibility is inherent in the plant's pattern of growth. Sprouting in the fall, it resumes growth at winter's end to mature and set seed in early summer, whereupon the plant dies, leaving a tuft of dry, highly flammable leaves through the following dry season. Ziska and his colleagues discovered, though, that the weed's flammability seems to have been greatly augmented by the increases in atmospheric CO2 that occurred during the period of cheatgrass's spread through the West. The scientists grew the plant at four concentrations of CO2: at 270 p.p.m. (the ambient level at the beginning of the 19th century, before the Industrial Revolution), at 320 p.p.m. (a 1960s level), 370 p.p.m. (a 1990s level) and 420 p.p.m. (the approximate level predicted for 2020 in all the climate-change panel's estimates). What they found was that an increase of CO2 equivalent to that occurring from 1800 until today raised the total mass of material (the biomass) each cheatgrass plant produced by almost 70 percent. In addition, the composition of the cheatgrass changed as the CO2 level increased, the tissues becoming more carbon-rich so that the plant leaves and stems are less susceptible to decay. In a natural setting, this would mean that the dead material would persist longer, adding yet more fuel for wildfire. More fuel, with a longer life -- Ziska says that the rise in greenhouse gases we have already achieved may have played a decisive role in the spread of a weed that has already transformed the ecology of the Western United States. The situation seems likely to worsen too. The cheatgrass that Ziska grew at the CO2 level equal to that projected for 2020 increased the plant's biomass by another 18 percent above current levels. Global climate change, it seems, will further stoke the rangeland wildfires.

The immediate impact of forest fires hurt biodiversity, crush corporations, deplete water, and erode soil
World Wildlife Foundation 9/12/06 http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_fires/index.cfm The immediate impact of forest fires can be devastating to human communities and forest ecosystems alike. Fires can alter the structure and composition of forests, opening up areas to invasion by fast-colonizing alien species and threaten biological diversity. Buildings, crops and plantations are destroyed and lives can be lost. For companies, fire can mean the destruction of assets; for communities, besides loss of an important resource base, fire can also lead to environmental degradation through impacts on water cycles, soil fertility and biodiversity; and for farmers, fire may mean the loss of crops or even livelihoods.

291

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

XTN: CO2  Weeds

Weeds benefit more from CO2 enrichment – also leads to them becoming more resistant to herbicides and harder and more expensive to control. Tom Christopher, studied and frequently writes about horticulture for the New York times, June 29, 2008, [works cited from
Lewis Ziska, a –weed ecologist with the Agriculture Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’, L/N//E.Berggren] Ziska, together with Bunce, has been testing the effects of changing CO2 concentrations on a range of crop and weed species. Wending his way through a basement full of pumps, filters and boxlike aluminum growth chambers, Ziska showed himself to be a connoisseur of atmospheres. Peering at the instrument panel outside one growth chamber, he noted a CO2 concentration of 310 p.p.m. ''That's a 1957 atmosphere, the year of my birth,'' he said. What he and his colleagues have found, he said, is that weeds benefit far more than crop plants from the changes in CO2 and that the implications of this for agriculture and public health are grave. Tests with common agricultural weeds like Canada thistle and quack grass found them more resistant to herbicides when grown in higher concentrations of CO2, making them harder to control. Ziska hypothesizes that this may be a result of faster growth; the weeds mature more rapidly, leaving behind more quickly the seedling stage during which they are most vulnerable. This promises to be an expensive problem for farmers, who will have to spend more on chemicals and other anti-weed measures to protect their crops. (Herbicides already cost farmers more than $10 billion annually worldwide.)

Higher CO2 levels make weeds and poison ivy grow stronger. Weeds produce twice as much pollen and poison ivy is more virulent.
The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine But enhancing CO2 levels, Ziska has found, not only augments the growth rate of many common weeds, increasing their size and bulk; it also changes their chemical composition. When he grew ragweed plants in an atmosphere with 600 p.p.m. of CO2 (the level projected for the end of this century in that same climate-change panel “B2 scenario”), they produced twice as much pollen as plants grown in an atmosphere with 370 p.p.m. (the ambient level in the year 1998). This is bad news for allergy sufferers, especially since the pollen harvested from the CO2-enriched chamber proved far richer in the protein that causes the allergic reaction. Poison ivy has also demonstrated not only more vigorous growth at higher levels of CO2 but also a more virulent form of urushiol, the oil in its tissue that provokes a rash.

Weeds benefiting from increased CO2 will change the ecology and landscapes of much of the eastern US in the next 3 decades. It has already started. The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate
Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine Subsequent speakers got down to cases. Andrew McDonald, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University, had used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s high projections for CO2 levels at the middle and end of the century to create an atlas of potential weed migrations in cornfields in the Eastern United States. If these projections prove accurate, Kentucky, by the end of the next one to three decades, should have a climate (and weed flora) resembling that of present-day North Carolina; by century’s end, it will have shifted to a regime more like that of Louisiana. Delaware, over the same period, will be transformed to something first like North Carolina and then Georgia, while Pennsylvania will metamorphose into West Virginia and then North Carolina. Florida will become something unprecedented in this country. Field observations indicate that these transformations are already under way: another speaker pointed out that kudzu, “the weed that ate the South,” has already migrated up to central Illinois and by 2015 could be extending its tendrils into Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

292

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2  Cheatgrass
Cheatgrass, a weed benefitting from the increase in CO2 has displaced food, reduced livestock, and deterred wildlife. The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate
Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine According to Ziska, the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution may have already had a major impact on the growth of at least one supremely costly weed. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), a native of central Asia, is believed to have been introduced into the United States accidentally, as seeds in soil used to ballast ships or as a contaminant in agricultural seed, in the mid-1800s. Since then, its ability to flourish in dry habitats and its prolific seed production (a single plant can bear as many as 5,000 seeds) has helped it to overrun 100 million acres of Western rangeland, an area larger than the state of Wyoming. In doing so, cheatgrass has displaced more nutritious native grasses, reducing the quantity of livestock a given acreage can support. Cheatgrass has also diminished the land’s value to wildlife, which also finds the introduced plant unpalatable.

Cheatgrass is combustible starting fires 20 times more often than areas without the weed. Its increase in combustibility is directly linked to increased CO2.
The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine The spread of cheatgrass has been widely attributed to the degradation of native grasslands by overgrazing — cattle prefer and selectively eat the native grasses — and more especially to its exceptional combustibility. Periodic fires are an integral part of the rangeland ecology, but when the rangeland is still dominated by native grasses, fires occur in some areas at average intervals of every 60 to 110 years. In areas overrun by cheatgrass, however, fire sweeps through every three to five years. While cheatgrass can tolerate such frequent burns, the native flora cannot. Cheatgrass’s combustibility is inherent in the plant’s pattern of growth. Sprouting in the fall, it resumes growth at winter’s end to mature and set seed in early summer, whereupon the plant dies, leaving a tuft of dry, highly flammable leaves through the following dry season. Ziska and his colleagues discovered, though, that the weed’s flammability seems to have been greatly augmented by the increases in atmospheric CO2 that occurred during the period of cheatgrass’s spread through the West.

Cheatgrass has changed western United States ecology as a result of increased CO2 and is projected to start even more wildfires than it already does.
The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine More fuel, with a longer life — Ziska says that the rise in greenhouse gases we have already achieved may have played a decisive role in the spread of a weed that has already transformed the ecology of the Western United States. The situation seems likely to worsen too. The cheatgrass that Ziska grew at the CO2 level equal to that projected for 2020 increased the plant’s biomass by another 18 percent above current levels. Global climate change, it seems, will further stoke the rangeland wildfires.

293

Global Warming Supplement DDI 2008 – SS Neeraja & Hao

CO2 Hurts Plant Protein
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.

294

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful