Warming Bad

Uniqueness Debate
Warming Now

Earth's temperature is warming
National Geographic, No Date. "Is Global Warming Real?" Article.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-real/

In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown,
this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how
best to respond. Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to
see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around
the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius)
over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. This doesnt mean that temperatures haven't
fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the
course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward.

Scientists agree global warming is occurring
National Aeronautics and Space Association, 2013. "Global Climate Change Consensus: 97% of
Climate Scientists Agree". http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century
are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have
issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to
their published statements and a selection of related resources. American scientific societies statement on climate
change from 18 scientific associations, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate
change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted
by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
2
; International academies: Joint statement, "Climate change is real. There
will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worlds climate. However there is now strong evidence that
significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising
surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases
in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It
is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


IPCC Report show global warming trends continue
Biello, David. September 27, 2013. "Global Warming Is Real IPPC Repeats- Now Can We Do Something
about It?" Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-reiterates-global-
warming-is-real/

In the time since the 2007 version of this report, the human effect on the climate has grown more than 40 percent
stronger, thanks to continued emissions of greenhouse gases and more precision in measurements,
with carbon dioxide leading the charge. That moleculereleased by the gigaton from human activities like fossil fuel burning and clearing
forestscauses the bulk of global warming. The good news is that extreme global warming by century's end, anything above 3 degrees
C or more, seems "extremely unlikely," in the words of the IPCC. That's a fact likely to be seized on by
those who wish to deny climate change. But, in some sense, this summary is aimed directly at
countering some of the misinformation and misinterpretation around climate change. So the report
notes that the current "pause" in new global average temperature records since 1998a year that saw the second
strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming recordsdoes not reflect the long-term trend and may be explained by
the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the
cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions. The Medieval Warm Period was only a regional anomaly, not the kind of global warming seen
now. After all, 1983-2012 appears to have been the warmest period in at least the last 1400 years and the last decade alone is the warmest on record

Tipping Point Now

Tipping Point To Be Reached Within Five-Ten Years Cutting Emissions Now is Key
Kamp and Light 13 (Karin Kamp, Senior Digital Producer for Bill Moyers, multimedia journalist and
producer. John Light, Associate Digital Producer for Bill Moyers, works on multimedia projects for
Moyers & Company, as a public radio producer and a freelance writer and filmmaker. His work has been
supported by grants from The Nation Institute Investigative Fund and the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia
Awards, among others. Bill Moyers.com, The Fast-Approaching Point of No Return for Climate
Change, http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/27/action-urgently-needed-on-climate-change/, 7/16/14, AC)
For the first time, the worlds top climate change scientists have endorsed an upper limit on greenhouse gas
emissions, establishing a target level for curbing emissions that if not achieved could lead to
irreversible and potentially catastrophic climatic changes. In a report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the UNs climate panel, scientists also said that the target is likely to be exceeded in a matter of decades
unless steps are taken soon to reduce emissions. To contain these changes will require substantial
and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists said. The panel hopes that its latest report will help move
international policymakers toward agreement on a new climate treaty, as negotiations have stalled in recent years. The report also concluded
that many of the observed changes in climate since 1950 were unprecedented over decades to
millennia and that over half of the temperature increases were man-made. Our assessment of the
science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has
diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and that concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased, said Qin Dahe, co-chair of the IPCC working group that produced the report. In reaction to the news, Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of
Greenpeace International, said: The IPCC warns of an alarming escalation of impacts but also shows that
preventing climate chaos is still possible. Speaking at a press conference in Washington, DC, Naidoo added that the panels
warnings call for immediate action. He also pointed to the on-going situation regarding Greenpeace activists who are being held in Russia after
they protested oil drilling in the Arctic. Unfortunately those who are taking this action are now in prison in Russia, while those that are most responsible are
protected by governments around the world, Naidoo said. One of the main obstacles to addressing climate change is a lack
of political will, in particular on agreements that would create legally binding and internationally
enforceable targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Naidoo talked about the urgency of these issues in this weekends
interview with Bill Moyers. As the Arctic melts and sea levels rise, Naidoo said bold steps are needed on the part of
policymakers in the international community to create an energy revolution to ensure carbon
emissions drop dramatically. There is a small window of opportunity in terms of time. I would say no
more than five to ten years, Naidoo told Bill. And, based on current practices of governments, if we
continue like that over the next coming years, then sadly, I think it will be too late, Naidoo said. The IPCC
concluded in its report that to keep emissions below the internationally agreed upon target of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit
(2 degrees Celsius) no more than one trillion metric tons of carbon can be burned and the resulting
gas released into the atmosphere. More than half that amount has been emitted since the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution. According to calculations by one of the reports authors, the trillionth ton of carbon will be
sent into the atmosphere around 2040. A separate study released earlier this year found that, to give humanity a 75
percent chance of not exceeding the 2 degree Celsius mark, global emissions will have to peak by 2015
and decline by five percent annually thereafter. The Greenpeace International study, Point of No
Return, pinpoints a number of enormous planned energy projects that would cause massive climate
threats, which would likely cause humanity to exceed the 2 degrees Celsius point. Burning the coal,
oil and gas from the 14 massive projects would significantly push emissions over what climate
scientists have identified as the carbon budget, the amount of additional CO2 that must not be
exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiraling out of control, Greenpeace said in a statement. Reducing
and eventually phasing out emissions through a variety of measures is the cornerstone of
Greenpeaces policy recommendations. The organization is also calling for investment in renewable energy
sources and establishing legally binding targets for their use. Greenpeace said moving forward with these
planned projects could lead to dire consequences in the coming years. The costs will be substantial:
billions spent to deal with the destruction of extreme weather events, untold human suffering, and
the deaths of tens of millions from the impacts by as soon as 2030, Greenpeace said. Last week, at the House Energy and
Commerce Committee hearing on President Obamas climate action plan, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz suggested a time frame similar to that given by Naidoo
to act on climate change. In my view, this decade is the critical one [because] the CO2 problem is cumulative. And
every ton we emit, you can check it off against our children and grandchildren, Moniz said.

World at Point of No Return Either Adopt Clean Energy or Face Deadly Climate
Change
GreenPeace 13 (Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change
attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, 1/13, Point of
No Return: The massive climatic threats we must avoid, GreenPeace Publishing,
http://issuu.com/greenpeaceinternational/docs/point-of-no-return/7?e=2537715/1351446, 7/16/14,
AC)
Clean and safe renewable energy coupled with a much-increased implementation of energy efficiency,
can provide the power needed to run the planet and avoid the risks of pushing us ever closer to
catastrophic climate changes. That is abundantly clear from the astounding progress in the development of renewable energy over the past
decade. In 2011, renewable energy provided over 30% of new electricity production globally, up from less
than 5% in 2005. This explosive growth can continue and is by far the best hope for avoiding the most
serious impacts of climate change. The global renewable-energy scenario developed by Greenpeace the Energy [R]evolution-
shows how to deliver the power and mobility the dirty projects are promising, without the emissions
and the destruction; not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The scenario indicated that by 2035 renewable energy
must increase to 65% of electricity production, and energy efficiency must increase to reduce the
impact the world is already seeing from climate change and to avoid the catastrophe of a global average
temperature increase of 4C to 6C. The world cannot afford to allow the major new coal projects detailed in
thesis report to go ahead and lock in decades of dirty electricity production or to allow the oil projects to delay
the shift to more sustainable transport systems. The Greenpeace scenario shows that by 2020 renewable energy
could deliver twice as much power as the combined output of the four coal projects highlighted in this report.
More efficient cars, plus a switch to cleaner fuels and a much smarter use of energy in power
generation, buildings and industry, could save more oil than the seven massive oil projects featured in this
report could produce. There would be no need to exploit the oil and gas in the fragile Arctic if the world
adopted a clean energy future. The clean energy future made possible by the dramatic development of renewable energy will
only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable
energy. The world is clearly at a Point of No Return: either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable
energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.


New Tipping Models Show Approaching Critical Point Deters Its Reversibility
Gore et al 12 (Jeff Gore, Assistant Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD
from the Physics Department at the University of California, Berkeley, specialities in Biophysics, Systems
Biology, Theoretical Ecology, Evolutionary Dynamics; Kirill Korolev, Assistant Professor of Physics and
Bioinformatics at Boston University, Pappalardo Fellow in Physics at MIT focusing on Biophysics and
Statistical physics of evolution, Ph.D. at Harvard University; Lei Dai, Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Physics, MIT, Daan Vorselen, PhD Student at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
PhD Student at ACTA (academisch centrum tandheelkunde Amsterdam). 6/1/12, Generic Indicators for
Loss of Resilience Before a Tipping Point Leading to Population Collapse, Science Magazine,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6085/1175.full, 7/16/14, AC)

Natural populations can experience catastrophic collapse in response to small changes in
environmental conditions, and recovery after such a collapse can be exceedingly difficult (1, 2). Tipping points
marking population collapse and other catastrophic thresholds in natural systems may correspond to a fold bifurcation in the dynamics of the system (36). Even
before crossing a tipping point, a system may become increasingly vulnerable to perturbations due to
loss of ecological resilience (i.e., size of the basin of attraction) (4, 7). There has been a growing interest in the possibility
of using generic statistical indicators, primarily based on critical slowing down, as early warning
signals of impending tipping points in various systems (816). In dynamical systems theory, riticcal slowing down refers to the slow
recovery from small perturbations in the vicinity of bifurcations (8, 17). As the system approaches a bifurcation, the time needed
to recover from perturbations becomes longer (11, 18) and hence the system becomes more
correlated with its past, leading to an increase in autocorrelation. In addition, the perturbations
accumulate and result in an increase in the size of the fluctuations (10). Other statistical indicators, such as skewness, have
also been proposed as warning signals because of the change in stability landscape before bifurcations (19). An increase in variance or
autocorrelation of fluctuations of the system has been observed to precede a regime shift in a lake
ecosystem (13), abrupt climate change (9, 14), transitions in coordinated biological motion (20), and the cascading failure of the North America
Western Interconnection power system in 1996 (21); these findings suggest the existence of bifurcation-type tipping
points and associated critical dynamics in many systems. Because the complex dynamics underlying these systems makes it
difficult to determine the nature of the transitions, studies in controlled systems are required. Recent studies in laboratory water fleas (12) and cyanobacterial
monoculture (16) measured the warning signals under controlled conditions. However, the transition in the deteriorating-environment experiment of water fleas,
probably due to a transcritical bifurcation, was noncatastrophic (fig. S1). Moreover, in both systems the tipping points were not determined directly by experiments.
Thus, neither study constituted a demonstration of early warning signals before an experimentally mapped fold bifurcation in a live system. Such a study can also
test directly the possibility of using critical slowing down to indicate loss of ecological resilience, as suggested previously in models (11). Here, we present an
experimentally constructed bifurcation diagram and clear evidence of both loss of resilience and critical slowing down before a fold bifurcation leading to
population collapse. A catastrophic threshold may underlie the collapse of many natural populations
subjected to a deteriorating environment. Likely examples are the collapse of sardine stocks off California and Japan in the late 1940s and
the collapse of the Canadian cod fishery in the 1990s (1, 2). One reason for such sudden collapse is that the per capita growth rate of many populations is maximal
at intermediate densities and negative at low densitiesa phenomenon called the strong Allee effect (22). At high population
densities, the per capita growth rate is reduced because of resource competition; at low population densities, the
per capita growth rate can be negative because of difficulties in finding mates, forming groups for hunting or predator avoidance, or engaging in other cooperative
behaviors. The Allee effect has been observed across many species and has major impacts on the dynamics and viability of populations (23, 24). As the
environment deteriorates, a population subject to a strong Allee effect is pushed across a fold bifurcation, beyond
which it enters a catastrophic collapse that can be difficult to reverse. Near the bifurcation, a
population becomes less resilient because the basin of attraction around the stable state shrinks,
elevating the chance of extinction by stochastic perturbations. The approach of catastrophic
thresholds and the accompanying loss of resilience can occur without a substantial preceding drop in
population density; they are also difficult to predict because of incomplete understanding of the population dynamics and the lack of field data to
determine model parameters (25). Thus, finding early warning signals before the catastrophic collapse of a given
population has important implications for successful environmental management (4, 26).

A2: Warming Inevitable

Warming can be stopped only policy changes can solve.
Matthews and Caldeira 08 H. Damon Matthews(Department of Geography, Planning and
Environment, Concordia University) and Ken Caldeira (Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie
Institution of Washington) (Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions, AGU Journal, Feb 27,
2008, Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL032388/full, Accessed On:
7/16/2014, IJ)

In this study, we have made no attempt to construct economically optimal emissions scenarios for climate stabilization, but rather to quantify the climatic
requirements for allowable emissions consistent with global temperature targets. It is evident that some of the temperature trajectories (and their associated
emissions scenarios) illustrated here may not be economically feasible, as they require either abrupt transitions from very high to near-zero emissions, or even
prolonged periods of negative emissions for combinations of high climate sensitivity and low temperature targets. It is also clear from these simulations that
delays in emissions reductions now will lead to a requirement for much more rapid emissions
reductions in the future in order to meet the same global temperature target. In addition, an important conclusion of our study is that if total future
emissions can be constrained to within a given amount, the same long-term temperature target can be achieved by a wide
range of specific emissions scenarios. International climate policies aimed at climate stabilization must
reflect an understanding of the lasting effect of greenhouse gas emissions; as illustrated by a recent study, year-2050
emissions targets currently being proposed are likely insufficient to avoid substantial future climate warming [Weaver et al., 2007]. We have shown here
that the climate warming resulting from CO2 emissions is not a transient phenomenon, but rather persists well beyond the timescale of human experience. In
the absence of human intervention to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere [e.g., Keith et al., 2006],
each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change
on centennial timescales. We emphasize that a stable global climate is not synonymous with stable radiative forcing, but rather requires
decreasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. We have shown here that stable global temperatures
within the next several centuries can be achieved if CO2 emissions are reduced to nearly zero. This means
that avoiding future human-induced climate warming may require policies that seek not only to
decrease CO2 emissions, but to eliminate them entirely.

Warming is nearing the brink- but mitigation is possible through CO2 reductions.
Peters et al 12 Glen P. Peters, Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais,
Corinne Le Qur, Greeg Marland, Michael r. Raupach, and Charlie Wilson, co-authors of a double-
binded peer reviewed article from Natural Climate Change, a monthly journal specializing in Earths
climate (The challenge to keep global warming below 2 C, Natural Climate Change, Dec 2, 2012,
Available at: file:///Users/Izzy/Downloads/nclimate1783.pdf, Accessed on: 7/16/2014, IJ)

Although current emissions are tracking the higher scenarios, it is still possible to transition towards
pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 C (refs 17,19,20). The historical record shows that
some countries have reduced CO2 emissions over 10-year periods, through a combination of (non-climate) policy
intervention and economic adjustments to changing resource availability. The oil crisis of 1973 led to new policies on energy supply and energy savings, which
produced a decrease in the share of fossil fuels (oil shifted to nuclear) in the energy supply of Belgium, France and Sweden, with emission reductions
of 45% per year sustained over 10 or more years (Supplementary Figs S1719). A continuous shift to natural gas
partially substituting coal and oil led to sustained mitigation rates of 12% per year in the UK in the
1970s and again in the 2000s, 2% per year in Denmark in the 19902000s, and 1.4% per year since 2005 in the USA (Supplementary Figs S1012). and nuclear
power).

Warming can be delayed through faster response times and immediate policy action.
Sheraga 90 Joel D. Scheraga ,Senior Economist with the National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Combating Global Warming, M.E Sharpe,
July/August 1990, Available
at:http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/40721173?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=globa
l&searchText=warming&searchText=delay&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicResults%3FQuery%3Dgloba
l%2Bwarming%2Bdelay%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3
Bvf%3Djo Accessed on: 7/16/2014, IJ)

The oceans absorb and store CO2 (and heat) from the atmosphere, creating a possible "sink" for future CO2 emissions. This process of CO2 uptake is not well under-
stood, limiting our ability to predict future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is possible that the oceans will absorb a sufficient
amount of CO2 from the atmosphere in a century to provide enough time for new technologies to
emerge that do not emit CO2 (such as photovoltaics and nuclear power)The ocean system is as complex as the atmosphere, but its dynamic processes are less
well understood. A reasonable consideration of these uncertainties must be made by policymakers trying to
formulate socially responsible response strategies. The President's Council on Environmental Quality warned in 1981 that if a
global response to the CO2 problem is postponed for a significant time, there may not be time to
avoid substantial economic, social, and environmental disruptions once a CO2-induced warming trend is definitively
detected. It is true that the longer the delay before mitigating action, the larger will be the commitment to
further global warming. However, nothing sudden is likely to happen. The danger is not like the danger of falling off a cliff. If further research suggests
that the threat of global warming is real and the expected impacts serious, time lost might be regained by accelerating the
response, although this might come at some increased cost. A rational analysis of the tradeoffs can be made between the costs of acting today and incurring
costs in the future.

Regardless of Co2 permanently in the atmosphere- emission reductions are still
needed to avoid catastrophic impacts.
De Souza 11 Mike De Souza, energy and climate journalist at Postmedia news, ("'Dangerous' climate
change still preventable: Memo; Science refutes column's claims, Postmedia News, October 31, 2011,
Available at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?, Accessed On: 7/16/2014, IJ)
Humans have "locked in" future generations to a warmer world, but can still prevent "dangerous" climate change by scaling
back emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, wrote
scientists in a newly released internal memorandum to the top bureaucrat at Environment Canada. "Immediate cessation of CO2
emissions ... cannot have a large near-term effect on global temperatures," said the memorandum, drafted in April by Environment Canada scientists Greg Flato and
Elizabeth Bush. "Our past emissions have essentially 'locked in' the warming experienced to date, committing future generations to a warmer world. The real
issue is that ongoing emissions lead to ongoing increases in atmospheric CO2 and therefore ongoing
warming." The memo was written in response to an opinion piece published in a national newspaper that cast doubt on the credibility of scientific evidence
linking human activity to global warming observed in recent decades. The memo noted that there was no credible evidence supporting the arguments from the
piece that are repeatedly used by climate change skeptics to discourage or delay action in addressing pollution that largely comes from the burning of fossil fuels
such as coal, oil and gas. "If the rate of warming is to be reduced, so as to avoid the 'dangerous' climate change
referred to in the (international climate change) discussions, then emission reductions are required,"
said the memo to Environment Canada Deputy Minister Paul Boothe, released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation. "The warming
that has been caused so far cannot be 'undone' - at least for many centuries. The point of emission
reductions is to reduce further warming in the future." The memo said the opinion piece, published in the National Post by David
Evans, a former consultant in the Australian government, made many statements "considered misleading" that could be refuted by a "vast body of peerreviewed
scientific literature." Some of the arguments used by Evans included claims that climate projections from the past were overstated and suggestions that any
observed changes fall within the range of natural climate variability. But the Environment Canada scientists wrote that the international panel that assesses peer-
reviewed climate change science has made projections since 1990 that "overlap one another and are consistent with the observed climate change that occurred
after the projections were made." The memo said that Evans was correct in claiming that the climate would only cool by a small
fraction of a degree if emissions immediately stopped, but said that this actually justifies cutting
emissions. "Rather than it being a reason not to be concerned, it is in fact the reason emissions must
be reduced," said the memo.


Climate change must be urgently dealt with through emission reductions and policy
action, but it is reversible.
Denton and Wilbanks 14 Fatima Denton (African Climate Policy Centre, United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa) Thomas Wilbanks (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (Chapter 20. Climate-
Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development, IPCC, March 31, 2014,
Available at: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap20_FGDall.pdf, Accessed on:
7/16/2014, IJ)

Climate resilient pathways are development trajectories of combined mitigation and adaptation to
realize the goal of sustainable development that help avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system as specified in Article 2 of the Convention. Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) outlines its ultimate
objective as the, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system in order to allow ecosystems
to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner. Article 3.4 of the Convention recognizes that Parties have a right to, and should promote sustainable development. Number of
recent decisions by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC has attempted to recognize the scientific view that
the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius and encourage long-term
cooperative action to combat climate change. The Decisions agreed in Cancun at COP 16 recognizes deep cuts in global
greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC,
with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average
temperature below 2C above preindustrial levelsconsistent with science*and+ also recognizes the need to consider strengthening the long-term
global goal on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge. In the preamble of the Cancun Decisions highlights the central importance of the link between
climate change and employment and 'Realizes that addressing climate change requires a paradigm shift towards building a low-carbon society that offers
substantial opportunities and ensures continued high growth and sustainable development, based on innovative technologies and more sustainable production and
consumption and lifestyles, while ensuring a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs.' (UNFCCC, 2011, Decision 1/CP16). The 2011
COP in a decision known as the Durban Platform increases the strength of the language in the decision 1/CP.17 to conclude, climate change
represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed
with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.... This decision was followed by the
decisions adopted in Doha at the 18th Conference of the Parties that noted with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties
mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of
holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 C or 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. As such, the current UNFCCC negotiations have adopted +2C or
1.5 C as the desirable target upper limit and equated this with dangerous in Article 2.

Warming is reversible- new studies prove
Frlicher 10- Thomas L. Frlicher, Ambizone fellow, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics
Institute, University of Bern (Reversible and irreversible impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in multi-
century projections with the NCAR global coupled carbon cycle-climate model, Climate Dynamics,
January 12, 2010, Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-009-0727-
0/fulltext.html, Accessed on: 7/15/2014, IJ)
A new finding of this study is that the perturbations in temperature and precipitation from historical
emissions are largely reversible within centuries in most inhabited regions in the sense that the anthropogenic signal
becomes smaller than regional natural unforced variability. The application of a dynamical coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model and our
scenario setup allows us to discuss forced regional century-scale changes in comparison with internal climate
variability in a dynamical self-consistent setting, thereby going beyond previous studies applying Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity for long-
term simulations (e.g. Plattner et al. 2008; Schmittner et al. 2008). EMICs typically use simplified atmosphere energy balance components and do not represent
internal variability. The finding of reversible regional temperature changes is not inconsistent with previous
EMIC results of irreversible global temperature response to historical CO2 emissions only (Solomon et al. 2009; Matthews and Caldeira
2008). and associated radiative forcing, global mean surface temperature and sea level remain slightly elevated in the Hist simulations. Here, we analyzed regional
changes instead of global mean indicators. Another difference to the earlier CO2-only scenarios is that the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs causes a more rapid cooling
after cessation of Atmospheric CO2 does not completely return to preindustrial values emissions due to their relatively short atmospheric perturbation lifetime.
This demonstrates the potential benefits of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission reductions.


Science Debate
Warmings Anthropogenic
Warming is definitively anthropogenic scientific consensus.

Cook et al, 13 (ohn Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Ba rbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7,
Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9 1 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia 2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia 3 School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia 4 Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA 5 Department of
Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA 6 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK 7 Department of Geography,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada 8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA 9 Salt Spring
Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada, 5/15/13, Environmental Research Letters, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global
warming in the scientific literature, AS)

An accurate perception of the degree of scientic consensus is an essential element to public support
for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientic consensus also increases peoples
acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous
indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the
fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most
comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate
papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientic literature on global CC,
published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human
activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). Surveys
of climate scientists have found strong agree- ment (9798%) regarding AGW amongst publishing
climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists
found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is
reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). The peer-
reviewed scientific literature provides a ground- level assessment of the degree of consensus among
publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 19932003 matching the search global
climate change found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW
(Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on
AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010). Despite these independent indicators of
a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees
over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60%
of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was
happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware
that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Through
analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most
comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of
consensus over the last two decades.

Their studies are contrived quantitative proof that nearly all scientists agree
warming is anthropogenic.

Cook et al, 13 (John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Ba rbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7,
Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9 1 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia 2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia 3 School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia 4 Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA 5 Department of
Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA 6 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK 7 Department of Geography,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada 8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA 9 Salt Spring
Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada, 5/15/13, Environmental Research Letters, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global
warming in the scientific literature, AS)

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for
climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and
reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree
that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this consensus gap are
campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In
1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510000 campaign whose primary goal was to reposition
global warming as theory (not fact). A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active
scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated
by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides
with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff
2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press
(Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff
and Mansfield 2008). The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is . . .
on the point of collapse (Oddie 2012) while . . . the number of scientific heretics is growing with each
passing year (Alle`gre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides
quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule
proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among
papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1%
based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Anthropogenic warming is real linear regression takes into account any alt causes.

Zhou and Tung, 13 (Jiansong and Ka-Kit, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, January 2013, American
Meteorological Society, Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1, AS)

To unmask the anthropogenic global warming trend imbedded in the climate data, multiple linear
regression analysis is often employed to filter out short-term fluctuations caused by El NioSouthern
Oscillation (ENSO), volcano aerosols, and solar forcing. These fluctuations are unimportant as far as
their impact on the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic trends is concerned: ENSO and volcano
aerosols have very little multidecadal trend. Solar variations do have a secular trend, but it is very
small and uncertain. What is important, but is left out of all multiple regression analysis of global
warming so far, is a long-period oscillation called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). When the
AMO index is included as a regressor (i.e., explanatory variable), the deduced multidecadal
anthropogenic global warming trend is so impacted that previously deduced anthropogenic warming
rates need to be substantially revised. The deduced net anthropogenic global warming trend has been
remarkably steady and statistically significant for the past 100 yr.
Even brief cooling periods do not disprove warming is anthropogenic.
Kaufmann et al, 11 (Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stock, Department of Geography and
Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;
bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and
cDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, 6/2/2011, Reconciling anthropogenic climate
change with observed temperature 19982008, http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full, AS)

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict
the hypothesis: most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
(14). As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after
1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role. The 1998-2008 hiatus is not the first
period in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of anthropogenic changes in
greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions on radiative forcing largely cancel. In-sample simulations indicate
that temperature does not rise between the 1940s and 1970s because the cooling effects of sulfur
emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases. The post 1970 period of
warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the
mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular,
which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise
(7). The results of this analysis indicate that observed temperature after 1998 is consistent with the
current understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and
radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors that have well known warming and cooling
effects. Both of these effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined explicitly by
efforts to understand climate change and devise policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of
the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference in the climate system.
CO2 Causes Warming

C02 is the leading cause of climate change extensive tests prove.
Kang and Larson 13, What is the link between temperature and carbon dioxide levels? A Granger causality analysis based on ice
core data, ian - Institute of Statistics, University of Neuchatel, Rolf - Uppsala University, 28 July 2013, pdf, G.V.)
It is widely considered that the raise of carbon dioxide concentration (CO2) is a main cause of global
warming, but there is still a need of stronger empirical evidence. To study this, statistical methods have been
employed to a rather large extent. In this context, the Granger causality test, has turned out to be a very useful
tool. (In brief, the Granger causality test statistic compares the fit of a linear model where the coefficient(s) of the presumably causal variable is/are set to zero to
the fit of an unrestricted model.) For example, Kodra et al. (2011) found that CO2 Granger causes temperature. Their analysis was based
on data from 1860 to 2008, partly from ice cores. They used radiative forcing of CO2, took second differences and linked the so obtained variable to second
differences of temperature. Similar results for a similar data time period, under a structural time series model framework, but without using radiative
forcing, were obtained by Stern and Kaufmann (1999). Another reference is Sun and Wang (1996), who also employed cross-spectral
analysis. Attanasio (2012) used data from 1850 to 2007 to find Granger causality from antropogenic forcings to global
temperature, employing the lag-augmented Wald test. Triacca (2005), using a data set of similar range, argued that linear models underlying previously
conducted Granger causality tests are not supported by theory and proposed an alternative model where CO2 is replaced by its radiative forcings. Based on this
model, Triacca did not find any significant Granger causality. In Attanasio et al. (2012), a Granger causality test based on predictive accuracy was applied to similar
data as in Attanasio (2012). This test showed clear evidence of Granger causality. Triacca et al. (2013) performed similar Granger causality
testing, including auxiliary climate variables in the system, again finding significance in almost all of the studied cases.

CO2 is a leading cause of warming. Trends prove.
EL-SHARKAWY 14 ,(Global warming: causes and impacts on agroecosystems productivity and food security with emphasis on
cassava comparative advantage in the tropics/subtropics M.A. EL-SHARKAWY- retired senior scientists from Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical, 2014, PDF, G.V.)
Over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric *CO2+ changed between 180 mol(CO2) mol1 (glacial periods) and 280 mol(CO2) mol1 (interglacial periods). From
preindustrial concentration of about 280 mol(CO2) mol1, [CO2] increased steadily to 400 mol(CO2) mol1 on
Thursday, May 9, 2013, according to Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOAA, USA. The mean temperature
has increased by 0.76C over the same time period. Projections to the end of this century suggest that
atmospheric [CO2] should reach 700 mol(CO2) mol1 or more, whereas global temperature should increase by
1.85.2C, depending on the greenhouse emissions scenario (Metz et al. 2007; Da Matta et al. 2010). Every year, current
estimates are about 1012 billion t of carbon being released into the atmosphere, thus, contributing
to global warming and climate change. In 2010, the top ten emitters, in terms of billions t of CO2 annually, were listed in a decreasing order: China
(8.241), USA (5.492), India (2.070), Russia (1.689), Japan (1.139), Germany (0.763), Iran (0.575), South Korea (0.563), Canada (0.519), Saudi Arabia (0.494)
(http://www.huffingtonpost. ca/2012/02/21/top-10-most-polluting-countries-co2- emissions_n_1291963.html). In terms of carbon, those top polluters contribute
collectively 50% (about 56 billion t) of world emissions, with USA having the highest per capita rate of over 20 times higher than the global average. Even though
the US agricultural and food production systems are prone to climate change impacts, the government has consistently refused to sign the United Nations-
sponsored Kyoto Protocol that calls for curbing carbon emissions (McCright and Dunlap 2003). About 5060% of total carbon emissions
originates from consumption of fossil energy sources, such as coal, natural gas, and oil. Worldwide deforestation
and associated vegetation burning, particularly in the tropical rainforests, contribute by 1525%. The rest
results from diverse livestock keeping systems, associated with poor manure management and pasture overgrazing, from changes in agricultural land uses that
cause partial releasing of the soil-stored organic carbon, from degraded wetland surfaces and erosion of coastal vegetation, and irrigated-fertilized paddy rice (Dale
et al. 1993, LEISA 2008, Irving et al. 2011, Powlson et al. 2011). Another potential source exists in frozen lands of organic matterrich, arctic permafrost, in North
Asia/Europe (e.g., Russia and Nordic European countries) and North America (e.g., Canada and Alaska), where greenhouse gases can be released with accelerating
warming in the future (Walter et al. 2006, Hillel and Rosenzweig 2011). These land deposits may rival fossil fuels in terms of their volume. Vast stores of CH4 in
permafrost contain 25 times more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2 (on a 100 year scale). As Earth warms it could be released from frozen deposits on
land and also under the oceans, thus aggravating further global warming (Mascarelli 2009).
CO2 emissions cause global warming
Florides, Christodoulides, and Messaritis 10, (Global Warming: CO2 vs Sun, Georgios A. Florides, Paul
Christodoulides and Vassilios Messaritis -- Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, 2010,
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/12170.pdf, GV)
According to IPCC (2007b, p. 144) the Sun powers the climate of the Earth, radiating energy at very short wavelengths. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that
reaches the top of Earths atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds are absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the
atmosphere. The Earth balances the absorbed incoming energy, by radiating on average the same amount of energy back to space at much longer wavelengths
primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this emitted thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, and is reradiated back to Earth
warming the surface of the planet. This is what is called the greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible because without it
the average temperature at the Earths surface would be below the freezing point of water. However, as IPCC maintains, human activities, primarily the
burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global
warming. The greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are complex and much less common, with water vapor being the most
important greenhouse gas (GHG), and carbon dioxide (CO2) being the second-most important one. In regions where there is water vapor in large amounts,
adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapor has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold and dry Polar Regions
the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapor is much greater. The same is true for the cold and dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapor
has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapor would have near the surface. Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such
as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earths climate. The amount
of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms up due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of
water vapor increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour i n a self-
reinforcing cycle. This water vapor feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase of the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.
IPCC (2007b, p. 121) reports that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense and assumes that the reason for
that is anthropogenic forcing. As it states, traditional approaches with controlled experimentation with the Earths climate system is not possible.
Therefore, in order to establish the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence, IPCC uses computer model simulations that
demonstrate that the detected change is not consistent with alternative physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important
anthropogenic forcing. The results of the computer simulations are that anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are the main
reason for the observed warming and that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the
temperature by about 1.5C to 4.5C. A similar result is mentioned in IPCC www.intechopen.com Global Warming 30 (2007c, p. 749), where
the equilibrium global mean warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C, with a most likely value of about 3C. In IPCC (1997,
p. 11) the formula for calculating the radiative forcing for a CO2 doubling gives 4.04.5 Wm2 before adjustment of stratospheric temperatures. Allowing for
stratospheric adjustment reduces the forcing by about 0.5 Wm2, to 3.54.0 Wm2. If temperature were the only climatic variable to change in response to this
radiative forcing, then the climate would have to warm by 1.2C in order to restore radiative balance. The new formula for radiative forcing in Wm2 is given as: 0
ln C(t) lnC Q 4.37 ln2 = (1) where C(t) is todays CO2 concentration and C0 the preindustrial level of 285 ppmv. As seen in Fig. 8, for the present CO2
concentration (385 ppmv) the warming calculated by the above-mentioned formula is 0.6C, i.e. all the warming occurring from preindustrial era is allocated to the
CO2 increase. Also, note that formula (1) above would give an increase of 1.2C for the doubling of the CO2 concentration to 570 ppmv. In addition, the IPCC models
consider a positive feedback because of this increase and depending on the model the final result is between 2C and 4.5C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is a leading cause of warming and action now is required to prevent further
warming.
Peters et al. 12,(The challenge to keep global warming below 2 C, Glen P. Peters - Center for
International Climate and Environmental Research, 02 December 2012,
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html#affil-auth, GV)
On-going climate negotiations have recognized a significant gap between the current trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions and the likely chance of holding the increase in global
average temperature below 2 C or 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels1. Here we compare recent trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, cement production and
gas flaring with the primary emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Carbon dioxide emissions are the largest
contributor to long-term climate change and thus provide a good baseline to assess progress and examine consequences. We find that current
emission trends continue to track scenarios that lead to the highest temperature increases. Further
delay in global mitigation makes it increasingly difficult to stay below 2 C. Long-term emissions scenarios are designed to
represent a range of plausible emission trajectories as input for climate change research2, 3. The IPCC process has resulted in four generations of emissions scenarios2: Scientific Assessment
1990 (SA90)4, IPCC Scenarios 1992 (IS92)5, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)6, and the evolving Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)7 to be used in the upcoming IPCC
Fifth Assessment Report. The RCPs were developed by the research community as a new, parallel process of scenario development, whereby climate models are run using the RCPs while
simultaneously socioeconomic and emission scenarios are developed that span the range of the RCPs and beyond2. It is important to regularly re-assess the relevance of emissions scenarios in
light of changing global circumstances3, 8. In the past, decadal trends in CO2 emissions have responded slowly to changes in the underlying emission drivers because of inertia and path
dependence in technical, social and political systems9. Inertia and path dependence are unlikely to be affected by short-term fluctuations2, 3, 9 such as financial crises10 and it is
probable that emissions will continue to rise for a period even after global mitigation has started11. Thermal inertia and vertical mixing in the ocean, also delay the temperature response to
CO2 emissions12. Because of inertia, path dependence and changing global circumstances, there is value in comparing observed decadal emission trends with emission scenarios to help
inform the prospect of different futures being realized, explore the feasibility of desired changes in the current emission trajectory and help to identify whether new scenarios may be needed.
Global CO2 emissions have increased from 6.10.3 Pg C in 1990 to 9.50.5 Pg C in 2011 (3% over 2010), with average annual growth rates of 1.9% per year in the 1980s, 1.0% per year in the
1990s, and 3.1% per year since 2000. We estimate that emissions in 2012 will be 9.70.5 Pg C or 2.6% above 2011 (range of 1.93.5%) and 58% greater than 1990 (Supplementary Information
and ref. 13). The observed growth rates are at the top end of all four generations of emissions scenarios (Figs 1 and 2). Of the previous illustrative IPCC scenarios, only IS92-E, IS92-F and SRES
A1B exceed the observed emissions (Fig. 1) or their rates of growth (Fig. 2), with RCP8.5 lower but within uncertainty bounds of observed emissions. Figure 1: Estimated CO2 emissions over
the past three decades compared with the IS92, SRES and the RCPs. Estimated CO2 emissions over the past three decades compared with the IS92, SRES and the RCPs. The SA90 data are not
shown, but the most relevant (SA90-A) is similar to IS92-A and IS92-F. The uncertainty in historical emissions is 5% (one standard deviation). Scenario data is generally reported at decadal
intervals and we use linear interpolation for intermediate years. Full size image (386 KB) Figures index Next Figure 2: Growth rates of historical and scenario CO2 emissions. Growth rates of
historical and scenario CO2 emissions. The average annual growth rates of the historical emission estimates (black crosses) and the emission scenarios for the time periods of overlaps (shown
on the horizontal axis). The growth rates are more comparable for the longer time intervals considered (in order: SA90, 27 years; IS92, 22 years; SRES, 12 years; and RCPs, 7 years). The short-
term growth rates of the scenarios do not necessarily reflect the long-term emission pathway (for example, A1B has a high initial growth rate compared with its long-term behaviour and
RCP3PD has a higher growth rate until 2010 compared with RCP4.5 and RCP6). For the SRES, we represent the illustrative scenario for each family (filled circles) and each of the contributing
model scenarios (open circles). The scenarios generally report emissions at intervals of 10 years or more and we interpolated linearly to 2012; a sensitivity analysis shows a linear interpolation
is robust (Supplementary Fig. S14). Full size image (112 KB) Previous Figures index Observed emission trends are in line with SA90-A, IS92-E and IS92-F, SRES A1FI, A1B and A2, and RCP8.5 (Fig.
2). The SRES scenarios A1FI and A2 and RCP8.5 lead to the highest temperature projections among the scenarios, with a mean temperature increase of 4.25.0 C in 2100 (range of 3.56.2
C)14, whereas the SRES A1B scenario has decreasing emissions after 2050 leading to a lower temperature increase of 3.5 C (range 2.94.4C)14. Earlier research has noted that observed
emissions have tracked the upper SRES scenarios15, 16 and Fig. 1 confirms this for all four scenario generations. This indicates that the space of possible pathways could be extended above
the top-end scenarios to accommodate the possibility of even higher emission rates in the future. The new RCPs are particularly relevant because, in contrast to the earlier scenarios,
mitigation efforts consistent with long-term policy objectives are included among the pathways2. RCP3-PD (peak and decline in concentration) leads to a mean temperature increase of 1.5 C
in 2100 (range of 1.31.9 C)14. RCP3PD requires net negative emissions (for example, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from 2070, but some scenarios suggest it is possible to stay
below 2 C without negative emissions17, 18, 19. RCP4.5 and RCP6 which lie between RCP3PD and RCP8.5 in the longer term lead to a mean temperature increase of 2.4 C (range of
1.03.0 C) and 3.0 C (range of 2.63.7 C) in 2100, respectively14. For RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5, temperatures will continue to increase after 2100 due to on-going emissions14 and inertia in
the climate system12. Current emissions are tracking slightly above RCP8.5, and given the growing gap between the other RCPs (Fig. 1), significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to
keep 2 C as a feasible goal18, 19, 20. To follow an emission trend that can keep the temperature increase below 2 C
(RCP3-PD) requires sustained global CO2 mitigation rates of around 3% per year, if global emissions peak
before 202011, 19. A delay in starting mitigation activities will lead to higher mitigation rates11, higher costs21, 22,
and the target of remaining below 2 C may become unfeasible18, 20. If participation is low, then higher rates of mitigation are needed
in individual countries, and this may even increase mitigation costs for all countries22. Many of these rates assume that negative emissions will be possible and affordable later this century11,
17, 18, 20. Reliance on negative emissions has high risks because of potential delays or failure in the development and large-scale deployment of emerging technologies such as carbon capture
and storage, particularly those connected to bioenergy17, 18. Although current emissions are tracking the higher scenarios, it is still possible to transition
towards pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 C (refs 17,19,20). The historical record shows that some
countries have reduced CO2 emissions over 10-year periods, through a combination of (non-climate) policy intervention and economic adjustments to changing resource availability. The oil
crisis of 1973 led to new policies on energy supply and energy savings, which produced a decrease in the share of fossil fuels (oil shifted to nuclear) in the energy supply of Belgium, France and
Sweden, with emission reductions of 45% per year sustained over 10 or more years (Supplementary Figs S1719).A continuous shift to natural gas partially substituting coal and oil led to
sustained mitigation rates of 12% per year in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 2000s, 2% per year in Denmark in the 19902000s, and 1.4% per year since 2005 in the USA (Supplementary
Figs S1012). These examples highlight the practical feasibility of emission reductions through fuel substitution and efficiency improvements, but additional factors such as carbon leakage23
need to be considered. These types of emission reduction can help initiate a transition towards trajectories consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 C, but further mitigation measures
are needed to complete and sustain the reductions.


A2: Satellite Data Disproves
Satellite readings are based on faulty technique and equipment all recent data
shows the atmosphere is warming.

Abraham et al, 14 (John P. Abraham University of St. Thomas, School of Engineering St. Paul (MN), USA John Cook University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia John T. Fasullo National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder (CO), USA Peter H. Jacobs Department of Environmental Science and Policy George Mason University, Fairfax, USA Scott A. Mandia
Suffolk Country Community College Selden (NY), USA Dana A. Nuccitelli Skeptical Science Brisbane, Australia, 1/2014, Cosmopolis, Review of
the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human-induced climate change, AS)

Perhaps the most common argument to appear which counters the consensus AGW viewpoint is that
the Earth is not warming. While recently this viewpoint has been associated with incorrect notion that
the Earth surface has not, for example, warmed in the past 15 years Bloomberg, 2013; New York Times,
2013), it often is conflated with the concept that global warming has stopped. This, too, is false, as
evident by measurements reported in numerous articles, such as Nuccitelli et al. (2012), Abraham et al.
(2013), and Trenberth and Fasullo (2014). The foundation for many of the claims that the Earth has
ceased or even slowed its warming is based on a selective assessment of small portions of the Earth
system rather than the Earth as a whole. However, the notion that parts of the Earth system which
should warm with AGW are not warming perhaps had a genesis in the early 1990s when satellite
temperature measurements became commonplace. Traditionally, Earth temperatures are measured by
land-based temperature sensors; balloon sensors (radiosondes); temperature sensors on ships, buoys,
or other ocean-going craft; and other instruments. Each of the different temperature- measuring
methodologies suffers from limitations of geographical coverage and measurement accuracy. With the
advancement of satellite measuring methodologies, it became possible to achieve near global
coverage using microwave radiometers. The radiometers relate emission of atmospheric oxygen to
temperatures throughout the atmosphere. With continuous and long-term records, it was possible to
make longitudinal studies of the rate of temperature change in the troposphere and the stratosphere.
A number of papers appeared in the early 1990s describing the methodology, accuracy, and findings
(e.g. Spencer and Christy, 1990; Spencer and Christy 1993; Christy and Goodridge, 1995; Christy, et al.,
1995; Christy and Spencer, 1995; Spencer, et al., 1996). Among the early findings was the surprising
conclusion that the lower atmosphere of the Earth was cooling, in direct contradiction to the
consensus AGW view. Despite claims of accuracy from the authors, other researchers began to
question the results (Hansen and Wilson, 1993; Schneider 1994; Hurrell and Trenberth, 1997; Hurrell
and Trenberth, 1998; Wentz and Schabel, 1998) with many questions raised regarding the purported
accuracy of the satellite measurements. Among the issues of concern were errors associated with
merging satellite records, orbital decay of satellites as their altitude decreased over time, errors of on-
board temperature calibration measurement systems, and drift in the time of observation and thus
aliasing of the diurnal cycle. The original authors defended the work in the scientific literature (Christy
et al., 1997) and often pointed to comparisons of their measurements with weather balloon data
(radiosondes) (e.g., Spencer and Christy, 1993; Christy and Spencer, 1995; Christy et al., 1998; Christy et
al., 2000) as validation of the satellites. Meanwhile, as corrections were made to the methodology and
new data were obtained, the original conclusions of a cooling troposphere were modified to show
warming. In the ensuing years, the critiques of the satellite records continued (Mears, et al., 2003;
Mears and Wentz, 2005), which most notably identified an error in the diurnal correction of satellite
drift (changes to the satellite orbit), an error acknowledged by the originators (Christy and Spencer,
2005). The argument that comparisons with radiosonde data validated the satellite measurements was
questioned when it was found that solar heating of the instruments or changes to instrumentation
introduced errors in the measured temperatures (Sherwood et al., 2005; Randel and Wu, 2006). The
accuracy of radiosonde temperature measurements and their utility in calibrating satellite data is still
being dealt with in the literature (e.g., Thorne et al., 2005; Lanzante and Free, 2008; Allen and
Sherwood, 2008; Santer et al., 2008; Titchner et al., 2009; Thorne et al., 2011;). One other source of
error has long been identified but still not fully quantified. It is the bias associated with the
measurement instruments themselves on board the satellites. In particular, a warm calibration target
is needed to relate the microwave emissions to atmospheric temperatures. When corrected, the trend
in the middle part of the troposphere is found to be significantly greater than previously disclosed (Po-
Chedley and Fu, 2012). This latest correction represents the still unsettled yet strongly rebutted satellite
temperature trends and early claims of atmospheric cooling. The result of this two-decade
investigation is that the previously reported cooling of the atmosphere was based on faulty technique
and equipment. In the ensuing years, various improvements have been made, and currently there is
better agreement between different research teams measuring temperature trends in the lower and
upper layers of the atmosphere. All data now shows that the lower atmosphere is heating (as
expected) while the upper atmosphere is undergoing a long-term cooling trend (also as expected)
because of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. This spatial behavior is a strong indicator that the
temperature increases of the Earths surface over the past 40 years is caused by greenhouse gas
emissions (rather than by other causes such as increased solar activity). The evolution in estimated
lower tropospheric temperature trends are shown in Figure 1.

Positive Feedbacks/A2: Negative Feedbacks Check

Positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks and ensure increased anthropogenic
warming.

Scheffer et al, 6 (Marten, Victor Brovkin, Peter M Cox, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Department of
Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam,
Germany. 3 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Winfrith, Dorset, UK, 5/26/6, Geophysical Research Letters, Positive feedback between global
warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2005GL025044/asset/grl20956.pdf?v=1&t=hxndpxnc&s=b9cde726705665d8bd1e662171081b08
7b31add5, AS)

The direct effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on Earths temperature are relatively well
understood. However, estimation of the overall effect of anthropogenic emissions is complicated by
the existence of feedbacks in the earth system. An important class of feedbacks is related to the effect
of temperature on greenhouse gas dynamics. Increased photosynthesis at higher CO2 levels and
temperatures implies a negative feedback, but positive feedbacks seem likely to override this effect.
For instance, higher temperatures may lead to increased release of CO2, methane, and N20 from
terrestrial ecosystems and to increased oceanic denitrification and stratification, resulting in nutrient
limitation of algal growth reducing the CO2 sink into the ocean. Also, CaCO3 neutralization in the
ocean is reduced at higher temperatures. Several analyses with elaborate coupled climate-carbon
models that take such feedback into account suggest an overall amplification of the effects of
anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Positive feedbacks magnify all of warmings impacts CO2 fertilization is outweighed
by albedo loops.

Matthews and Keith, 7 (H. Damon and David W, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Energy and Environmental Systems Group, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada., 5/4/07, American Geophysical Union, Carbon-cycle feedbacks increase the likelihood of a warmer future, AS)

Positive carbon-cycle feedbacks have the potential to reduce natural carbon uptake and accelerate
future climate change. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to incorporating carbon-cycle
feedbacks into probabilistic assessments of future warming. Using a coupled climate- carbon model, we
show that including carbon-cycle feedbacks leads to large increases in extreme warming probabilities.
For example, for a scenario of CO2 stabilization at 550 ppm, the probability of exceeding 2C warming
at 2100 increased by a factor of between 1.7 and 3, while the probability of exceeding 3C warming
increased from a few percent to as much as 22%. CO2 fertilization was found to exert little influence
on the amount of future warming, since increased carbon uptake was partially offset by fertilization-
induced surface albedo changes. The effect of positive carbon-cycle feedbacks on the likelihood of
extreme future warming must be incorporated into climate policy-related decision making.

A2: Negative Feedbacks Solve
Natural offsets cannot compensate for anthropogenic warming their studies contain
multiple flaws.

Abraham et al, 14 (John P. Abraham University of St. Thomas, School of Engineering St. Paul (MN), USA John Cook University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia John T. Fasullo National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder (CO), USA Peter H. Jacobs Department of Environmental Science and Policy George Mason University, Fairfax, USA Scott A. Mandia
Suffolk Country Community College Selden (NY), USA Dana A. Nuccitelli Skeptical Science Brisbane, Australia, 1/2014, Cosmopolis, Review of
the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human-induced climate change, AS)

The Earth has a natural climatic response that will offset greenhouse gas warming There have been
many arguments that suggest some natural phenomenon(a) will offset greenhouse gas warming (aside
from the Planck response). The most commonly employed mechanism is some change to clouds that
will cause a negative feedback (reduced warming) as greenhouse gases increase. Among this group are
studies reporting a specific cooling mechanism and studies that merely try to show by correlation that
some undetermined mechanism exists. One attempt to suggest an actual mechanism was published in
2001 (Lindzen et al., 2001). The premise behind this work was that as the climate warms, the area
covered by high cirrus clouds will contract to allow more heat to escape into outer space (similar to the
iris in a human eye contracting to allow less light to pass through the pupil in a brightly lit environment).
The so- called iris effect would hypothetically increase the amount of outgoing infrared energy from
the Earth, which would offset the added thermal energy to the Earth system and thereby counteract
global warming. While this concept gained much media attention, it was quickly and thoroughly
rebutted within the scientific literature. Within approximately one year of publication of Lindzen et al.,
(2001), four refuting papers appeared (Fu et al., 2001; Hartmann and Michelsen, 2002; Lin et al., 2002;
Del Genio and Kovari, 2002). These papers included numerous criticisms of the Lindzen et al., (2001)
approach including the large geographical separation between deep convective clouds and those
which experience variations in cloud-weighted sea surface temperatures (Hartmann and Michelsen,
2002). Another criticism was that clouds have a much higher reflectivity and larger infrared heat flows
than the original study assumed (Lin et al., 2002). Also, the water vapor feedback from Lindzen et al.,
(2001) was overestimated by approximately 60% (Fu et al., 2001). Cloud observations from the Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission did not support the hypothesis that tropical cirrus clouds contract with
rising temperatures (Del Genio and Kovari, 2002). Finally, Lindzen et al., (2001) incorrectly estimated
the impact of low tropical clouds (Lin et al., 2002). The critiques of Lindzen continued throughout the
years (Chambers et al., 2002; Lin et al., 2004; Rapp et al., 2005; Wong et al., 2006; and Trenberth and
Fasullo, 2009), as did responses from proponents of the iris effect (Chou and Lindzen, 2005). The large
volume of responses show that the scientific community took seriously the initial hypothesis but,
despite years of investigation, found little evidence to support the conclusions of the proponents, and
much evidence contradicting these conclusions. Papers with the theme of low sensitivity/negative
feedbacks have continued to appear in the literature. Among the most prominent was that of Spencer
and Braswell (2008). It purported to examine how certain heat flows can contaminate the calculations of
climate sensitivity from satellite observations. Shortly after its appearance in the literature, this
manuscript was heavily criticized in a study that identified three significant errors (Murphy and
Forster, 2010). Those errors were: 1) an unrealistic ocean mixed layer depth, 2) incorrect standard
deviations of outgoing radiation, and 3) incorrect duration of calculations of model temperature
variability. When these errors were corrected, the effect that was originally reported in Spencer and
Braswell (2008) nearly disappeared. A near contemporary to this study was published in 2009 (Lindzen
and Choi, 2009). As with the lead authors earlier study on the so-called iris effect, this paper concluded
that climate models overestimate the Earths sensitivity to increases in greenhouse gases. They also
claimed that the climate feedbacks observed from satellite sensors differed in character from the
feedbacks predicted by computer models. This paper was quickly responded to in the literature. Within
approximately one year, four refutations appeared. For instance, Murphy (2010) showed that the
Lindzen and Choi (2009) paper only focused on the tropics, yet applied their findings to the entire
globe. Thereby, they neglected heat transport between different regions of the planet. They also
made poor choices in their statistical methodology, which contributed to their low sensitivity
estimate. Trenberth et al., (2010). Identified an even more substantial set of errors in the study. Those
authors noted that Lindzen and Chois choice for start and endpoints of their study were entirely
subjective and that small modifications of the start and endpoints led to significant changes in
conclusions. They also showed that Lindzen and Choi did not properly account for forcing in their
statistical processing. Finally, Lindzen and Choi made a mathematical error in their computation of
climate sensitivity. Other rebuttals (Chung et al., 2010; Dessler, 2010; Dessler, 2013) concurred with the
prior analyses that the Lindzen and Choi low sensitivity results were unsupported by the evidence. A
follow-on paper (Lindzen and Choi, 2011) was similarly rebutted by Dessler (2011) on methodological
grounds. One final example along this theme was published in 2011 (Spencer and Braswell, 2011),
which purported to show that energy flows internal to the Earth system can corrupt analyses of the
climate sensitivity. The authors suggested that when these internal effects are accounted for, the actual
sensitivity of the Earth to greenhouse gases is lower than previously thought. This paper was quickly
criticized by scientists in the media for its unsupported claims. The Editor-in-Chief of the publishing
journal acknowledged and agreed with those criticisms; he resigned shortly after the paper was
published (BBC, 2011). A rebuttal in the literature appeared promptly (Trenberth, et al., 2011),
demonstrating a number of errors in the original paper. The identified errors included, 1) incorrect
durations of model simulations, 2) unnecessary de-trending of results, 3) incorrect interpretation of
modeling results, and 4) incorrectly implying causation of correlating phenomena (Dessler, 2011). As a
result, the major conclusions of Spencer and Braswell (2011) were shown to be arbitrary and depend
on subjective assumptions. The examples highlighted in the preceding paragraphs show samples of
high-profile publications on the topics of climate sensitivity and processes within the Earths climate that
purported to minimize future temperature variations. In these cases, there was quick reaction in the
peer-reviewed literature, which cast strong doubt on the validity of the studies.

Positive Feedbacks

Permafrost thaws release enormous amounts of organic carbon and accelerate
warming

Koven et al, 11 (Charles D, Bruno Ringeval, Pierre Friedlingsteinc, Philippe Ciaisa, Patricia Cadulea, Dmitry Khvorostyanovd, Gerhard
Krinnere, and Charles Tarnocaif, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de lEnvironnement, Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique/Commissariat lEnergie Atomique, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France; bEarth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720; cCollege of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, United
Kingdom; dLaboratoire de Mtorologie Dynamique, cole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France; eLaboratoire de Glaciologie et
Gophysique de lEnvironnement, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Universit Joseph Fourier, Grenoble 1, Unit Mixte de
Recherche 5183, F-38402 Grenoble, France; and fAgriculture and Agri-Foods Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0C5, 7/12/11, National
Academy of Sciences, Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming,
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.abstract, AS)

Permafrost soils contain enormous amounts of organic carbon, which could act as a positive feedback
to global climate change due to enhanced respiration rates with warming. We have used a terrestrial
ecosystem model that includes permafrost carbon dynamics, inhibition of respiration in frozen soil
layers, vertical mixing of soil carbon from surface to permafrost layers, and CH4 emissions from flooded
areas, and which better matches new circumpolar inventories of soil carbon stocks, to explore the
potential for carbon-climate feedbacks at high latitudes. Contrary to model results for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), when permafrost
processes are included, terrestrial ecosystems north of 60N could shift from being a sink to a source
of CO2 by the end of the 21st century when forced by a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2
climate change scenario. Between 1860 and 2100, the model response to combined CO2 fertilization
and climate change changes from a sink of 68 Pg to a 27 + -7 Pg sink to 4 + -18 Pg source, depending on
the processes and parameter values used. The integrated change in carbon due to climate change shifts
from near zero, which is within the range of previous model estimates, to a climate-induced loss of
carbon by ecosystems in the range of 25 + -3 to 85 + -16 Pg C, depending on processes included in the
model, with a best estimate of a 62 + -7 Pg C loss. Methane emissions from high-latitude regions are
calculated to increase from 34 Tg CH4/y to 4170 Tg CH4/y, with increases due to CO2 fertilization,
permafrost thaw, and warming-induced increased CH4 flux densities partially offset by a reduction in
wetland extent. carbon cycle land surface models cryosphere soil organic matter active layer Boreal
and Arctic terrestrial ecosystems are particularly sensitive to future warming (1). These cold regions
are crucial to the global carbon cycle because they are rich in soil organic carbon, which has built up in
frozen soils, litter, and peat layers. Laboratory incubation experiments (2) and field studies (3) suggest
that this old carbon could be lost rapidly through decomposition in response to warming. In particular,
the slow burial of soil carbon below the base of seasonally thawed surface layers (the active layer) into
deeper permafrost layers has led over tens of millennia to the formation of an enormous stock. This
carbon stock is presently not actively cycling, but might become available for respiration if frozen soils
thaw. Estimates of the total northern carbon pool are 495 Pg for the top meter of soils, 1,024 Pg to 3 m,
and an additional 648 Pg for deeper carbon stored in yedoma (frozen, carbon-rich sediments) and
alluvial deposits (4). Such a huge permafrost carbon pool, formed during the Pleistocene and Holocene,
exists because decomposition is strongly inhibited in frozen soils, thus allowing old, otherwise labile
carbon to persist and accumulate slowly to the present. In the recent Coupled Carbon-Climate Change
Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP) (5)which formed the estimate for the strength of the carbon-
climate feedback for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC
AR4) (6, 7)and other studies (e.g., ref. 8) that examine the effects of CO2 fertilization and climate
change on the net carbon balance of terrestrial and ocean ecosystems, most terrestrial biosphere
models predicted an enhanced carbon sink due to warming in high latitudes (Fig. 1D) (9), through
longer growing seasons and enhanced productivity that offsets the warming-induced increase in
heterotrophic respiration. However, none of these coupled models accounted for carbon vulnerable to
decomposition when permafrost thaws. Models that have considered permafrost carbon losses
calculate total emissions of CO2 from permafrost carbon from 717 Pg by 2100 (10) to 190 + -64 Pg by
2200 (11). In addition to frozen soil carbon, northern wetlands are a strong source of methane (CH4)
to the atmosphere, averaging 3545 Tg CH4/y (12, 13), and this methane source is sensitive to changes
in permafrost, wetlands hydrology, and ecosystem productivity. None of the models of C4MIP
accounted for the climate feedbacks of natural CH4 sources, even though CH4 is a very efficient
greenhouse gas [global warming potential (GWP) = 25] on 100 y timescale) (14).

Ocean currents and wetlands

Carey 12 (John, senior correspondent for Buisness Times, Global Warming: Faster Than Expected?, 10/16/12,
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n5/full/scientificamerican1112-50.html, HG)

The most rapid of these feedback mechanisms, scientists have figured out, involves ocean currents
that carry heat around the globe. If a massive amount of freshwater is dumped into the northern seas
from say, collapsing glaciers or increased precipitationwarm currents can slow or stop, disrupting the
engine that drives global ocean currents. That change could turn Greenland from cool to warm within
a decade. Greenland ice-core records show that shifts can occur very, very quickly, even in 10 years,
says Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the Noaa Earth System Research Laboratory. When the freshwater
mechanism became clear by the early 2000s, a lot of us were really nervous, Alley recalls. Yet more
detailed modeling showed that although adding freshwater is a scary thing, we're not adding it nearly
fast enough to fundamentally alter the planet's climate, he says. A more immediately worrisome
feedback that is beginning to bubble upliterallyinvolves permafrost. Scientists once thought that
organic matter in the tundra extended only a meter deep into the frozen soiland that it would take a
long time for warming to start melting substantial amounts of it deep down. That assessment was
wrong, according to new research. Pretty much everything we've documented has been a surprise,
says biologist Ted Schuur of the University of Florida. The first surprise was that organic carbon exists
up to three meters deepso there is more of it. Plus, Siberia is dotted with giant hills of organic-rich
permafrost called yedoma, formed by windblown material from China and Mongolia. Those carbon
stores add up to hundreds of billions of metric tonsroughly double the amount in the atmosphere
now, Schuur says. Or as methane hunter oe von Fischer of Colorado State University puts it: That
carbon is one of the ticking time bombs. More thawing allows more microbes to dine on the organic
carbon and turn it into CO2 and methane, raising temperatures and prompting more thawing. The
ticking may be speeding up. Meltwater on the permafrost surface often forms shallow lakes. Katey
Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has found methane bubbling up from the lake
bottoms. Many researchers have also found that permafrost can crack open into mini canyons called
thermokarsts, which expose much greater surface area to the air, speeding melting and the release of
greenhouse gases. And recent expeditions off Spitsbergen, Norway, and Siberia have detected plumes of
methane rising from the ocean floor in shallow waters. If you extrapolate from these burps of gas to
wider regions, the numbers can get big enough to jolt the climate. Yet global measurements of methane
do not necessarily show a recent increase. One reason is that hotspots are still pretty local, says the
University of Alaska Fairbanks's Vladimir E. Romanovsky, who charts permafrost temperatures. Another
may be that scientists have just gotten better at finding hotspots that have always existed. That is why
Dlugokencky says, I am not concerned about a rapid climate change brought about by a change in
methane. Others are not so sure, especially because there is another potentially major source of
methanetropical wetlands. If rainfall increases in the tropics, which is likely as the atmosphere
warms, the wetlands will expand and become more productive, creating more anaerobic
decomposition that produces methane. Expanded wetlands could release as much, or more,
additional methane as that from Arctic warming. How worried should we be? We don't know, but
we'd better keep looking, Nisbet says.
Sea ice melting causes warming

Carey 12 (John, senior correspondent for Buisness Times, Global Warming: Faster Than Expected?, 10/16/12,
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n5/full/scientificamerican1112-50.html, HG)

The feedback that scares many climate scientists the most is a planetary loss of ice. The dramatic
shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean in recent summers, for instance, was not predicted by many
climate models. It is the big failure in modeling, Nisbet says. Ice on Greenland and along Antarctica is
disappearing, too. The feedback scientists fear most is loss of ice, uncovering darker land and seas
that absorb solar heat, melting even more ice, amplifying global warming. To figure out what is going
on, scientists have been charting glaciers in Greenland by satellite and ground measurement and have
been sending probes under the Antarctic ice shelves, seeing things never seen before, says erry
Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. On Greenland, glaciologist
Sarah Das of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution watched as a lake of meltwater suddenly
drained through a crack in the 900-meter-thick (3,000-foot-thick) ice. The torrent was powerful enough
to lift the massive glacier off the underlying bedrock and increase the speed at which it was sliding into
the ocean. In Alaska, Pfeffer has data showing that the huge Columbia Glacier's slide into the sea has
accelerated from one meter a day to 15 to 20 meters a day. In Antarctica and Greenland, large ice
shelves that float on ocean water along the coast are collapsinga wake-up call about how unstable
they are. Warmer ocean waters are eating away at the ice shelves from below while warmer air is
opening cracks from above. The ice shelves act as buttresses, holding back ice that is grounded on the
ocean bottom and adjacent glaciers on land from slinking into the sea under gravity's relentless pull.
Although the loss of floating ice does not raise sea levels, the submerging glaciers do. We're now
working hard to find out whether sea-level rise could be remarkably faster than expected, Alley says.
Ice loss is feared not just because of sea-level rise but also because it kicks off a powerful feedback
mechanism. Ice reflects sunlight back to space. Take it away, and the much darker land and seas absorb
more solar heat, melting more ice. This change in the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth's surface can
explain how small forcings in the paleoclimate record could be amplified, Hansen says, and the same
will occur today. So far only a few scientists are willing to go as far as Hansen in predicting that the
oceans could rise by as much as five meters by 2100. But we don't really know, Alley says. I'm still
guessing that the odds are in my favor [in expecting a smaller rise], but I would hate for anyone to buy
coastal property based on anything I said.


A2: Models Flawed

Computer models and climate forecasts have been accurate
Mera, Roberto, Ph.D. UCS Kendall Fellow. December 2013. "How Accurate are Existing Computer
Climate Modeling Techniques?" The Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
Climate scientists have made many improvements to computer models over the years that have
increased their accuracy and reliability. These advances have allowed scientists to show, unequivocally,
that human activities are the major driver of global warming. During the last five years, for example,
climate scientists have made dramatic advances (pdf) in their ability to track two key climate
indicatorsocean heat content and Arctic sea ice seasonal cyclesand are confident that current
models can reproduce surface temperature increases since 1870, including the rapid warming in the
second half of the 20th century. Climate modelling and forecasting accuracy has been questioned
lately due to the apparent pause, or speed bump, in the rise of global surface temperatures over
the last 15 years. In fact, climate forecasts conducted in the 1990s have been quite accurate in
simulating what happened since the year 2000. A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford
University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures
observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the
past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree. The truth is that global warming has not paused.
It is true that the rate of surface temperature warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, but
selectively citing the period from 1998 to 2012 is inappropriateespecially since ocean heat content
continued to rise at a steady pace and the Arctic sea ice hit record lows in 2012. The year 1998 was a
record temperature year, due to a strong El Nio. Shifting the time period just two years earlier, from
1996 to 2010 instead of from 1998 to 2012, the surface temperature trend increased 0.14 C per
decade, slightly greater than the long-term trend. Thats why it is incorrect to focus on 15-year
increments when were talking about temperature increases over decades, if not centuries.

Climate models actually underrepresent the impact of global warming
Stern, Nicholas. 2013. "The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate
Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models." Journal of
Economic Literature. http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.51.3.838

Scientific evidence over the past decade on the scale and nature of the potential risks from human-
induced climate change is becoming still more worrying; rapidly rising emissions and concentrations;
impacts appearing more rapidly than anticipated; major features omitted from models, because they
are not currently easy to characterize, look still more threatening; the state of oceans more fragile
than previously thought and the implications more difficult and complex; interactions between
climate change and ecosystems appear to be still more important; and so on. The climate models
generally leave out many effects, recognized as potentially very large, which are not easy to make
precise or formal enough for integration into the modeling. And the impact models, based off the
climate models, fall far short of capturing the scale and nature of what might happen to lives and
livelihoods. Scientists are keenly aware of these issues and are actively working on them.

A2: IPCC Indicts

The IPCC has the best consensus on warming, deniers are wrong and come from the
fossil fuel industry, the best evidence proves warming is real, human caused, and a
threat.
Mann 13, (The new IPCC climate change report makes deniers overheat, - The Guardian, Michael - distinguished professor of
meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and the author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,
Saturday 28 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers, G.V.)
It happens every six years or so: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the
current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions
from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel
industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead
and confuse the public about its sobering message. So, in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate
change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the
genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate change threat. This time, however, climate change deniers seem divided in their preferred contrarian narrative. Some would have us
believe that the IPCC has downgraded the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat. Career fossil fuel-industry apologist Bjorn Lomborg, in Rupert Murdoch's the Australian, wrote on
16 September: UN's mild climate change message will be lost in alarmist translation. On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry, in a commentary for the same outlet five days
later, announced: Consensus distorts the climate picture. So, make up your mind, critics: is it a "mild message" or a "distorted picture"? Consistency, they might well respond, is simply the
"hobgoblin of little minds", after all but in reality, that's only if you ignore the foolishness. Indeed, claims that members of the IPCC have downgraded
their scientific confidence have been plentiful among the usual purveyors of climate change misinformation: Fox News, the editorial pages of the Wall
Street Journal and various conservative tabloids in the United States, Canada, Germany and Australia. Fox News even sought to mislead its viewers
with a bait-and-switch, focusing attention instead on a deceptive, similarly named report that calls
itself the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which simply regurgitates
standard shopworn denialist myths and erroneous talking points. That non-peer-reviewed report was published by the discredited industry front group known
as the Heartland Institute in the lead-up to the publication of the actual IPCC report, presumably to divert attention from the actual scientific evidence. In reality, the IPCC has
strengthened the degree of certainty that fossil fuel burning and other human activities are
responsible for the warming of the globe seen over the past half-century, raising their confidence from "very likely" in the previous report to "extremely
likely" in the current one. The IPCC expresses similar levels of certainty that the Earth is experiencing the impacts of that warming in the form of melting ice, rising global sea levels and various
forms of extreme weather. What about the converse claim, promoted by critics, that the IPCC has exaggerated the evidence? Well, if anything, the opposite appears closer to the truth. In
many respects, the IPCC has been overly conservative in its assessment of the science. The new report, for example, slightly reduces the lower end of the estimated uncertainty range for a
quantity know as the equilibrium climate sensitivity the amount of warming scientists expect in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations relative to preindustrial levels
(concentrations that will be seen mid-century, given business-as-usual emissions). The IPCC reports a likely range of 1.5C to 4.5C (roughly 3F to 8F) for this quantity, the lower end having been
dropped from 2.0C in the fourth IPCC assessment. The lowering is based on one narrow line of evidence: the slowing of surface warming during the past decade. Yet, there are numerous
explanations of the slowing of warming (unaccounted for effects of volcanic eruptions and natural variability in the amount of heat buried in the ocean) that do not imply a lower sensitivity of
the climate to greenhouse gases. Moreover, other lines of evidence contradict an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 2C. It is incompatible, for example, with paleoclimate evidence from
the past ice age, or the conditions that prevailed during the time of the dinosaurs. (See this piece I co-authored earlier this year for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for a more detailed
discussion of the matter.) The IPCC's treatment of global sea-level rise is similarly conservative arguably, overly so. The report gives an upper limit of roughly 1m (3ft) of sea-level rise by the
end of the century under business-as-usual carbon emissions. However, there is credible peer-reviewed scientific work, based on so-called "semi-empirical" approaches that predict nearly
twice that amount that is, nearly 6ft (2m) of global sea-level rise this century. These latter approaches are given short thrift in the new IPCC report; instead, the authors of the relevant
chapter favor dynamical modeling approaches that have their own potential shortcomings (underestimating, for example, the potential contribution of ice-sheet melting to sea-level rise this
century). As some readers may know, the conclusion that modern warming is unique in a long-term context came to prominence with the temperature reconstruction that my co-authors and I
published in the late 1990s. The resulting "Hockey Stick" curve, which demonstrates that the modern warming spike is without precedent for at least the past 1,000 years, took on iconic
significance when it was prominently displayed in the "summary for policy-makers" of the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report. Thus, the "Hockey Stick" curve, as I describe in my recent book,
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, became a focal point of the attacks by industry-funded climate change deniers. So, it might not come as a surprise that one of the most egregious
misrepresentations of the IPCC's latest report involves the Hockey Stick and conclusions about the uniqueness of modern warming. An urban legend seems to be circulating around the echo
chamber of climate change denial, including contrarian blogs and fringe rightwing news sites. The claim is that the IPCC has "dropped" or "trashed" the Hockey Stick conclusion regarding the
unprecedented nature of recent warmth. A good rule of thumb is that the more insistent climate change deniers are
about any particular talking-point, the greater the likelihood is that the opposite of what they are
claiming actually holds. The IPCC has, in fact, actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth in the new report. A highlighted
box in the "summary for policy-makers" states the following (emphasis mine): In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years
(medium confidence). The original 1999 Hockey Stick study (and the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report) concluded that recent northern hemisphere average warmth was likely
unprecedented for only the past 1,000 years. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment extended that conclusion back further, over the past 1,300 years (and it raised the confidence to "very likely"
for the past 400 years). The new, Fifth IPCC Assessment has now extended the conclusion back over the past 1,400 years. By any honest reading, the IPCC has thus now substantially
strengthened and extended the original 1999 Hockey Stick conclusions. Only in the "up is down, black is white" bizarro world of climate change denial could one pretend that the IPCC has
failed to confirm the original Hockey Stick conclusions, let alone contradict them. The stronger conclusions in the new IPCC report result from the fact that there is now a veritable hockey
league of reconstructions that not only confirm, but extend, the original Hockey Stick conclusions. This recent RealClimate piece summarizes some of the relevant recent work in this area,
including a study published by the international PAGES 2k team in the journal Nature Geoscience just months ago. This team of 78 regional experts from more than 60 institutions representing
24 countries, working with the most extensive paleoclimate data set yet, produced the most comprehensive northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction to date. One would be hard-
pressed, however, to distinguish their new series from the decade-and-a-half-old Hockey Stick reconstruction of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Conclusions about unprecedented recent warmth
apply to the average temperature over the northern hemisphere. Individual regions typically depart substantially from the average. Thus, while most regions were cooler than present during
the medieval era, some were as warm, or potentially even warmer, than the late 20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated
with phenomena such as El Nio and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation. Colleagues and I, quoting from the abstract of our own article in the journal Science a few years ago (emphasis
mine), stated: Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1,500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to
reconstruct surface-temperature patterns over this interval. The medieval period [AD 950-1250] is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions,
but which falls well below recent levels globally. These conclusions from our own recent work are accurately represented by the associated discussion in the "summary for policy-makers" of
the new IPCC report (emphasis mine): Continental-scale surface-temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year
950-1250) that were, in some regions, as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century
(high confidence). However, never underestimate the inventiveness of climate change deniers. Where there's a will, there is, indeed, a way: a meme now circulating throughout the
denialosphere is that the IPCC's conclusions about regional warmth contradict our findings, despite the fact that those conclusions are substantially based on our findings. One could
be excused for wondering if climate change deniers have lost all sense of irony. The most egregious example of this latest
contortion of logic found its way into the purportedly "mainstream" Daily Mail, courtesy of columnist David Rose, who admittedly has a bit of a reputation for misrepresenting climate
scientists and climate science. Rose wrote in his column on 14 September: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at
any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the "Medieval Warm Period" long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil-fuel burning is a concession that its
earlier statement is highly questionable. The most charitable interpretation is that Rose simply didn't actually read or even skim the final draft of the report, despite writing about it at length.
For, if he had, he would be aware that the final draft of the report comes to the strongest conclusion yet about the unprecedented nature of recent warmth, extending the original Hockey
Stick conclusion farther back than ever before to the last 1,400 years. Moreover, he would be aware that the existence of regional medieval warmth rivaling that of the late 20th century does
not contradict that conclusion. Indeed, it is the regional heterogeneity of that warmth, as established in ours and other studies, that leads the IPCC report to conclude that current levels of
hemispheric average warmth are unprecedented for at least 1,400 years. The lesson here, perhaps, is that no misrepresentation or smear is
too egregious for professional climate change deniers. No doubt, we will continue to see misdirection, cherry-
picking, half-truths and outright falsehoods from them in the months ahead as the various IPCC working groups report their conclusions. Don't be fooled by the
smoke and mirrors and the Rube Goldberg contraptions. The true take-home message of the latest IPCC report is crystal
clear: climate change is real and caused by humans , and it continues unabated. We will see far more
dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts in the decades ahead if we do not choose to reduce
global carbon emissions. There has never been a greater urgency to act than there is now.

A2: IPCC Exaggerates

The IPCCs statement was conservative NOT exaggerated anthropogenic warming
outweighs any natural or forced coolants.

Wigley and Santer, 12 (TML Wigley and BD Santer, 11/8/12, Climate Dynamics, A
probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century
global warming, AS)

The primary goal of this paper has been to examine and provide a more detailed quantitative foundation
for the IPCC AR4 statement that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since
the mid-twentieth cen- tury is very likely due to the observed increase in anthro- pogenic greenhouse
gas concentrations. A secondary goal has been to carry out a probabilistic analysis for the influ- ence
of all anthropogenic emissions (i.e., not just GHGs) on global-mean temperatures. Both the GHG only
and full anthropogenic forcings analyses involve comparisons between observed temperature
changes and model expec- tations, and so address the issue of the skill with which models can
reproduce observed changes. In the Introduction, we discussed briefly the value of statements about
the GHG-only component of warming. Just what is a policymaker to make of such information, given
that GHGs are only a part of the portfolio of anthropogenic forcings? For decisions regarding both
mitigation and adaptation responses to future change, it is important to know both the total effect of
anthropogenic emissions (as determinants for adaptation policies) and the breakdown of this effect
into the component forcing agents (since mitigation must be done on a gas-by-gas or aerosol- by-
aerosol basis). For modelers, statements about GHG-only (or CO2- only) effects are of value, because
they improve our understanding of the components of climate change. Using models to assess the net
effect of all anthropogenic forc- ings, however, is more relevant for direct comparison of modeled and
observed temperature changes. This is why we have considered both the influence of GHG forcing
alone and the combined effect of all anthropogenic forcings. For our probabilistic analyses of
simulated changes in global-mean temperature, we defined pdfs for the main factors contributing to the
uncertainties in model predic- tions: climate sensitivity, ocean mixing, and aerosol forc- ing. For aerosol
forcing, we showed that using the largest (95th percentile) value of the indirect aerosol forcing given in
the IPCC AR4 yielded simulations with unrealistically large cooling over most of the twentieth century.
We suggest, therefore, that the IPCC AR4 uncertainty range overestimates this range at the high end of
indirect aerosol forcing (see Appendix 1). Our full probabilistic analyses generated cumulative
distribution functions for temperature changes over 19002005 and 19502005, for both the GHG
only and all anthropogenic forcings cases. It is the results for GHG forcing over 19502005 that are
directly relevant to the IPCC statement being tested. Here, the probability that the model-estimated
GHG component of warming is greater than the entire observed trend (i.e., not just greater than
most of the observed warming) is about 93 %. Using IPCC terminology, therefore, it is very likely that
GHG-induced warming is greater than the observed warming. Our conclusion is considerably stronger
than the original IPCC statement. Although we have not considered the warming before 1950
probabilistically here, we have noted that the observed warming appears to be too large to be explained
by anthropogenic forcing and/or current estimates of solar forcing. Our favored explanation, following
Wigley and Raper (1987), is that it is largely due to an increase in the rate of formation of North Atlantic
Deep Water. A con- sequence of this model underestimate of 19001950 warming is that the model
expectation for warming over 19002005 is also generally less than the observed warming. It is likely
that accounting for possible NADW changes would improve the match. For trends over 19502005,
when one accounts for both greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings, the model expectation for the net
warming is consistent with the observations. Including the effects of solar and volcanic forcings
slightly reduces the median warming (see Fig. 6), but does not lead to a statistically significant
difference between the median model expectation and any of the observed warming trends. Overall,
our results provide strong confirmation of the IPCC findings, and are in close agreement with pattern-
based fingerprint analyses, such as those of Stott et al. (2006).



A2: IPCC Models Wrong
IPCC's short term models may be flawed but long term models are accurate
Abraham, John and Nuccitelli, Dana. October 1 2013. "IPCC model global warming projections have
done much better than you think". The Guardian: Climate Consensus- The 97 Percent.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-
warming-projections-accurate

For 19922006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming,
while it dampened the surface warming for 19972012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate
has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes. "The long-
term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012
that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between
simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)." The IPCC
also notes that climate models have accurately simulated trends in extreme cold and heat, large-scale
precipitation pattern changes, and ocean heat content (where most global warming goes). Models also
now better simulate the Arctic sea ice decline, which they had previously dramatically
underestimated. All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and
projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface
warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians. They
actually do better predicting climate changes several decades into the future, during which time the
short-term fluctuations average out. That's why climate models have a hard time predicting changes
over 1015 years, but do very well with predictions several decades into the future, as the IPCC
illustrates. This is good news, because with climate change, it's these long-term changes we're worried
about:

Conspiracies against the IPCC are just alarmists no reason to trust scientists less than
medical doctors or air pilots
Gilkson, 10 (Andrew, PhD, Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University, Case
for climate change, April 19, http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/glikson/glikson-versus-nova.pdf,
AW)
Finally I comment on recent allegations against climate scientists and the IPCC. That a CRU climate
scientist discusses the significance of a proxy-based temperature from tree rings[9] hardly amounts to
a climategate conspiracy on the part of the scientific community. That the IPCC cites an uncertain
projection for Himalayan glaciers melt (2035) does not indicate whether total Himalayan glaciers melt
may occur earlier or later than this particular point in time. It must be stressed that, if anything, to
date IPCC estimates of ice melt and sea level rise have been shown to constitute conservative
underestimates which have already been exceeded[10]. No reason exists why people should trust
climate scientists less than, for example, their medical doctors or air pilots.

Their Authors = Hacks
97% of scientists believe in AGW the contrarian claim is just media controversy and
has no empirical validity.
Reusswig, 13 (Fritz, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany, 2013, Environmental Research Letters,
History and future of the scientic consensus on anthropogenic global warming, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-
9326/8/3/031003/pdf/1748-9326_8_3_031003.pdf, AS)
The article by Cook et al (2013) is impressive and convincing: a semantic analysis of almost 12 000
abstracts from scientic, peer-reviewed papers on global warming reveals that only a minority of 0.7%
rejects the attribution of global warming to human activities, and a subsequent self-rating of almost
1200 authors of these papers shows that a vast majority of 97.2% endorsed this assumption. Both
methodsabstract analysis and self-rating of authorsadditionally demonstrate that scientic
consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been growing in the covered period (1991
2011). Contrarian claims that there is no consensus among (serious) scientists regarding AGW can
clearly be rejectedas has been done before by many other studies (e.g. Oreskes 2004), as the authors
of the present article explicitly note. Why is this nding important? Climate science is a highly
politicized science. Not necessarily because climate scientists are advocates of a particular political
missionmost climate scientists I know are in fact quite apolitical people. But the issue they are dealing
with is clearly political in nature. If global warming was caused by natural factors alone (natural
cycles, activity of the sun, volcanoes etc), adaptation to it would still be a necessary human response,
but nothing from the broad range of activities that we call mitigation would be necessary or make
even sense. But if AGW is a fact, and if avoiding dangerous climate change is a meaningful or even
necessary goal, then the de-carbonization of the global economy has to be the answer. This does
clearly challenge a range of existing practices, routines, business models, and related policies. It does
also devaluatein a very economic senseformerly very precious assets, such as coal, oil and gas
elds. They turn from private goods to public bads. It is clear that one possible strategy to defend
current interests is to debunk climate science. And this has happened, especially in the US (McCright
and Dunlap 2003), where the consensus gap between science and the public is particularly marked,
most probably reinforced by a mass-media strategy that favors controversies as an indication of
impartiality, thus misrepresenting the consensus of the experts (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004)a
strategy that French or German mass media do not follow, by the way (Grundmann and Krishnamurthy
2010, Painter and Ashe 2012). Climate sciencein other wordsis part of a much wider social
discourse on climate change (Reusswig and Lass 2010). We know from various studiesand the
authors of the current article quote some of themthat the perception of scientic consensus adds to
the credibility of a message substantially. Non-expertsincluding most politiciansare more likely to
adopt a nding if the additional information is given that a particular nding is backed by the scientic
community at large (Lewandowsky et al 2012). This is the reason why many contrarians try to
maintain the impression that there is no scientic consensus on the causes of global warming. The
current article reveals how deceptive this strategy is. Another strategy is to devaluate consensus as
unscientic: many contrarians turn their minority (or non-) position into a strength, comparing
themselves to minority scientists at their time that later became science heroes, such as Galilei or
Darwin. But while these two were ghting metaphysical or religious belief systems that inhibited
empirical evidence, todays contrarians resemble much more the historical adversaries of Galilei or
Darwin, often desperately ghting for partial hypotheses while doing away with the balanced
empirical evidence of a large community.






Warming Bad Impacts

Extinction The Deadly Three
Earths five global mass extinction events trace back to the deadly three results of
heavy CO2 current CO2 emissions are both faster and larger than all of them
evolutionary adaptation is not possible
Bijma et al, 13 (Jelle, Alfred-Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven
Germany, Hans-O Portner, Chris Yesson, Alex D. Rogers, Climate change and the oceans What does
the future hold? Marine Pollution Bulletin, http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Bijma-et-al-2013.pdf,
AW)
As documented by a ood of recent literature, most, if not all, of the Earths ve global mass extinction
events have left footprints (Table 1), of at least one or more, of the main symptoms of global carbon
perturbations: global warming, ocean acidication and hypoxia (e.g. Prtner et al., 2005; Knoll et al.,
2007; Veron, 2008; Metcalfe and Isozaki, 2009; Ridgwell and Schmidt, 2010; Barnosky et al., 2011;
Georgiev et al., 2011; Suan et al., 2011; Payne et al., 2010; Zamagni et al., 2012a,b; Kravchinsky, 2012;
Winguth et al., 2012; Alegret et al., 2012; Harnik et al., 2013; Hnisch et al., 2012). Although, it can be
argued whether or not the end-Ordovician or the end-Cretaceous event were driven by big threeism,
it can be said that the end-Permian and end-Triassic almost certainly, and the end-Devonian very likely
(e.g. Bambach et al., 2004), as well as a handful of smaller extinction events, are related to a carbon
perurbation. Hence, we can call these three factors a deadly trio, and worryingly these are all
present in the ocean today. In fact, the present day carbon perturbation and the concurrent ocean
acidication is unprecedented in the Earths history and occurring much faster than at any time in the
past 55 million years (Kump et al., 2009) or even 300 million years (Hnisch et al., 2012; Fig. 5). It is this
combination of factors that seriously affects how productive and efcient the ocean is (Fig. 1), as
ocean temperature, surface stratication, nutrient supply, ocean overturning and deep ocean oxygen
supply are all affected. Even though some species are shown to proliferate in a warmer and more acidic
ocean, the process of extinction may have already begun. Projecting geological time scales onto
human lifespan, mass extinctions happen overnight, but on human time scales we may not even
realize whether we have entered such an event, even when keeping close track of the red list index
of species extinctions (Barnosky et al., 2011). It is known, with a high level of condence from geological
evidence, that ocean acidication occurred in the past. The most critical factor is the rate of the
carbon perturbation. During the End Permian mass extinction (ca. 251 million years ago), the carbon
perturbation is estimated to be on the order of 12 Gt CO2 per year (Kump et al., 2009). For
comparison, 1 gigaton is one billion tons, or the equivalent of around one billion middle-sized cars. For
the most recent major extinction event the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction (PETM;
ca. 55 million years ago is considered the closest analogue to currently ongoing ocean acidication),
estimates of the rate of the carbon perturbation vary, but values of 0.3 2.2 Gt CO2 per year during an
estimated span of up to 20,000 years have been proposed (Zeebe et al., 2009; Cui et al., 2011). Both
these estimates are dwarfed in comparison to todays emissions of roughly 30 Gt of CO2per year
(IPCC, 2007c). The current rate of carbon release is at least 10 times that which preceded the last
major species extinction. When comparing the rate of CO2 increase between today and the past, it is
also important to realise that carbon pertubations in Earth history, albeit slower than today, were
sustained over tens of thousands of years. Releasing similar amounts of carbon on a much shorter
timescale and causing a fast perturbation adds two other important aspects: 1. This rate is exceeding
the Earth systems capacity to buffer such changes; 2. It exposes organisms to unprecedented
evolutionary pressure. At present, it can be said with certainty that the uptake of CO2 into the ocean
is outstripping its capacity to absorb it, known as buffering capacity, thereby coupling a reduction in
pH tightly to a lowering of its saturation state (Cao and Caldeira, 2008; Ridgwell and Schmidt, 2010).
It is this saturation state (buffering capacity) of the ocean that mirrors the critical impact of
unbuffered acidication and hypercapnia on the functioning of most calcifying organisms, such as
tropical reef-forming corals but also planktonic organisms that are at the base of pelagic food webs,
especially in the vulnerable Arctic and Antarctic regions. If the current trajectory of carbon perturbation
continues, we should expect more serious consequences for the marine ecosystem than during the
PETM because of more severe acidication and carbonate dissolution in the present and near future.
Evidence of impacts of this event on marine ecosystems is restricted to analysis of microfossils where
3050% of benthic foraminferans were found to have gone extinct (McInerney and Wing, 2011).
Although, this marks the largest loss of species in this group over the last 90 million years, the
interesting question of the PETM is why its long-term consequences seem to have been so small for
marine organisms, as deep-sea benthic foraminiferans are small potatoes in the overall diversity of
life. Although, pelagic ecosystems also underwent signicant changes with tropical groups of pelagic
foraminifera occurring at high latitudes and an increase in warm-water groups occurring in mid- and
low-latitudes (McInerney and Wing, 2011), this level of extinction was not reected in any other group
for which data exist, such as the ostracods. Today, there are also accounts of winners and losers but
this may not reect the overall ecosystem change in action. Is it possible that the role of temperature
and especially hypoxia may have been less during the PETM? Last but not least, it is worth noting that
the oceans chemical restoration after the PETM took ca. 170,000 years (Cui et al., 2011), which is
equivalent to >5000 human generations (generation time of 30 years). For comparison, this is longer
than many estimates of the existence of species Homo sapiens, and the earliest known hominid dates
back only 4.4 million years. In addition, the marine ecosystem as we know it today mainly evolved
during a time of low atmospheric CO2 and well-buffered seawater which is no longer the case.
Regardless of whether or not an extinction event has started, the current carbon perturbation will have
huge implications for humans. It is difcult to predict how a possible mass extinction will affect society,
but the current carbon perturbation might be the most dramatic challenge faced by our exponentially
growing world population ever since the rst hominids evolved. The developed society lives above the
carrying capacity of the Earth and its ocean and, more than ever, we need to reduce the pressure of all
stressors, especially CO2 emissions.
Extinction
Multiple reasons continued climate change risks extinction the rate of change is the
fastest in the planets history
Snow and Hannam, 14 (Deborah, Senior Writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter, Sydney
Morning Herald writer who covers broad environmental issues, Climate change could make humans
extinct, warns health expert, March 31, 2014, Sydney Morning Herald,
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-
warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html, AW)
The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct''
as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty
of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different
points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today. ''What is
remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot
of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming]
and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three
leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of the Australian National
University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global
warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three warn that
the adverse effects on population health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on
climate change. ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale,
to wellbeing, health and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest
challenges will come from undernutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields;
hospitalizations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and
the spread of infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable
populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs. Projecting to an
average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work
productively, in the hottest parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would produce
''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A
leaked draft of the IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related
deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes.
Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven
degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the report said. While some adaptive measures are possible,
limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in
the warmest months by 40 percent by 2100. Body temperatures rising above 38 degrees impair
physical and cognitive functions, while risks of organ damage, loss of consciousness and death
increase sharply above 40.6 degrees, the draft report said. Farm crops and livestock will also struggle
with thermal and water stress. Staple crops such as corn, rice, wheat and soybeans are assumed to
face a temperature limit of 40-45 degrees, with temperature thresholds for key sowing stages near or
below 35 degrees, the report said.
Its Bad + Adaptation Key + Tipping Point
Laundry list of reasons climate change is just bad and turns every impact adaptation
is key and the tipping point is 2C
Richardson et al, 09 (Katherine, Professor in Biological Oceanography at the University of
Copenhagen, Will Steffen, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Joseph Alcamo, Terry Barker, Daniel M. Kammen,
Rik Leemans, Diana Liverman, Mohan Munasinghe, Balgis Osman-Elasha, Nicholas Stern, Ole Wver,
Social and Environmental Disruption, in Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions,
International Alliance of Research Universities, University of Copenhagen,
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/14774466/http___climatecongress.ku.pdf, AW)
One of the best indicators of the impacts of climate change on societies is human health and well-being
(Box 3). The observed temperature rise to date, about 0.7oC, is already affecting health in many
societies; the increasing number of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, and storms, is
leading to a growing toll of deaths and injuries from climate-related natural disasters1. Beyond the
direct impacts on health, climate change also affects the underlying determinants of health quantity
and quality of food, water resources, and ecological control of disease vectors16 (session 14). The
nexus between climate change, human health and water systems is particularly strong. As for health,
the impacts of climate change on water systems are already apparent in many parts of the world, with
accelerating impacts likely for several decades irrespective of future agreements to abate emissions of
greenhouse gases (Box 4). For example, droughts and drying are leading to social instability, food
insecurity and long-term health problems in some regions now as livelihoods are damaged or
destroyed16 (session 14). Such impacts often drive a strategy of short-term survival at the expense of
longer-term adaptation. Nevertheless, adaptation measures to lessen the impacts of climate change
are urgently needed now. Given the considerable uncertainties around projections of climate
impacts on water resources at local and regional scales, building resilience, managing risks, and
employing adaptive management are likely to be the most effective adaptation strategies16 (session
29). Even with effective adaptation, the impacts on water resources in many parts of the world will be
severe with climate change associated with only 1.0 to 1.5oC rises in temperature23. Water resources
are a growing problem for urban areas also. Lack of clean water in many of the new mega-cities, where
ten million or more, often poor, inhabitants live, is already an issue of serious concern. In many cases,
pressure on water supplies is exacerbated by changes in rainfall patterns and water availability
resulting from climate change. A continuing flux of people into these new mega-cities, some of whom
are escaping drying areas in the surrounding regions, adds further to the water stress. Many of the
most damaging effects of climate change are associated with extreme events high intensity,
relatively rare events such as cyclones and storms rather than slow increases in average values of
climatic parameters. Furthermore, extreme events may respond to climate change by becoming even
more extreme. For example, even with a modest increase in surface wind speed of 5 metres per
second in tropical cyclones, possible with just a 1oC rise in ocean temperature, the number of the most
intense and destructive cyclones (Category 5) may double while the incidence of less intense cyclones
would experience much smaller increases (Figure 6). Observations from the last decade in the North
Atlantic, in which the number of Category 5 cyclones has increased by 300-400%, support this
analysis24. The consequences of these events for coastal communities around the world, from small
fishing villages on Pacific atolls to mega-cities on Chinese river deltas, are potentially severe, particularly
when coupled with sea-level rise and a range of local factors that increase vulnerability. The
increasing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is important for marine ecosystems as it increases
ocean acidity (Box 5). While the precise effects of ocean acidification are not yet clear, those organisms
which produce calcium carbonate are expected to be especially vulnerable. Animals such as corals may
be particularly threatened possibly even to extinction within the next century if atmospheric CO2
concentrations continue to rise unchecked. The geologic record indicates that ecosystem recovery from
such a change in ocean acidity would likely take hundreds of thousands, if not many millions, of years,
although true recovery is impossible because extinctions are irreversible10. Climate change has
consequences for biodiversity, more generally, and for the many services that humans derive from
diverse and well-functioning ecosystems. There is a looming biodiversity catastrophe if global mean
temperature rises above the 2oC guardrail, ocean acidification spreads and sea-level rise
accelerates26. These climate-related stressors will interact with a wide range of existing stressors on
biodiversity. The catastrophe will be expressed as the extinction of a significant fraction of biological
species within the next 100 years, a substantially reduced range and higher risk of eventual extinction
for other species, and the degradation of ecosystem services (Box 6). Limiting temperature rise to 2oC
or less and rapidly implementing strong and proactive adaptation in conservation policy and
management can limit the magnitude of the crisis but not entirely eliminate it16 (session 31). Estimates
of the impacts of climate change on critical sectors such as water resources and biodiversity, and on
more integrative measures of well-being such as health, are common approaches to defining dangerous
climate change. More recent research on tipping elements in the Earth System provides another
measure of potentially dangerous consequences for humanity of unabated climate change27. Tipping
elements occur when a small change in an important variable, such as temperature, causes a rapid and
unexpectedly large change in a feature of the climate, altering its condition or pattern of behaviour.
Arctic summer sea ice and the Asian monsoon, to several centuries or a millennium, as for the
Greenland ice sheet. For two of the tipping elements Arctic summer sea ice and the Greenland ice
sheet a rise in global average temperature of 1-2oC would possibly be enough to trigger them27
although another study28 indicates that a global average warming of 3.1oC would be the threshold for
the Greenland ice sheet. The magnitude of warming required to trigger most of the other tipping
elements, however, is not well known but even a small risk of triggering them would be considered
dangerous24. It is not only temperature increases that may trigger tipping events. Recent studies
suggest that ocean acidification (Box 5) may cause the creation of areas in the ocean with reduced levels
of oxygen marine oxygen holes - with devastating consequences for marine life29. One of the most
common human responses to severe environmental stress, such as deterioration in water resources or
food supply, is to move to places where conditions are better. The abrupt change of a tipping element
such as the Asian monsoon to a substantially drier state, or the eventual loss of water storage capacity
in Himalayan glaciers, would lead to environmental stress of profound proportions by reducing water
availability in the Indo-Gangetic plain. The possibility of large numbers of forced migrants as a result of
severe climate impacts has raised concerns that climate change may soon become a major issue (Box
7). The IPCC in 200121 synthesised the types of analyses described above using the best scientific
evidence available at the time in terms of reasons for concern. The resulting visual representation of
that synthesis, the so-called burning embers diagram, shows the increasing risk of various types of
climate impacts with an increase in global average temperature. Using the same methodology, the
reasons for concern have been updated based on the most recent research31. Several insights relevant
to the definition of dangerous climate change are obvious from a comparison of the 2001 and 2009
diagrams (Figure 8). First, risks of deleterious climate change impacts now appear at significantly lower
levels of global average temperature rise in the more recent analysis. Second, a 2oC guardrail, which
was thought in 2001 to have avoided serious risks for all five reasons for concern, is now inadequate to
avoid serious risks to many unique and threatened ecosystems and to avoid a large increase in the risks
associated with extreme weather events. Third, the risks of large scale discontinuities, such as the
tipping elements described above, were considered to be very low in 2001 for a 2oC increase but are
now considered to be moderate for the same increase. In summary, although a 2oC rise in
temperature above pre-industrial remains the most commonly quoted guardrail for avoiding
dangerous climate change, it nevertheless carries significant risks of deleterious impacts for society
and the environment.


Conflict/War

Climate change leads to crisis and conflict empirically proven
Zhang et al, 11 (David D., Department of Geography and The International Centre of China
Development Studies and School of Geographic and Environmental Studies at Normal University, Harry
F. Lee, Cong Wang, Baosheng Li, Qing Pei, ane Zhang, and Yulun An, The causality analysis of climate
change and large-scale human crisis, PNAS, vol. 108, no. 42, October 18, 2011, AW)
In this study, all criteria for confirming the causal mechanisms between climate change and human
crisis were met. The alternation of historical golden and dark ages in Europe and the NH, which often
was attributable to sociopolitical factors (20, 21), was indeed rooted in climate change. Climate
change determined the fate of agrarian societies via the economy (the ratio between resources and
population). Because the economy also interacts with numerous social factors, scholars tend to rely on
social factors to explain human crisis. Although many individual, short-term human crises are triggered
by social problems, this effect does not necessarily contradict our findings if we take differing temporal
and spatial scales into account. The crucial issue linking scale to explanation is whether the variables
used to explain a phenomenon are themselves located at the same scale. Causal explanation and
generalization relevant to one scale regime are unlikely to be appropriate at others (36). Although social
factors may explain some short-term crises in history, they cannot explain the synchronous occurrence
of long-term crises in different countries (in different stages of civilization, culture, economic
development, and resources) across different climatic zones in the NH, nor can they simulate the
alternation of historical golden and dark ages. In fact, climate-induced societal change can be measured
at different scales, whereas the magnitude of change depends upon the economic impact of climate
deterioration. Here we established the underlying causal mechanisms between climate change and
human crisis at continental and hemispheric scales. We conclude that climate change was the ultimate
cause of human crisis in preindustrial societies. In addition, we identified climate-driven economic
downturn as the direct cause of human crisis. This result explains why some countries did not undergo
serious human crisis in the Little Ice Age: Wet tropical countries with high land-carrying capacity or
countries with trading economies did not suffer a considerable shrinkage in food supply, nor did some
countries, such as New World countries with vast arable land and sparse populations, experience
substantial supply shortage. Our findings have important implications for industrial and postindustrial
societies. Any natural or social factor that causes large resource (supply) depletion, such as climate
and environmental change, overpopulation, overconsumption, or nonequitable distribution of
resources, may lead to a general crisis, according to the set of causal linkages in Fig. 2. The scale of the
crisis depends on the temporal and spatial extent of resource depletion.
Climate change makes conflict more likely stresses weaken ability to handle tensions
Waever, 09 (Ole, Professor and Centre Director of the Department of Political Science at the
University of Copenhagen, Security Implications of Climate Change, in Climate Change: Global Risks,
Challenges & Decisions, International Alliance of Research Universities, University of Copenhagen,
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/14774466/http___climatecongress.ku.pdf, AW)
Climate change can create strains that increase the frequency of violent conflicts between societies,
typically where the main causes are ethnic or political tensions but where added burdens from
climate change weaken societies ability to handle tensions. Changing conditions for settlement,
agriculture, mining, transportation, diseases and disasters lead to local conflicts due to competition,
and to international conflicts mainly through migration or power shifts. Historically, the major human
response to climatic changes beyond local adaptation capacity was migration. When human
communities in the past occasionally weathered comparably large changes this way, the world was not
yet carved up into tightly regulated territorial states, and climate changed much more slowly than now.
Today, large scale migration is usually resisted by states and becomes a conflict issue between
them39,40. Some researchers emphasise that a correlation between climate change and conflict is not
documented in quantitative data41; others point out that this would in any case be unlikely given both
the nature of these data sets and the relatively recent materialisation of the impacts of accelerating
climate change on societies42,43. Much research is currently aimed at producing data better focused on
measuring these relationships, thereby also preparing international society for managing the resulting
conflicts. Meanwhile, non public analyses abound. Intelligence services and militaries place climate
change ever more centrally in their preparations for future conflicts44,45. If major powers become
involved in conflicts, political cooperation on climate policy will become much more difficult. If
international climate policy comes to be seen as manifestly failing, unilateral attempts to deal with
the emergency situation can lead to conflicts, for example, over geoengineering. Also climate change
policy and the lack thereof can itself become the object of international conflict or justify dramatic
measures, as in the famous characterisation by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of climate change
as an act of aggression by the rich against the poor.

Structural Violence

Allowing warming to continue perpetuates racist inequalities
Hoerner 8Former director of Research at the Center for a Sustainable Economy, Director of Tax Policy at the Center for Global Change at the
University of Maryland College Park, and editor of Natural Resources Tax Review. He has done research on environmental economics and policy on
behalf of the governments of Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Andrew received his B.A. in Economics
from Cornell University and a J.D. from Case Western Reserve School of LawANDNia Robinsformer inaugural Climate Justice Corps Fellow in 2003,
director of Environmental ustice and Climate Change Initiative (. Andrew, A Climate of Change African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate
Policy for the U.S. uly 2008, http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf)

Everywhere we turn, the issues and impacts of climate change confront us. One of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today, climate change
has moved from the minds of scientists and offices of environmentalists to the mainstream. Though the media is dominated by i mages of polar bears, melting
glaciers, flooded lands, and arid desserts, there is a human face to this story as well. Climate change is not only an issue of the environment; it is also an
issue of justice and human rights, one that dangerously intersects race and class . All over the world people of
color, Indigenous Peoples and low-income communities bear disproportionate burdens from climate
change itself, from ill-designed policies to prevent it, and from side effects of the energy systems that cause it. A Climate of Change explores the impacts of
climate change on African Americans, from health to economics to community, and considers what policies would most harm or benefit African Americansand the
nation as a whole. African Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-
Hispanic whites per capita. Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans are significantly
more vulnerable to its effects than non- Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and
social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.
African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused
by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S. Climate Justice: The
Time Is Now Ultimately, accomplishing climate justice will require that new alliances are forged and traditional movements are transformed. An effective policy to
address the challenges of global warming cannot be crafted until race and equity are part of the discussion from the outset and an integral part of the solution. This
report finds that: Global warming amplifies nearly all existing inequalities . Under global warming, injustices that are already
unsustainable become catastrophic. Thus it is essential to recognize that all justice is climate justice and that the struggle for racial and economic justice is an
unavoidable part of the fight to halt global warming. Sound global warming policy is also economic and racial justice policy.
Successfully adopting a sound global warming policy will do as much to strengthen the economies of low-income
communities and communities of color as any other currently plausible stride toward economic justice. Climate policies that best serve
African Americans also best serve a just and strong United States. This paper shows that policies well-designed to benefit African Americans also provide the most
benefit to all people in the U.S. Climate policies that best serve African Americans and other disproportionately affected
communities also best serve global economic and environmental justice. Domestic reductions in global
warming pollution and support for such reductions in developing nations financed by polluter-pays principles provide the greatest benefit to
African Americans, the peoples of Africa, and people across the Global South. A distinctive African American voice is
critical for climate justice. Currently, legislation is being drafted, proposed, and considered without any significant input from the communities most affected.
Special interests are represented by powerful lobbies, while traditional environmentalists often fail to engage people of color, Indigenous Peoples, and low-income
communities until after the political playing field has been defined and limited to conventional environmental goals. A strong focus on equity is essential to the
success of the environmental cause, but equity issues cannot be adequately addressed by isolating the voices of communities that are disproportionately impacted.
Engagement in climate change policy must be moved from the White House and the halls of Congress to social circles, classrooms, kitchens, and congregations. The
time is now for those disproportionately affected to assume leadership in the climate change debate, to speak truth to power, and to assert rights to social,
environmental and economic justice. Taken together, these actions affirm a vital truth that will bring communities together: Climate Justice is Common Justice.
African Americans and Vulnerability In this report, it is shown that African Americans are disproportionately affected by cli mate change. African Americans Are at
Greater Risk from Climate Change and Global Warming Co-Pollutants The six states with the highest African American
population are all in the Atlantic hurricane zone, and are expected to experience more intense storms resembling
Katrina and Rita in the future. Global warming is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves or extreme
heat events. African Americans suffer heat death at one hundred fifty to two hundred percent of the rate for non-
Hispanic whites. Seventy-one percent of African Americans live in counties in violation of federal air
pollution standards, as compared to fifty-eight percent of the white population. Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within thirty
miles of a coal-fired power plant, as compared to fifty-six percent of non-Hispanic whites. Asthma has strong associations
with air pollution, and African Americans have a thirty-six percent higher rate of incidents of asthma
than whites. Asthma is three times as likely to lead to emergency room visits or deaths for African Americans. This study finds that a twenty-five percent
reduction in greenhouse gasessimilar to what passed in California and is proposed in major federal legislationwould reduce infant mortality by at least two
percent, asthma by at least sixteen percent, and mortality from particulates by at least 6,000 to 12,000 deaths per year. Other estimates have run as high as 33,000
fewer deaths per year. A disproportionate number of the lives saved by these proposed reductions would be
African American . African Americans Are Economically More Vulnerable to Disasters and Illnesses In 2006, twenty percent of African Americans had
no health insurance, including fourteen percent of African American childrennearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic whites. In the absence of insurance,
disasters and illness (which will increase with global warming) could be cushioned by income and accumulated wealth. However, the average income of African
American households is fifty-seven percent that of non-Hispanic whites, and median wealth is only one-tenth that of non-Hispanic whites. Racist stereotypes
have been shown to reduce aid donations and impede service delivery to African Americans in the wake of hurricanes, floods, fires and other climate-related
disasters as compared to non-Hispanic whites in similar circumstances. African Americans Are at Greater Risk from Energy Price
Shocks African Americans spend thirty percent more of their income on energy than non-Hispanic whites. Energy price increases have contributed to
seventy to eighty percent of recent recessions. The increase in unemployment of African Americans during energy caused recessions is twice that of non-Hispanic
whites, costing the community an average of one percent of income every year. Reducing economic dependence on energy will alleviate the frequency and
severity of recessions and the economic disparities they generate. African Americans Pay a Heavy Price and a Disproportionate Share of the Cost of Wars for Oil Oil
company profits in excess of the normal rate of profit for U.S. industries cost the average household $611 in 2006 alone and are still rising. The total cost of the
war in Iraq borne by African Americans will be $29,000 per household if the resulting deficit is financed by tax increases, and $32,000 if the debt is repaid by
spending cuts. This is more than three times the median assets of African American households. A Clean Energy Future Creates Far More Jobs for African Americans
Fossil fuel extraction industries employ a far lower proportion of African Americans on average compared to other industries. Conversely, renewable
electricity generation employs three to five times as many people as comparable electricity generation from fossil fuels, a
higher proportion of whom are African American. Switching just one percent of total electricity generating
capacity per year from conventional to renewable sources would result in an additional 61,000 to 84,000 jobs for African
Americans by 2030. A well-designed comprehensive climate plan achieving emission reductions comparable to the Kyoto
Protocol would create over 430,000 jobs for African Americans by 2030, reducing the African American unemployment rate by 1.8
percentage points and raising the average African American income by 3 to 4 percent.

Warming disproportionately affects the global South
Carrington 11 Head of the environment at The Guardian (Damian, Map reveals stark divide in who caused climate change and who's
being hit, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/oct/26/climate-change-developing-country-impacts-
risk?CMP=twt_gu, October 26th, 2011, KTOP)

When the world's nations convene in Durban in November in the latest attempt to inch towards a global deal to tackle climate change, one
fundamental principle will, as ever, underlie the negotiations. Is is the contention that while rich, industrialised nations caused
climate change through past carbon emissions, it is the developing world that is bearing the brunt. It
follows from that, developing nations say, that the rich nations must therefore pay to enable the
developing nations to both develop cleanly and adapt to the impacts of global warming. The point is
starkly illustrated in a new map of climate vulnerability (above): the rich global north has low
vulnerability, the poor global south has high vulnerability. The map is produced by risk analysts Maplecroft by combining
measures of the risk of climate change impacts, such as storms, floods, and droughts, with the social and financial ability of both communities
and governments to cope. The top three most vulnerable nations reflect all these factors: Haiti, Bangladesh,
Zimbabwe. But it is not until you go all the way down 103 on the list, out of 193 nations, that you encounter the first major developed
nation: Greece. The first 102 nations are all developing ones. Italy is next, at 124, and like Greece ranks relatively highly due to
the risk of drought. The UK is at 178 and the country on Earth least vulnerable to climate change, according to Maplecroft, is Iceland. "Large
areas of north America and northern Europe are not so exposed to actual climate risk, and are very well placed to deal with it," explains Charlie
Beldon, principal analyst at Maplecroft. The vulnerability index has been calculated down to a resolution of 25km2 and Beldon says at this scale
the vulnerability of the developing world's fast growing cities becomes clear. "A lot of big cities have developed in exposed areas such as flood
plains, such as in south east Asia, and in developing economies they so don't have the capacity to adapt." Of the world's 20 fastest growing
cities, six are classified as 'extreme risk' by Maplecroft, including Calcutta in India, Manila in the Philippines, Jakarta in Indonesia and Dhaka and
Chittagong in Bangladesh. Addis Ababa in Ethiopia also features. A further 10 are rated as 'high risk' including Guangdong, Mumbai, Delhi,
Chennai, Karachi and Lagos. "Cities such as Manila, Jakarta and Calcutta are vital centres of economic
growth in key emerging markets, but heat waves, flooding, water shortages and increasingly severe
and frequent storm events may well increase as climate changes takes hold," says Beldon. With the world on the
verge of a population of seven billion people, the rapid urbanisation of many developing countries remains one of
the major demographic trends, but piles on risk because of the higher pressure on resources, such as
water, and city infrastructure, like roads and hospitals.

Warming exacerbates structural violence
Barnett 3 (Jon, School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Melbourne, Security and Climate Change, Global Environmental Change 13 (2003) 717,
ScienceDirect)//rh
That climate change poses risks to human welfare is relatively uncontentious in both climate science and
climate policy circles. People living on atolls, on coasts, in areas affected by El Nino.in drought-prone
areas and arctic regions are all likely to experience negative impacts from climate change. It is not
only the long. term change in mean conditions that is the problem. but also the possibility of
increasingly variable (less pre ictable) climate, increasingly severe and frequent extreme events,
increasing adjustments in institutions, and the possibility of violent conflicts which may render
welfare and livelihoods less secure. Security in this sense is human security. The United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) propose the concept of human security to assist in the framing of
development and justice issues, seeing it as being: concerned with how people live and breathe in a
society, how freely they exercise their many choices, how much access they have to market and social
opportunitiesand whether they live in conflict or peace. Human security is not a concern with
weaponsit is a concern with human life and dignity (UNDP. 1994. pp. 2223). This is clearly
germane to the impacts of climate change on individual and community welfare and livelihoods.
Environmental insecurity in this context is the double vulnerability of people that arises when
underdevelopment and poverty are compounded by environmental change (Barnett. 200 lb). For
example, an average woman from the Marshall Islands has a life expectancy fourteen years less than
an Australian woman, her child is thirteen times more likely to die as an infant compared to an
Australian child, and she earns only 8% of her Australian counterpart (UNDP. 1998. 1999). There are
therefore clear inequities and injustices between these two countries regardless of climate impacts.
However, Australians produces fifty times more greenhouse gases than Marshall Islanders, yet a
meter rise in sea-level would subsume 80% of the Marshall Islands, whereas a much smaller amount
of Australias surface is likely to be flooded (Commonwealth of Australia. 1997: Holthus et al., 1992;
Republic of the Marshall Islands, 2(X).3 Australia has much greater wealth as a nation, as do its people,
giving them the resources to adapt at some economic but little other social cost. The difference is tha
tfor an Australian, climate change is a problem of adaptation. For a Marshall Islander the problem is a
matter of survival: they are insecure. There are therefore discrepancies in responsibility for and
vulnerability to climate change. and this underlies the dialectical nature of human security.


Economy

Climate Change turns the economy laundry list
Aaheima et al 12 (Asbjrn Aaheima, *, Helene Amundsena , Therese Dokkenb , Taoyuan Wei a,
aCICERO, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway bUMB School of
Economics and Business, Norway, Impacts and adaptation to climate change in European economies,
Global Environmental Change, Science Direct, August 1, 2012)//rh
2.1. Climatic changes in Europe Results from available studies were used to assess the impacts on each of the eleven economic
sectors represented in the GRACE model. The sectors are affected by climate change in different ways and to different extents, and can be
categorized into the following activities: impacts to the productivity of natural resources in agriculture, forestry,
sheries and the electricity sectors, the demand for tourism and energy, and loss of real capital and
labour related to natural hazards and sea level rise. In order to establish a point of reference for the assessment of climate
change impacts we have used a climate scenario from the PRUDENCE project (Christensen et al., 2007), based on the IPCC A2 global emissions
scenario (Nakicienovic and Swart, 2000). This scenario was also used by the PESETA project (Ciscar et al., 2011a,b), and projects an increase in
global mean temperature of +3.1 8C for the period 20702100, compared to the control period 19611990. The corresponding changes in
climate parameters for the eight geographic regions in GRACE are shown in Table 1. The temperatures are expected to
increase between +2.5 8C in British Islands and +4.8C on the Iberian Peninsula. The changes in per year precipitation range from 25
per cent in Iberia to +13 per cent in the Baltic states. The minimum and maximum columns show the corresponding variability across the sub-
regions. 2.2. Sector specic impacts of climate change in Europe Productivity in both the agricultural and the
forestry sectors depend heavily on climatic factors. Impacts to agriculture are particularly important
because the value added to GDP is relatively high in many countries. In the Baltics and Central Europe East,
the value added from agriculture is more than 15 per cent of GDP, while less than 10 per cent in the other regions. In
most regions, crops contribute more than 50 per cent of the agricultural output while livestock contribute
between 34 and 46 per cent. Fruit and vegetables have the lowest share in all regions, but are still above 10 per
cent in Baltic, and in wine producing regions. The forestry sector plays a less prominent role to the European economies, contributing to
less than 1 per cent in all regions. However, along with the agricultural sector, forests also provide important services
beyond their economic contributions. Crops and forests are impacted by climate change through
growth conditions and the length of growth season. Livestock may be affected by diseases and heat
stress, while climatic changes may affect the quality of fruit and vegetables, which is particularly
important for wine producers. Both agriculture and forestry may also gain some from the so-called fertilization effect of CO2-
concentrations up to a temperature increase of 24 8C (Kimball et al., 2002; Long et al., 2004). There is a large literature on impacts on crops in
European countries. Most studies conclude that northern regions will gain (Alcamo et al., 2007), mainly because of temperature increases,
while less rain will lead to losses in southern regions (see e.g. Iglesias et al., 2012). The impacts to livestock and fruit and vegetables are less
studied, but losses are expected, particularly in the Baltics (Stuczyinski et al., 2000). All in all, the impact to the agricultural sector
in Europe is expected to be negative, mainly due to impacts on crops of less precipitation, in particular
in southern parts (Giannakopoulos et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2005). The impact of climate change on forests is
expected to follow the same pattern as productivity in agriculture, with gains in northern and eastern
regions, and with losses in southern regions (see e.g. Fronzek and Carter, 2007). The composite of species will
also be affected. Coniferous trees are likely to replace deciduous trees. Further, forested area will
change with higher temperatures and expand north and towards higher altitudes (Kellomaki et al., 2000)
Fisheries represent an essential economic activity in several coastal areas of Central Europe South. Iberia and the
Nordic countries, but its importance fr local communities does not come through in the regional aggregates. In most regions, it contributes
between D.05 and 25 per cent cf GDP. The exceptions are Iberia and Central Europe South. where fisheries contribute 0.4 and 0.8 per cent,
respectively. These figures include fish farming, which tends to become more important the further north we come. The location of fish
stocks is known to be very sensitive to sea temperatures, but it is difficult to predict where they will
move. Also the size of stocks may be affected, but to which extent depends on where the stock
moves. With climate change and resulting impacts on sea temperature migration cl stocks northwards is expected with benefits to the
northern regions. Substantial losses are expected in the Mediterranean and to Iberia (Perry et al.. 2005), while the expected
overall effect in Western Europe and British Islands are negative. The uncertainties are large, though. Higher
temperature means increased risk of diseases, implying that the impacts of higher sea temperature on
aquaculture are unequivocally negative. The electricity sector is essential to all countries, and its
importance tends to be inversely correlated with income per capita. In most of Europe, fossil based power plants
contribute between 80 and 95 per cent of total supply. The Nordic countries are an exception, as hydropower dominates with 56 per cent cf
total production, and only 37 per cent is generated by fossil fuels. New renewables, mainly biomass and wind, contribute between 1 and 8 per
cent in European countries. The highest shares are found in Central Europe North. Iberia and the Nordic countries (lEA. 2005). Impacts of
climate change on energy supply depend on the source of energy. Supply of renewables is closely
related to the climate. For wind power, however, it is difficult to estimate impacts, because
predictions of wind are unavailable or extremely uncertain. Also fossil fuelled plants and nuclear
power will be affected by the availability of cooling water. Cost estimates are unavailable, but we include a negative
change ita the supply or costal electricity In all regions. based on ArneU el aL (2005) and Lehner et al. (2006). In the Nordic countries, a
combination of more pecipitation and a high share UI hydropower is expected to increase the supply of electricity with 15 per cent (Lehner et
al.. 2005). The demand for energy is effected by temperatures to the extent that energy is used for
cooling and heating. What dominates depends on the prevailing temperature, and the sensitivity is
usually based on measures of degree days, which combines daily mean temperatures ami number of
healing and cooling days per year. Simpler estimates of temperature elasticities based on De Cian et aL (2007), which refer to the
variations In annual energy asse and annual antan temperatures are available, and applied In this study. The climatic changes shown in Table I
lead to a reduction an the deniand or gas between 6 (Iberia) and IS per cent (&itish Islands). The demand fo, refined oiLs declines by between
0.5 (C.E. East) and 2.7 per cent (Cl. North). Electricity demand falls by .apptoxl mately 1.5 per cent in all regions expect Cl. South and Iberia.
where it increases by approximately 3 per cent. Climate change is expected to affect the choice of tourists
destinations significantly (Itamiltuis et aL 2005: Amelulig and MorenO, 2007). However, uncertainties are l,wge. Little is known
about the relationship between climate and choice of destinations, except typical beach holidays
destinations. Also winter resorts will be effected, but with unpredictable effect. Estimates of the
economic impacts on tourism also suffer from a lack of reliable information of which and to what
extent economic activities are stimulated by tourism. Here, we assume that tourism affects the service and the transport
sectors. tu an extent depending on the magnitude or tourism in the region. Tourism is expected to decrease in the southern regions uf Europe
as a result of warmer and drier summers (Hamilton et al, 2005). These are regions with an Intensive tourist industry. In all the other regions,
tourism is expected to increase significantly. Some of the explanation is that citizens (roan these regions to a greater extent peefer to spend
their holidays within their domestic region. For other regions than those two rs southern Europe, inte,nataonal tourism is expected to decline
nanderalely n all regions except Central Europe North arid the Noaslic countries. In addition ro the sector specific impacts, climate
change will also have crossover effects, Such as damages related to extreme events, sea-level rise and
health effects with economic consequences both roe the health sector and for the supply or labour.
The costs of sea-level rise in this study apply Tors (2002) estimate of 1700 null 1151) fur all 01 Europe.
This ettimate is distributed in accordance with approximations of coastline, low-lying areas and population by sub-region. Nearly 670 mIll
accrue on CE. West. wtrlte the costs to the British Islands are mere than 370 mIli IJSD. For tise other regions, the costs of sea-level rise at I mare
less than 200 maIl LPSD per year. National estimates of material damages of natural hazards are difcult to nd. Our estimates are based on
Swiss Re (2011) and assume that the frequency of natural hazards doubles at the increase in global mean temperature of 3.5 8C. The resulting
costs correspond to a reduction between 0.4 (Nordic countries) and 1.2 per cent (Iberia) of the stock of real capital in European regions.
Climate change will also have health effects, with economic consequences both on the supply of
labour and on the demand for health services. National estimates were unavailable when the study was carried out,
however, and possible impacts on health are therefore excluded.
Electric Grid

Climate Change turns the grid
Jaglom et al. 14 (W.S., et al., ICF International, US environmental protection agency, ames R.
McFarlandb , Michelle F. Colleya,n , Charlotte B. Macka , Boddu Venkatesha , Rawlings L. Miller a ,
Juanita Haydel a , Peter A. Schultz a , Bill Perkins b , Joseph H. Casola b , Jeremy A. Martinichb , Paul
Cross a , Michael J. Kolianb , Serpil Kayin, Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate
change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Models. Energy Policy (2014),
Science Direct, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.032)//rh
This study assesses the impacts of higher temperatures on the 115. power sector. Incorporating the
eflects of rising temperatures associated with a business-as-usual GHG emissions scenario (REF). our
analysis shows substantial elfects on electricity demand and resulting impacts on power sector
investments and operating costs. Rising temperatures under a REF scenario result in a 39% increase in
average annual cooling degree days by 2050, which is more than double the 18% decrease in average
annual heating degree days by 2050. These temperature changes directly affect electricity demand.
Under the REF scenario, annual U.S electricity demand is 65% greater in 2050 than under the control
scenario (CON), which assumes present-day temperatures are constant over time. Higher demand in
turn requires additional power production and associated investment, tinder the REF scenario, there is
a substantial incremental investment in combined cycle and com bustion turbine units (0167 GW and
30GW respectively) by 2050. which increases annual system costs by 551 billion , or 14%. compared to
the CON scenario. Higher demand also increases the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.
The effect of higher temperatures under the REF scenario results in an increase in power sector CO
emissions of 5.4% in 2050 over the CON scenario. Demand for, and consumption of, electricity can there
fore be substantially affected by a changing climate. These results highlight the need for regulators,
power companies. and regional transmission organizations to account for future temperature change
in demand forecasts and investment planning decisions . As illustrated in this study, ignoring the
influence of future temperature change may lead power sector planners and decision-makers to
underestimate future electricity demand, particularly during periods of peak load. Underlying the
national findings, including the increase in electricity demand, is variation in regional and seasonal
demand. This analysis shows greater percentage decreases in heating degree days across southern
regions (where heating demand is currently lower), with larger percentage increases in cooling degree
days in northern regions (where cooling demand is currently lower). Some regions show particularly
extreme changesfor example, cooling demand in some Midwest regions increases over 90% by 2050
under the REF scenario. These regional changes further underscore the need for planners to account
for temperature change in regional Forecasts and planning and investment decisions. The analysis also
compares the impact of increasing temperature with the impact of emissions mitigation on the US.
power system. Under the RF3.7+ CAP scenario, in which temperature increases are lower than under
the REF scenario and emissions are reduced 56% below REF levels in 2050, emissions reduction policies
trigger increased investment in nuclear and renewable power production, carbon capture and
sequestration retrofits of coal plants, and a shift away from coal steam and combined cycle
technologies. Although the technologies are quite different, the change in total system costs by 2050
is similar to the change under the REF scenario. Under the RFJ.7+CAP scenario, annual costs are $48 bn.
or 13%, greater than the CON scenario. The analysis shows that although mitigation actions increase
system costs relative to a baseline that assumes constant temperatures, the system costs for
moderate emission reductions are slightly less than the system costs required to meet the additional
demand for electricity under a business-as-usual scenario with higher temperatures. This result
illustrates the importance of adequately captunng the effect of expected temperature changes when
comparing business-as- usual scenarios with mitigation policy scenarios. Importantly, climate policy
analysts should include the costs of inaction in the baseline when assessing the costs of mitigation.
Omitting the impact of temperature change artificially inflates the relative system cost of mitigation
policies and might mislead policy makers to underinvest in mitigation . For example, the results from
this study indicate that the power system costs of moderate emissions mitigation may cost less than
meeting the impacts (mm unmitigated dimate change. This study, which focuses on temperature
changes, finds substantial demand-side impacts on the electric power sector. On the supply-side. de-
rating effects from higher ambient temperatures were explored and found to be smaller than the
demand-side effects. However, additional analysis is needed to better assess potential supply-side
impacts. In particular, future work should investigate climate change impacts on hydropower supply and
climate change impacts on wet cooling of power generation plants. Additional research into the effects
of extreme events on both supply and demand is also needed. Researchers, in collaboration with
electric power sector decision makers, could expand the analysis to more fully capture climate change
effects like these. In addition, the results of this study are sensitive to both the assumed climate
scenarios (none of which represent the highest or lowest potential changes in emissions and
temperature) and the underlying assumptions in the control scenano, induding demand levels and
growth, fuel prices, and technology costs. It would be beneficial to broaden the range of scenarios in
future studies (using multiple climate models, dirnate parameters, and emissions scenanos) to help
bound the range of possible impacts. Future analysis could also test the sensitivities of both dimate and
socioeconomic assumptions, induding demand elasticities, mitigation xtions in neighboring coun tries,
and load shape. Future analyses could incorporate updated data. induding projections, from ELs latest
Annual Energy Outlook and use EPAs more recent 1PM Base Case v5.13. Appendix A indudes an
explanation of the differences between EPMPM v410 and EPA-IPM v5i3. Finally the study could be
expanded to analyze impacts on the energy sector more broadty bend only electric power sector
impacts. Overall, this analysis illustrates the potential costs to the U.S. power system due to
temperature change impacts and emissions mitigation. Even under the assumption of perfect foresight,
annual costs to the power sector by mid-century are projected to be about 14% greater than if
temperatures were not changing. The magnitude of these impacts justifies incorporating the effects of
rising temperatures on the power sector into power sector and climate policy decision-making.
Regulators, power companies, and regio nal transmission organizations, as well as climate policy
decision makers, would benefit from additional studies that address the limitations of this study to
better understand future scenarios and how they might impact key decisions. By taking an active role
in the crafting of research questions for future studies, power sector decision makers will be better
prepared to proacrively adapt the system to account for projected future conditions through policy
and investment decisions,

Food Security

Climate change threatens food security and affects the poor the most stability of the
food system
Wheeler and von Braun, 13 (Tim, Walker Institute for Climate System Research, Department of
Agriculture, Department for International Development in London, Joachim, Center for Development
Research, Department of Economic and Technical Change in Bonn, Germany, Climate Change Impacts
on Global Food Security, Science 2, August 2013,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/508.full, AW)
The stability of whole food systems may be at risk under climate change, as climate can be an
important determinant for future price trends (32), as well as the short-term variability of prices. Since
2007, the world food equation has been at a precariously low level and, consequently, even small
shocks on the supply or demand side of the equation will have large impacts on prices, as experienced
in 2008 (62). Food security of the poor is strongly affected by staple food prices, as a large part of an
impoverished familys income has to be spent on staple foods. Climate change is likely to increase
food market volatility for both production and supply [see (63) for the supply side]. Food system
stability can also be endangered by demand shocks, for instance, when aggressive bioenergy subsidies
and quota policies were applied by the political economy (64). These sorts of policy shifts, made in the
past decade by the United States and the European Union, have been motivated in part by energy
security concerns and partly by climate mitigation objectives (6567). The resulting destabilization of
food markets, which contributed to major food security problems, was therefore partly related to
climate change (policy). The 2008 food crisis stemmed from a combination of a general reduction of
agricultural productivity and acute policy failures, exacerbated by export restrictions applied by many
countries, a lack of transparency in markets, and poor regulation of financial engagement in food
commodity markets (68, 69). A broad set of risks needs to be considered, of which climate change is
an increasingly important one, that can ripple out to destabilize food systems, resulting in high and
volatile food prices that temporarily limit poor peoples food consumption (7073), financial and
economic shocks that lead to job loss and credit constraints (74), and risks that political disruptions
and failed political systems cause food insecurity (75). This complex system of risks can assume a
variety of patterns that could potentially collide in catastrophic combinations.
Continued climate change threatens food security multiple reasons
Chakraborty and Newton, 11 (S., Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization,
Plant Industry, A.C., Scottish Crop Research Institute, Climate Change, plant diseases and food security:
an overview, Plant Pathology 60, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-
3059.2010.02411.x/pdf, AW)
The FAO estimated that 102 billion people went hungry in 2009, the highest ever level of world hunger, mainly as result of declining
investment in agriculture (Anonymous, 2010). It has been estimated that land degradation, urban expansion and conversion of crops and
croplands for non-food production will reduce the total global cropping area by 820% by 2050 (Nellemann et al., 2009). This fact, combined
with water scarcity, is already posing a formidable challenge to increase food production by 50%to meet the projected demand of the worlds
population by 2050. Conditions will be even more difficult if climate change results in melting of portions of
the Himalayan glaciers, disturbs the monsoon pattern and increases flooding drought in Asia, as this
will affect 25% of the worlds cereal production through increased uncertainty over the availability of
water for irrigation and more frequent floods affecting lives and livelihoods. Total food production
alone does not define food security since food must be both safe and of appropriate nutritive value.
Furthermore, food has social values inseparable from the production, distribution and use value chain. Food must be accessible, affordable and
available in the quantities and form of choice. This is dependent on production, distribution and trading
infrastructure and mechanisms. All these factors may be affected by climate change, and some are
affected both directly and indirectly through pest- and pathogen-mediated changes that occur
because of climate change. A good example of these effects is illustrated in the case study of FHB, where changes in the
pathogen complex affect crop yield, quality and safety, with consequent effects on trade and end-
users, and therefore value and food security. Another example is the potato aphidvector parasite complex. Increased
temperatures, particularly in early season, enable virus-bearing aphids to colonize seed potatoes earlier in northern Europe, thus contaminating
the stocks and reducing their value for potato production (Robert et al., 2000). Aphids are predated by various other insects such as wasps and
ladybirds, but whether predators will increase at similar rates to constrain the problem is not known. Furthermore, aphids are predominantly
clonal in cooler northern latitudes and insecticide resistance can be monitored in these clones. Warmer climates favour sexual
populations with increased variability and thereby resistance spread, which may exacerbate problems
to growers (Malloch et al., 2006). Aphids themselves are dependent on specific microbes in their tissues,
such as bacteria in their gut, which affect not only many fitness traits, but also their resistance to
parasitoids and fungal pathogens (Ferrari et al., 2004), representing yet more trophic interaction complexes
potentially differentially affected by climate change. How climate change may influence diseases of major field crops (Luck
et al., 2011) and tropical and plantation crops (Ghini et al., 2011) are considered elsewhere. Soil is a highly complex ecosystem
comprising numerous biological processes, each affected differentially by climate variables (Pritchard, 2011). We consider only
some of the net consequences of these that will be expressed through direct effects on plant growth and effects on the crop environment. The
latter comprise effects of the crop itself through effects on root and canopy architecture (Pangga et al., 2011)
and effects on other organisms such as weeds, pathogens, beneficial and nonpathogenic components
of microbial complexes (Newton et al., 2010b). For example, in minimum tillage situations, pathogens such as sharp
eyespot Ceratobasidium (Rhizoctonia) cerealis can decline in severity, probably because of enhancement of natural antagonists and
competitors (Yarham & Norton, 1981; Burnett & Hughes, 2004). However, such changes are highly dependent on the
particular soil conditions and few generalizations attributable to climate change can be made. Water
limitation is key to food security and is normally the rate-limiting factor for plant growth at lower latitudes, whereas irradiation is
the key rate-limiting factor at many higher latitudes (Churkina & Running, 1998; Baldocchi & Valentini, 2004). There is no overall trend for
amount of precipitation change, but there is clear historical evidence of changed distribution patterns both
regionally and seasonally (e.g. Barnett et al., 2006). These changes will produce cropping changes which will
have implications for food availability, directly or indirectly, through, for example, consequent changes in
pathogen and pest incidence and severity. Another important aspect of water is its quality, e.g. whether it
is affected by pollution or salination. Use of excessive amounts of irrigation can cause salination problems for crop growth
directly or through sea water ingress. This has direct effects on crop production, but also many indirect effects through effects on pest,
pathogen and interactions with beneficial microbes, since many abiotic stress mechanisms are also biotic stress response mechanisms,
particularly abscisic acid, jasmonate, ethylene and calcium regulation (Fujita et al., 2006). Pathogen spores from water- or salt-stressed plants,
for example, can have increased infectivity (Wyness & Ayres, 1985). Furthermore, cold and drought stress and stress-relief
can affect disease resistance expression (Newton & Young, 1996; Goodman&Newton, 2005). Thus, effects on such
interactions should be considered in terms of not only the crop as a substrate for the pest, pathogen
or other microbe, but also the efficacy of defence mechanisms. Many nutrients affect disease
development and will be influenced indirectly by climate change (Walters&Bingham, 2007), but particular
deficiencies, in potassium for example, may compromise defence pathways such as the jasmonate pathway,
to be compromised, resulting in differential effects on expression of resistance towards necrotrophic
pathogens (J. Davies, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, UK, unpublished data). Nutrient use efficiency, particularly for
nitrogen, is another plant growth-related trait that has high genetic variability (Chardon et al., 2010), a large
environmental interaction (e.g. Hirel et al., 2001), is a modern breeding target and has direct effects on pathogen fecundity (Baligar et al.,
2001). Pathogens respond differentially to nutrient availability (Walters&Bingham, 2007) and it is not clear how the
further complication of climate change will affect this. For example, will the yield loss be the same for a necrotroph and a
biotroph under two different available nitrogen levels, and will this relationship remain the same with increased CO2 and temperature? Will a
drought or heat stress affect both in the same way? Furthermore, any such relationships may be specific to particular crops, environments or
agronomic regimes.



Food/Water Shortages

Climate change causes massive water and food shortages adaptation wont solve
got to act now.
Misra 14 (Anil Kumar, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ITM University, Sector 23A,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon 122017, Haryana, India, Climate change and challenges of water and food
security, Gulf Organisation for Research and Development International Journal of Sustainable Built
Environment, April 30, 2014, ScienceDirect)//rh
Water and food scarcity are the biggest problem glob lly and it severely affects the arid and semiarid
regions/ countries. Climate change has resulted in increases in globally-averaged mean annual air
temperature and variations in regional precipitation and these changes are expected to continue and
intensify in the future (Solomon et al.. 2007). The impact of climate change on the quantity and
quality of groundwater resources is of global importance because 1.53 billion people rely on
groundwater as a drinking water source (Kundzewicz and DII, 2009). As per the fourth IPCC
assessment report the knowledge of groundwater recharge and of levels in both developed and
developing countries is poor. There has been very little research on the impact of climate change on
groundwater (Kundzcwicz et aL. 2007). Study of Global Climate Models (GCMs) projects significant
changes to regional and globally averaged precipitation and air temperature, and these changes will
likely have associated impacts on groundwater recharge (Kuryiyl and MacQuarrie. 2ti13). IPCC report
(2008) predicts that the climate change over the next century will affect rainfall pattern, river flows
and sea levels all over the world. Studies show that agriculture yield will likely be severely affected
over the next hundred years due to unprecedented rates of changes in the climate system (Jarm et aL,
2010: Thornton et al., 2011). In arid and semi-arid areas the expected precipitation decreases over the
next century would be 20% or more. The accelerated increase in the greenhouse gases (GHG)
concentration in the atmosphere is a major cause for climate change. As per the IPCC 2007 report. the
maximum growth in the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) has occurred between 1970 and 2004. i.e.
145% increase from energy supply sector. 120% from transport, 65% from industry, 40% from change in
land use patterns and during this period global population increases by 69%. As per the WMO (2013),
the world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 20012010 decade
that was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850. More over. survey of 139
National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and socio-economic data and analysis from several
UN agencies and partners conducted by WMO concluded that floods were the most frequently
experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. The amount of energy reaching the earths
atmosphere every second on a surface area of one squarc meter facing the sun during daytime is about
1370 Watts and the amount of energy per square meter per second averaged over the entire planet is
one quarter of this (IPC(. 2007A). The global mean temperature has increased by 0.74C during (Fig. 1)
the last 100 years. Furthermore studies conducted by Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) after
the study of 2190 Himalayan glaciers revealed that approximately 75% of the Himalayan glaciers are on
the retreat, with the average shrinkage of 3.75 km during the last 15 years (Misra. 2013). These findings
raise serious concerns over the accelerated retreat of glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains because it
will increase the variability of water flows to downstream regions and threaten the sustainable water
use planning in the worlds most populous Ganga Basin. Studies (dc Wit and Stankiewic,. 2006: Anthon
Nyong. 2005) predict that by the year 2050 (he rainfall in Sub-Saharan Africa could drop by 10%, which
will cause a major water shortage. This 10% decrease in precipitation would reduce drainage by 17%
and the regions which are receiving 500-.600 mm/year rain fall will expcricncc a reduction by 5030%
respectively in the surface drainage. So, far much attention has been given to climate change
adaptation as an anticipatory and planned process. managed through new policies, technological
innovations and development interventions (Adr et aL IHI5). But these policies and strategies are far
from implementation and most of the fresh water resources are depleting at a very fast rate due to
unprecedented escalation in demand from domestic, irrigational and industrial sectors. Impact of
climate change such as depletion of water resources Shallow & deep aquifer depiction) and decline in
agricultural pro duction has increased and has escalated food inflation globally and there is an acute
shortage of food in many poor African and Asian countries, where people cannot afford expensive
food and are dying of starvation. The con dition is extremely severe in continents like Africa. where
most of the northern portion is extremely dry. Western India. Middle East and Arab Countries, where
most of the domestic, irrigational and industrial demands are met by Surface and groundwater arc
facing severe crisis duc to depletion of water resources. This condition can only be improved by
increasing the crop yield and preventing further depletion of water resources . The paper highlights
the best suitable methods. which arc easily and economically kasiblc and can ensure water and food
security under climate change if imple mented properly. The manuscript also suggests a road map for
long-term and near-term strategy for minimizing the impact of climate change on water resources and
agriculture.


Biodiversity
Climate change destroys biodiversity laundry list of reasons it affects all levels of
ecosystems
Bellard et al, 12 (Celine PhD; postdoc work on impact of climate change at the Universite Paris ,
Cleo Bertelsmeier, Paul Leadley, Wilfried Thuiller, and Franck Courchamp, Impacts of climate change on
the future of biodiversity, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health accepted for
publication in a peer reviewed journal, January 4,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880584/, AW)
The multiple components of climate change are anticipated to affect all the levels of biodiversity,
from organism to biome levels (Figure 1, and reviewed in detail in, e.g., Parmesan 2006). They primarily
concern various strengths and forms of fitness decrease, which are expressed at different levels, and
have effects on individuals, populations, species, ecological networks and ecosystems. At the most
basic levels of biodiversity, climate change is able to decrease genetic diversity of populations due to
directional selection and rapid migration, which could in turn affect ecosystem functioning and
resilience (Botkin et al. 2007) (but, see Meyers & Bull 2002). However, most studies are centred on
impacts at higher organizational levels, and genetic effects of climate change have been explored only
for a very small number of species. Beyond this, the various effects on populations are likely to modify
the web of interactions at the community level (Gilman et al. 2010; Walther 2010). In essence, the
response of some species to climate change may constitute an indirect impact on the species that
depend on them. A study of 9,650 interspecific systems, including pollinators and parasites, suggested
that around 6,300 species could disappear following the extinction of their associated species (Koh et
al. 2004). In addition, for many species, the primary impact of climate change may be mediated
through effects on synchrony with species food and habitat requirements (see below). Climate
change has led to phenological shifts in flowering plants and insect pollinators, causing mismatches
between plant and pollinator populations that lead to the extinctions of both the plant and the
pollinator with expected consequences on the structure of plant-pollinator networks (Kiers et al. 2010;
Rafferty & Ives 2010). Other modifications of interspecific relationships (with competitors,
prey/predators, host/parasites or mutualists) also modify community structure and ecosystem functions
(Lafferty 2009; Walther 2010; Yang & Rudolf 2010) At a higher level of biodiversity, climate can induce
changes in vegetation communities that are predicted to be large enough to affect biome integrity.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment forecasts shifts for 5 to 20% of Earths terrestrial ecosystems, in
particular cool conifer forests, tundra, scrubland, savannahs, and boreal forest (Sala et al. 2005). Of
particular concern are tipping points where ecosystem thresholds can lead to irreversible shifts in
biomes (Leadley et al. 2010). A recent analysis of potential future biome distributions in tropical South
America suggests that large portions of Amazonian rainforest could be replaced by tropical savannahs
(Lapola et al. 2009). At higher altitudes and latitudes, alpine and boreal forests are expected to expand
northwards and shift their tree lines upwards at the expense of low stature tundra and alpine
communities (Alo & Wang 2008). Increased temperature and decreased rainfall mean that some lakes,
especially in Africa, might dry out (Campbell et al. 2009). Oceans are predicted to warm and become
more acid, resulting in widespread degradation of tropical coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007).
The implications of climate change for genetic and specific diversity have potentially strong
implications for ecosystem services. The most extreme and irreversible form of fitness decrease is
obviously species extinction. To avoid or mitigate these effects, biodiversity can respond in several
ways, through several types of mechanisms.

Continued anthropogenic warming threatens global biodiversity and human
development prevents species adaptation
Yule et al, 13 (Jeffrey V., School of Biological Sciences at Louisiana Tech University, Robert J. Fournier,
and Patrick L. Hindmarsh, Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanitys Future: The Ecological and
Evolutionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource Use, Humanities 2, April 2, 2013,
http://www.mdpi.com/2076-
0787/2/2/147?utm_source=article_link&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=releaseIssue_humanities
AW)
As human N and resource use continue to increase, so does our alteration of global environments.
Through the burning of fossil fuels, agricultural methane releases, and the release of industrial
pollutants, humans have changed the atmosphere. While atmospheric composition and global climate
have fluctuated throughout geologic time, the results of anthropogenic resource use and atmospheric
alteration (e.g., the formation of holes in the ozone layer) have pushed beyond the limits of
geologically recent natural cycles. Since all life on earth relies on the atmosphere, humans now affect
all ecosystems. While some argue the current scope and effect of atmospheric alteration, if per capita
resource use remains constant with a growing human N, the potential damage to existing ecological
communities and human populations could easily range from locally problematic to globally
catastrophic. The effects of a warmer planet extend beyond higher sea levels. For instance, terrestrial
organisms that rely on thermal cues in various parts of their life cycles would experience stresses, and
warmer water contains less dissolved oxygen, which reduces its ability to support aerobic life. While
symptoms of climate change (e.g., coral bleaching) have already been observed, the potential indirect,
cascading effects of continued atmospheric alteration remain uncertain but troubling. It is important to
note, however, that even though humans are manipulating the environment globally, smaller-scale
habitat alteration and fragmentation (e.g., of the sort associated with agriculture) also play an
important role. If global climate change continues to follow existing trends, an additional problem
relating to species range shifts arises. During earlier periods of climate change, species could shift
their ranges without having to cross barriers presented by human dominated landscapes. Given
human N and per capita resource use, human dominated landscapes now represent significant barriers
that will add additional stresses to already threatened species.

Poverty

Climate change affects the poor the most, causes conflict, is anthropogenic, and cant
be adapted to the timeframe is now to reduce emissions
Goldenberg, 14 (Suzanne, US environment correspondent of the Guardian, Climate change: the
poor will suffer most, The Guardian, March 30,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-poor-suffer-most-un-report,
AW)
Pensioners left on their own during a heatwave in industrialized countries. Single mothers in rural
areas. Workers who spend most of their days outdoors. Slum dwellers in the megacities of the
developing world. These are some of the vulnerable groups who will feel the brunt of climate change
as its effects become more pronounced in the coming decades, according to a game-changing report
from the UN's climate panel released on Monday. Climate change is occurring on all continents and in
the oceans, the authors say, driving heatwaves and other weather-related disasters. And the changes to
the Earth's climate are fuelling violent conflicts. The UN for the first time in this report has designated
climate change a threat to human security. The overriding lesson of this report, the scientists said, was
that unless governments acted now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adopt measures to
protect their people, nobody would be immune to climate change. "There isn't a single region that
thinks we can avoid all the impacts of even 2 degrees of warming by adaptation let alone 4 degrees,"
said Dr Rachel Warren of the Tyndall centre for climate change research at the University of East Anglia.
"I think you can say that in order to keep global temperature rises at 2 degrees we need to reduce
emissions greatly and rapidly, but even at 2 degrees there are still impacts that we can't adapt to." "We
live in an era of manmade climate change," said Dr Vicente Barros, who chaired the report. "In many
cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face. Investments in better
preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future." But those who did the least to
cause climate change would be the first in the line of fire: the poor and the weak, and communities
that were subjected to discrimination, the report found. Scientists went to great lengths in the report
to single out people and communities who would be most at risk of climate change, with detailed
descriptions of locations and demographics. "People who are socially, economically, culturally,
politically, institutionally or otherwise marginalised are especially vulnerable to climate change," it
said. One impact is through the reduction in crop yields, which leads to higher prices. "The story is that
crop yields have detectably changed. As time goes on the poor countries that are in the warmer and
drier parts of the planet will feel the crop yield decreases early," said Michael Oppenheimer, professor
of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. "When you get above two degrees and
into the three- and four-degree range, adaptation becomes less effective and even some of the
wealthy countries that have advanced agriculture start suffering." "People who were already
disadvantaged, more of them are going to be suffering from malnutrition," he added. In a further cruel
twist, the report said climate change would also make it harder for developing countries to climb out
of poverty, and would create "poverty pockets" in rich and poor countries. It already has . Maarten
van Aalst, director of the Red Cross climate centre and an author of the report, said the agency was
already seeing evidence that the poor were being hit hardest in weather-related disasters. "It's the
poor suffering more during disasters, and of course the same hazard causes a much bigger disaster in
poorer countries, making it even poorer," he said. There are already more weather-related mega-
disasters such as heatwaves and storm surges occurring under climate change. And the number of
natural disasters between 2000 and 2009 was around three times higher than in the 1980s, Van Aalst
said. "The growth is almost entirely due to 'climate-related' events," he said. Other threats are looming
because of climate change. The Pentagon and the CIA have released a number of threat assessments in
recent years identifying climate change as a threat to military installations, and as a potential driver of
conflict a "threat multiplier". The UN agrees in this report, saying climate change could lead to war
and increased migration. "Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of
civil war and inter-group violence," the report said. The authors, however, were cautious about sending
the message that climate change causes war per se. "Climate change, on its own, does not start wars,"
said Neil Adger, a professor of geography at Exeter University, and one of the authors of the report. "But
it does have a hand in producing situations that lead to conflict. "The things that drive conflict are
sensitive to climate, particularly poverty and economic shocks," Adger said. "If there is a decrease in
food supply or lots of people are pushed into poverty it creates the environment where you are
susceptible to conflict," he said.

Warming = affects island and impoverished communities first
Barnett 3 (Jon, School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Melbourne, Security and Climate Change, Global Environmental Change 13 (2003) 717,
ScienceDirect)//rh
Following this denition of security, climate change is a security issue for some nation-states,
communities and individuals. It is a problem that is complex in origin and has uncertain impacts. In
the case of atoll-countries such as Tuvalu or Kiribati, for example, there is widespread agreement that
climate change and associated sea-level rise threatens the long-term ability of people to remain living
on their islands (Barnett and Adger, 2001; Nurse and Sem, 2001; Rahman, 1999; Watson, 2000). In this
respect it is the most serious form of environmental change and the most serious security problem
that these countries face. The President of the Federated States of Micronesia has put this bluntly:
sea-level rise and other related consequences of climate change are grave security threats to our
very existence as homelands and nation-states. (Falcam, 2001). It is not just small island states which
face climate related security risks. It poses signicant risks to the livelihoods, culture and health of
many millions of people in many different social and ecological and contexts; consider Inuit
communities living in the Arctic circle where snow cover is less predictable and thinner ice sheets
restricts hunting, families living on low-lying deltas in Bangladesh increasingly prone to ooding, and
people living in areas prone to invasion by malaria carrying mosquitoes as a function of changed
temperature and rainfall regimes. So. climate changc is a security issue for certain communities and
countries. Following on from this, in so far as its failure Lo rcduce emissions may spell thc end of the
functionality of aLoll-countrics. the displacement of peoples from their homelands, and increased
disease and mortality, then the UNFCCC is a critically important security treaty.


Floods

Warming causes massive flooding
Mendizabal et. al 14 (Mendizabal, M.1*, Seplveda, J.2 and Torp, P.3 1 Tecnalia Research &
Innovation, Parque Tecnolgico de Bizkaia, Edificio 700, 48160 DERIO (Bizkaia), Spain 2 Engineering
School, University of the Basque Country, Gasteiz, Spain 3 DHI, Department of Urban and River
Hydraulics, Ventura Rodriguez 8, 1D, 28008, Madrid, Spain, Climate Change Impacts on Flood Events
and Its Consequences on Human in Deba River, Int. J. Environ. Res., 8(1):221-230,Winter 2014 ISSN:
1735-6865)//rh
Even taking into account the medium greenhouse emission scenario, it is expected that extreme
precipitation (percentile 0.99) will increase during the twenty century, although there is an uncertainty
in the percentage due to the climatic models. The expected changes have a spatial variability depending
on local characteristic (orography, distance to the coast, vegetation, etc.). One of the location do not
presents significant change for most of the models (1049U) (Table 2). For most extreme models (CNRM,
EHTZ and HIRHAM) it is expected an increase of 292% (1044D), 263% (1049) and 237% (1050L) (Fig.
2) for a return period exceeding 40 years and for the 2001-2040 period. For the less extreme model
(KNMI) it is not expected significant changes for 1049 and 1049U stations and for the 2001-2040 period.
However, for the 2041-2080 period the results change. For the most extreme model (CNRM) it is
expected that extreme precipitation increases between 10% and 34%, the highest increases are for
1050L (Fig. 3) and 1044D stations. For this period the less extreme model is HIRHAM and it is expected
less increase than the period before (except 1049U). Changes in precipitation in first order impact
discharges. It is expected an increase in peak discharge (percentile 0.99) between 149% and 158%
for 3 models and for the period 2001-2040 with a return period exceeding 40 years, for N103 station
(located before the urban area). For the period 2041-2080 there is more uncertainty, it is expected an
increase between 128% and 1910% for 2 models with a return period exceeding 40 years. For the
other 2 models the increase is not significant with the same return period (Table 3). In order to analyze
changes in flood-prone area and natural phenomena severity, precipitation and flow projection are used
as inputs before the urban area. Changes in flood event are expected with its associated uncertainty.
According to the results, new flood zones are detected with greater hazard to people. It is difficult for
people to walk in flooded areas where the hazard factor is 1 and almost certainly fall when this factor
exceeds 1.4 (Ramsbottom et al., 2003; HR Wallingford., 2006). In the study area, several areas are
detected with this range of hazard. For CNRM model, one of the model with extremes results, it is
expected an increase in the flood prone area and in the severity of the phenomena for both periods
(2001-2040 and 2041-2080) (Fig. 4a, b). In general sense, the lowest return period (10 years) do not
change a lot its extend (%1.1), the medium return period (40 years) decrease increase more (5.5%) and
the highest return period (100 years) increase significantly the extend (82.3%), for the first period. The
situation for the future period is different (2041- 2080). For the lowest return period it is expected a
little increase of the flood extend (2%), the medium return period decrease the extend (-1.3%) and the
highest return period increase the flood area extend but not as much as for the first period (38%). In
the Deba river basin, the municipal area of Deba will have a 12% and 7% increase in extend for
significant and extreme hazards and a 11% and 12% decrease in extend for low and moderate hazards
(CNRM model, compared the period 2001-2041 with respect the reference period, 1961-2000) (Table 4).
Further, there are new areas with significant and extreme hazards (Fig.5a, b). This new areas are
residential buildings and roads. It is considered difficult for the people to walk with a hazard rate up
to 1 and the people are going to fall down when the rate is higher than1.4 (Ramsbottom et al., 2003).
That means that the vulnerability of those areas classified us significant and extreme hazard is very
high. According to the first available results, the expected precipitation and discharge changes in
percentage have a variability depending the climatic model, the period analyzed and the spatial
characteristics of the basin. The discharges shows changes according the variability mentioned before
but the most important conclusion of the study is that the extreme precipitation have more influence
on flood processes than the discharge before the town. The low capacity of the system to absorb and
control the precipitation is the cause of the fast basins response. So the precipitation has an
immediate influence in the river. Therefore it is important to have a good knowledge about the
expected changes in extreme precipitation due to climate change and its consequences in the
discharge and in the flood processes, even this kind the studies have an uncertainty associated. This
increase in precipitation has consequences in hazard to people. The expected climatic effects are
increases in the severity of the hazard more than increases in extend of the flood prone area. There
are new areas with high hazard probability that are residential buildings and roads. That means that the
vulnerability of those areas is very high. And it is necessary to start defining adaptation strategies and
measures to minimize the impacts. This type of research plays an important role in defining adaptation
strategies that are necessary due to the expected impacts on peak discharge and its consequences in
flood hazard and human health at local scale. In this context, the results become the tools to define and
evaluate different adaptation options that are already implemented or are conceivable according to
current scientific knowledge. So the models become tools for evaluating adaptation measures in terms
of their ability to reduce the vulnerability of the basin to the effects of climate change. The idea of
adapting to the potential effects of climate change has therefore gained ground in climate policies. The
future work consist in how the political sphere must define an adaptation strategy at regional and local
scale using impact studies which have an associated uncertainty.

Marine Ecosystems

Multiple reasons climate change ruins marine ecosystems must act now to mitigate
CO2 levels
Doney et al, 12 (Scott C, Marin Chemistry and Geochemistry Department at Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Mary Ruckelshaus, J. Emmett Duffy, James P. Barry, Francis Chan, Chad A.
English, Heather M. Galindo, Jacqueline M. Grebmeier, Anne B. Hollowed, Nancy Knowlton, Jeffrey
Polovina, Nancy N. Rabalais, William J. Sydeman, and Lynne D. Talley, Climate Change Impacts on
Marine Ecosystems, Annual Review of Marine Science,
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/34553/DoneyScottCZoologyClimateCha
ngeImpacts.pdf?sequence=1, AW)
Marine ecosystems are maintained by the ow of energy from primary producers at the base of food
webs through to intermediate consumers, top predators (including humans), and pathogens, and then
back again through decomposition and detrital pathways. Thus, marine communities are biological
networks in which the success of species is linked directly or indirectly through various biological
interactions (e.g., predator-prey relationships, competition, facilitation, mutualism) to the performance
of other species in the community. The aggregate effect of these interactions constitutes ecosystem
function (e.g., nutrient cycling, primary and secondary productivity), through which ocean and coastal
ecosystems provide the wealth of free natural benets that society depends upon, such as sheries and
aquaculture production, water purication, shoreline protection, and recreation. However, growing
human pressures, including climate change, are having profound and diverse consequences for marine
ecosystems. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most critical problems because its
effects are globally pervasive and irreversible on ecological timescales (Natl. Res. Counc. 2011). The
primary direct consequences are increasing ocean temperatures (Bindoff et al. 2007) and acidity
(Doney et al. 2009). Climbing temperatures create a host of additional changes, such as rising sea level,
increased ocean stratication, decreased sea-ice extent, and altered patterns of ocean circulation,
precipitation, and freshwater input (Figure 1a). In addition, both warming and altered ocean
circulation act to reduce subsurface oxygen (O2) concentrations (Keeling et al. 2010). In recent
decades, the rates of change have been rapid and may exceed the current and potential future
tolerances of many organisms to adapt. Further, the rates of physical and chemical change in marine
ecosystems will almost certainly accelerate over the next several decades in the absence of immediate
and dramatic efforts toward climate mitigation (Natl. Res. Counc. 2011). Direct effects of changes in
ocean temperature and chemistry may alter the physiological functioning, behavior, and demographic
traits (e.g., productivity) of organisms, leading to shifts in the size structure, spatial range, and
seasonal abundance of populations. These shifts, in turn, lead to altered species interactions and
trophic pathways as change cascades from primary producers to upper-trophic-level sh, seabirds, and
marine mammals, with climate signals thereby propagating through ecosystems in both bottom-up
and top-down directions. Changes in community structure and ecosystem function may result from
disruptions in biological interactions. Therefore, investigating the responses of individual species to
single forcing factors, although essential, provides an incomplete story and highlights the need for
more comprehensive, multispecies- to ecosystem-level analyses.
Climate change destroys marine ecosystems affects keystone species
Doney et al, 12 (Scott C, Marin Chemistry and Geochemistry Department at Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Mary Ruckelshaus, J. Emmett Duffy, James P. Barry, Francis Chan, Chad A.
English, Heather M. Galindo, Jacqueline M. Grebmeier, Anne B. Hollowed, Nancy Knowlton, Jeffrey
Polovina, Nancy N. Rabalais, William J. Sydeman, and Lynne D. Talley, Climate Change Impacts on
Marine Ecosystems, Annual Review of Marine Science,
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/34553/DoneyScottCZoologyClimateCha
ngeImpacts.pdf?sequence=1, AW)
Climate-driven impacts on keystone and foundation species may be especially important. Some critical
habitat-forming marine benthic species, such as oysters or corals, appear sensitive to CO2 and climate
change both directly and through pathogens. In oyster populations within Delaware Bay, United States, the protistan
parasite Perkinsus marinus (which causes the diseaseDermo) proliferates at high water temperatures and high
salinities, and epidemics followed extended periods of warm winter weather; these trends in time are
mirrored by the northward spread of Dermo up the eastern seaboard as temperatures warmed (Ford 1996).
Similarly, corals on the Great Barrier Reef showed more infections by the emerging disease white
syndrome in warmer than normal years (Bruno et al. 2003). These processes and others resulting from
altered species composition will likely have important rippling affects through ecosystems. Climate
change and altered ocean circulation may change organism dispersal and the transport of nutrient
and organic matter that provide important connectivity across marine ecosystems. If species dispersal
is disrupted by climate-induced thermal blocks or shifts in currents carrying larvae, both species and community dynamics
will be altered. For example, Gulf menhaden transported 5%10% of primary production of estuaries in Louisiana to deeper communities
in the Gulf of Mexico (Deegan 1993). Energy exchanges between habitats such as mangrovescoral reefs and coral
reefsseagrasses can be disrupted in complex ways as fish abundances decline (e.g., Mumby& Hastings 2008,
Valentine et al. 2008). Many studies have found that altering the metapopulation dynamics of a species can reduce
its ability to withstand pressures because rescue and recolonization dynamics are disrupted (e.g., Lipcius
et al. 2008). However, the net effect of climate-induced changes on the distribution of habitats and species ability to maintain energy flows
between them has not been examined in great detail.
Climate change threatens oceans spills over to all life on earth, especially those
impoverished
Environment News Service, 13 (Climate Change to Cause Massive Ocean Damage by 2100,
October 18, http://ens-newswire.com/2013/10/18/climate-change-to-cause-massive-ocean-damage-by-
2100/, AW)
By the year 2100, about 98 percent of the oceans will be affected by acidification, warming
temperatures, low oxygen, or lack of biological productivity, and most areas will be hit by a multitude
of these stressors, finds a new study of the impacts of cli- mate change on the worlds ocean systems.
These biogeochemical changes triggered by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions will not only
affect marine habitats and organisms, but will often also occur in areas that are heavily used by
humans, concludes the international team of 28 scientists. When you look at the world ocean, there
are few places that will be free of changes; most will suffer the simultaneous effects of warming,
acidification, and reductions in oxygen and productivity, said lead author Camilo Mora, an assistant
professor at the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The consequences of
these co-occurring changes are massiveeverything from species survival, to abundance, to range
size, to body size, to species richness, to ecosystem functioning are affected by changes in ocean
biogeochemistry, said Mora. Mora and Craig Smith with U-H Manoas School of Ocean and Earth
Science and Technology worked with a 28-person international collaboration of climate modelers,
biogeochemists, oceanographers, and social scientists to develop the study, which is published in the
scientific journal PLOS Biology. The human ramifications of these changes are likely to be massive and
disruptive, the scientists predict. Food chains, fishing, and tourism could all be impacted. The study
shows that some 470 to 870 million of the worlds poorest people rely on the ocean for food, jobs, and
revenues, and live in countries where ocean goods and services could be compromised by multiple
ocean biogeochemical changes. The researchers used the most recent and robust models of projected
climate change developed for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change to inform their analysis. They quantified the extent of co-occurrence of changes in temperature,
pH, oxy- gen, and primary productivity based on two scenariosa business-as-usual scenario wherein
atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, concentrations could reach 900 ppm by 2100, and an alternative
scenario under which concentrations only reach 550 ppm by 2100. The scientists said this second
scenario would only result from a concerted, rapid CO2 mitigation effort, beginning today. They
discovered that most of the worlds ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying
intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity. Only a very
small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in
oxygen or productivity, and nowhere will there be cooling or pH increase. Even the seemingly positive
changes at high latitudes are not necessary beneficial. Invasive species have been immigrating to
these areas due to changing ocean conditions and will threaten the local species and the humans who
depend on them, said co-author Chih-Lin Wei, a postdoctoral fellow at Ocean Science Cen- tre,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Co-author Lisa Levin, a professor at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, warns, Because many deep-sea ecosystems
are so stable, even small changes in temperature, oxygen, and pH may lower the resilience of deep-
sea communities. This is a growing concern as humans extract more resources and create more
disturbances in the deep ocean. The researchers assembled global distribution maps of 32 marine
habitats and biodiversity hotspots to assess their potential vulnerability to the changes. As a final step,
they used available data on human dependency on ocean goods and services and social adaptability to
estimate the vulnerability of coastal popula- tions to the projected ocean biogeochemical changes.
Other studies have looked at small-scale impacts, but this is the first time that weve been able to look
at the entire world ocean and how co-occurring stressors will differentially impact the earths diverse
habitats and people, said co-author Andrew Thurber, a Scripps alumnus and now a postdoctoral fellow
at Oregon State University. The impacts of climate change will be felt from the ocean surface to the
sea- floor. It is truly scary to consider how vast these impacts will be, said co-author Andrew
Sweetman, who helped to convene the original team of investigators and now leads the deep-sea
ecosystem research group at the International Research Institute of Stavanger, Norway. This is one
legacy that we as humans should not be allowed to ignore.
Ocean Acidification
Multiple reasons ocean acidification from increased CO2 threatens marine species
survival and biodiversity
Barry et al, 11 (James P., PhD research student at University of Sheffield, Stephen Widdicombe, PhD,
marine ecologist who leads the PML strategic science area Marine Life Support Systems, and Jason M.
Hall-Spencer, Effects of ocean acidifi cation on marine biodiversity and ecosystem function,
http://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk:8080/pearl_jspui/bitstream/10026.1/1314/2/Barry%20et%20al%202011%2
0Ocean%20Acidification%20OUP%20book.pdf, AW)
Several physiological processes, such as photosynthesis, calcification, acidbase homeostasis,
respiration and gas exchange, and metabolic rate, can be influenced by changes in ocean carbonate
chemistry ( Gattuso et al. 1999 ; Seibel and Walsh 2003 ; Melzner et al. 2009b ; Chapter 8 ). High ocean
carbon levels are expected to affect primary producers in different ways, perhaps leading to a shift in
the structure of phytoplankton populations ( Hall- Spencer et al. 2008 ; Doney et al. 2009 ; see Chapters
6 and 7). Taxa that are currently carbon-limited (e.g. some cyanobacteria) may be among the winners
in a high-CO 2 ocean. For other autotrophs (e.g. coccolithophores), photosynthesis and growth, as well
as calcification, may be affected, with complex responses among species. A suite of experiments on
marine phytoplankton have shown that the responses of coccolithophorids (calcitic phytoplankton) to
elevated CO 2 levels vary, but generally exhibit reduced rates of calcification ( Ridgwell et al. 2009 ;
Hendriks et al. 2010 ). Reduced calcifi cation has been measured in a variety of taxa, particularly corals
and molluscs ( Michaelidis et al. 2005 ; Gazeau et al. 2007 ; Kuffner et al. 2008 ; Doney et al. 2009 ), and
is the most widely observed and consistent effect of ocean acidification ( Hendriks et al. 2010 ; Kroeker
et al. 2010 ). Exposure times have typically been short for most calcifi cation studies, and may often be
too short to detect acclimatization, which has been shown to require about 6 weeks for a marine fi sh (
Deigweiher et al. 2008 ). In contrast, coccolithophores may acclimatize to high CO 2 levels within hours (
Barcelos e Ramos et al. 2010 ). Increased rates of calcifi cation in low-pH waters have been observed for
a few taxa (e.g. crustaceans, Ries et al. 2009 ), but it appears that, at least for some species, higher
calcification in low-pH waters may require energetic trade-offs that reduce overall performance (
Wood et al. 2008 ). Even for taxa tolerant of low-pH waters, the physiological cost of living is expected
to change the energy required for basic biological functions ( Prtner et al. 2000 ). Immersion in high-
CO 2 waters can disrupt the acidbase status of many marine animals, leading to reduced respiratory
efficiency, reduced enzyme activity, and metabolic depression, with potentially large effects on
overall metabolic performance ( Seibel and Walsh 2003 ; see Chapter 8 ). Assuming a constant total
energy budget, a change in the cost of living is expected to result in a reallocation of energy for growth
and reproduction ( Fig. 10.2 ). For taxa affected by ocean acidifi cation, individual physiological stress
can lead to reduced growth, size, reproductive output, and survival. On a population level, impaired
individual performance and survival have consequences for populations and species that may include
reduced abundance, productivity, and resilience to disturbance, as well as increased likelihood of
extinction. For taxa benefi ting either directly or indirectly from high CO 2 levels, the opposite may be
true. It is also important to consider the cumulative effects of environmental stressors on the
demography and productivity of populations. Effects on different life stages can sum to signifi cant
impacts on population success. For example, during periods of low seasurface temperature (<13.1C),
exposure to low-pH waters reduces the survival of early life stage barnacles along the coast of the south-
west United Kingdom by 25%, potentially leading to reduced local population abundance ( Findlay et al.
2010 ). Sensitivity to ocean acidifi cation is expected to be coupled primarily to fundamental
physiological adaptations linked closely to phylogeny. Marine organisms with a natural capacity for gas
exchange (i.e. organisms with well-developed respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as respiratory
proteins allowing high O 2 and CO 2 fl uxes) that support high metabolic rates and high aerobic scope
(e.g. fi shes, decapod crustaceans, and cephalopods) are preadapted for many of the stresses related to
ocean acidifi cation ( Melzner et al. 2009b ; see Chapter 8 ). This is due in part to the overlapping
physiological challenges posed by metabolic CO 2 generation during intense aerobic activity (e.g. coping
with internal acidbase disruption) and the effects of oceanacidifi cation. Many taxa in habitats with
variable or low pH (e.g. vesicomyid clams, vestimentiferan tubeworms, mussels in vent or seep
environments) also have adaptations that allow them to thrive in naturally hypoxic and low-pH waters (
Goffredi and Barry 2002 ; Tunnicliffe et al. 2009 ). Mobile crustaceans and fishes may benefit somewhat
in a high- CO 2 ocean, based on their generally higher rates of growth and calcification in low-pH waters
( Ries et al. 2009 ; Kroeker et al. 2010 ). However, even taxa with the capacity to cope with activity-
related hypercapnia can experience impaired physiological performance in high-CO 2 waters. Rosa and
Seibel ( 2008 ) found that activity levels in jumbo squid declined by 45% under a 0.3 unit reduction in
pH. In contrast, cod exposed to a large pH perturbation (1 pH unit) for several months displayed no
evidence of impaired maximal swimming speed ( Melzner et al. 2009a ). Taxa with weaker control over
internal fluid chemistry may be at greater risk from ocean acidifi - cation. For example, echinoderms,
brachiopods, and lower invertebrates (e.g. sponges, cnidarians, and ctenophores) lack respiratory
organs and exchange gases with seawater by molecular diffusion across various body tissues. Although
physiological tolerance to ocean acidifi cation has not been examined closely in most of these groups
(other than rates of calcifi cation, see below), their postulated weak control of internal fluid chemistry
(e.g. sea urchins, Miles e t al. 2007 ) is expected to increase their sensitivity to changing ocean
chemistry. Echinoderms appear less tolerant of low-pH waters than many groups, as indicated by their
conspicuous absence from habitats with naturally high CO 2 levels such as hydrothermal vents ( Grassle
1986 ) and low-pH areas near shallow CO 2 vents off Italy ( Hall-Spencer et al. 2008 ). Notably, various
taxa with limited physiological capabilities (many cnidarians and sponges) appear to tolerate low or
variable pH, due to their occurrence in low-pH habitats such as hydrothermal vents and other natural
CO 2 venting sites. Moreover, generalities based on short-term studies of organism physiology or
survival, as are most common in the literature, may differ from the eventual long-term consequences of
ocean acidifi cation. For calcifying taxa, the type of carbonate minerals formed can infl uence their
vulnerability to oceanacidifi cation. Carbonate skeletal structures of marine taxa vary considerably both
in terms of how much calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) is included, from nearly 100% CaCO 3 to mixtures of
chitin and CaCO 3 (e.g. many crustacean shells). The form of CaCO 3 also varies, with most taxa
precipitating aragonite or calcite, the latter which may include some percentage of magnesium. Of
these, high-Mg calcite is the most soluble in seawater, and thus most susceptible to dissolution by ocean
acidifi cation, followed by aragonite and calcite (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1 ). Although calcifi cation rates
by organisms are generally impaired under low-pH conditions, there is considerable variation among the
responses of major taxonomic groups ( Hendriks et al. 2010 ; Kroeker et al. 2010 ). Scleractinian corals
(aragonite) exhibit the largest reduction in calcifi cation and most consistent response to low-pH waters.
Coccolithophores (calcite) and molluscs (mostly calcitic) had somewhat weaker, variable, and nonsignifi
cant changes in calcifi cation. Individual studies have reported generally reduced rates of calcifi cation
for bivalve and gastropod molluscs under high-CO 2 conditions ( Gazeau et al. 2007 ; Doney et al. 2009 ;
Ries et al. 2009 ; Hendriks et al. 2010 ). In contrast, echinoderms (calcite) are highly variable in response,
mainly due to the great variability in degree of calcifi cation within the phylum (e.g. Wood et al. 2008 ).
Crustaceans (chitin, calcite, amorphous carbonate) are the single group showing a signifi cant increase in
calcifi cation rate under high-CO 2 conditions ( Kroeker et al . 2010 ). Reef-building corals in particular,
due to their aragonitic skeletons, are perceived to be at high risk from ocean acidification, based on
the projected future reduction in aragonite saturation throughout the worlds oceans ( Kleypas et al.
1999 ). These projections are consistent with the existing global distribution of deep-sea aragonitic
corals, which are most abundant in the Atlantic and relatively rare in habitats with low aragonite
saturation, such as the Pacific Basin ( Guinotte et al. 2006 ; Manzello 2010 ). Surprisingly, some corals
may survive acidic conditions without carbonate skeletons. Two Mediterranean species ( Oculina
patagonica and Madracis pharencis ) survived a 12-month exposure to acidic (pH T = 7.37.6) waters but
lost their carbonate skeletons, which dissolved in the corrosive waters ( Fine and Tchernov 2007 ). Upon
immersion in ambient pH waters (pH T = 8.3) the corals recalcifi ed. This type of recovery is unlikely for
many other coral taxa with modes of life linked strongly to their structural framework. Calcified shells
and skeletons can play important roles for organisms coping with environmental variability. In some
cases, more robust calcification may increase the survival (and presumably the fi tness) of organisms,
which can affect the biodiversity and function of marine communities. For example, the intertidal snail
Littorina littorea thickens its shell after exposure to chemical cues produced by its main predator, the
green shore crab, Carcinus maenas , in effect increasing its defence against predation ( Bibby et al. 2007
). Such shell thickening does not occur under high-CO 2 conditions, presumably due to the increased
energetic cost of calcifi cation at lower-pH, less saturated conditions, thereby increasing their risk of
predation. Very few studies have examined the effects of ocean acidifi cation on behavioural responses
that mediate interactions between interacting species and populations.
Squo continuation of ocean acidification is faster than any mass extinction in Earths
history only reducing emissions solves
Turley and Scholes, 09 (The Acidification of Planet Earth, in Climate Change: Global Risks,
Challenges & Decisions, International Alliance of Research Universities, University of Copenhagen,
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/14774466/http___climatecongress.ku.pdf, AW)
Acidification of Planet Earths terrestrial and oceanic biospheres is happening now and caused by two
very different anthropogenic sources. Land acidification is caused by nitric and sulphuric acids and whilst
its significance emerged during the 1970s, it is still an issue in the developed world and a growing issue
in developing countries. Land acidification results in changes to species diversity, net primary
productivity, an imbalance of inorganic nitrogen ions in the soil, and eutrophication of fresh water
bodies. Feedbacks between the land and aquatic systems are not well understood or researched. Ocean
acidification is a direct and certain consequence of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere; its
consequences on the global ocean are only now emerging. The oceans have already taken up around
27-34% of the CO2 produced by humankind since the industrial revolution. Whilst this has limited the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it has come at the price of a dramatic change to ocean chemistry. In
particular, and of great concern, are the observed changes in ocean pH and carbonate and bicarbonate
ion concentrations. Evidence indicates that ocean acidification is a serious threat to many organisms
and may have implications for food webs and ecosystems and the multi-billion dollar services they
provide. For instance, erosion is likely to outpace growth of tropical coral reefs at 450-480 ppm CO2;
there are already reports of a 19% decrease in growth of Great Barrier Reef corals. When atmospheric
CO2 reaches 450 ppm, large areas of the polar oceans will likely have become corrosive to shells of
key marine calcifiers, an effect that will be strongest in the Arctic. Already, loss of shell weight in
planktonic Antarctic calcifiers has been observed. Decreasing pH could also make oceans noisier in the
audible range with potential implications for marine life, as well as for scientific, commercial, and
naval applications using ocean acoustics. The rate of change in ocean chemistry is very high (see
figure), faster than previous ocean acidification-driven extinctions in Earths history, from which it
took hundreds of thousands of years for marine ecosystems to recover. Ocean acidification will
continue to track future CO2 emissions to the atmosphere so urgent and substantial emission
reductions are the only way of reducing the impact of ocean acidification.


Coral Reefs
High CO2 lowers carbonate saturation thats key to corral reef survival
Roberts, 12 (Callum, marine conservation biologist at the University of York, Corrosive Seas, The
Ocean of Life, May 31, pg. 109-110, its a book, AW)
As carbon dioxide levels in the sea rise, carbonate saturation will fall, and the depths at which
carbonate dissolves will become shallower. Recent estimates suggest that this horizon is rising by three
feet to six feet per year in some places. So far, most carbon dioxide added by human activity remains
near the surface. It has mixed more deeplyto depths of more than three thousand feetin areas of
intense downwelling in the polar North and South Atlantic, where deep bottom waters of the global ocean
conveyor current are formed. Elsewhere the sea has been stirred to only a thousand feet deep or less. All
tropical coral reefs inhabit waters that are less than three hundred feet deep, so they will quickly
come under the influence of ocean acidification. If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles from its
current level, all of the world's coral reefs will shift from a state of construction to erosion. They will
literally begin to crumble and dissolve, as erosion and dissolution of carbonates outpaces deposition.
What is most worrying is that this level of carbon dioxide will be reached by 2100 under a low-emission
scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 2009 Copenhagen negotiations sought
to limit carbon dioxide emissions so that levels would never exceed 450 parts per million in the
atmosphere. That target caused deadlock in negotiations, but even that, according to some prominent
scientists, would be too high for coral reefs. Just as Ischia's carbonated volcanic springs provide a warning
of things to come, bubbling carbon dioxide released beneath reefs in Papua New Guinea give us
tangible proof of the fate that awaits coral reefs.' 3 Reef growth has failed completely in places where
gas bubbles froth vigorously, reducing pH there to levels expected everywhere by early in the twenty-
second century under a business-as-usual scenario. The few corals that survive today have been
heavily eroded by the corrosive water. The collapse of coral reefs in the Galapagos following El Nino in
the early 1980s was hastened by the fact that eastern Pacific waters are naturally more acid due to their
deep-water upwelling than those in other parts of the oceans.'4 Corals there were only loosely cemented
into reef structures and collapsed quickly.

Groundwater

Climate Change causes groundwater contamination and food shortages
Misra 14 (Anil Kumar, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ITM University, Sector 23A,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon 122017, Haryana, India, Climate change and challenges of water and food
security, Gulf Organisation for Research and Development International Journal of Sustainable Built
Environment, April 30, 2014, ScienceDirect)//rh
Climate changes have started showing its impact on water resources and agricultural yield worldwide.
Majority of the countries in arid and semiarid areas totally depend on precipitation and rivers
originating in tropical and temperate regions. The overall water stress is continuously increasing and
due to climate change a sharp decline in precipitation is expected in these regions. Studies also predict
reduction in frequency and escalation in the intensity of rainfall, which will result in frequent drought
and floods. Unsustainable depletion of groundwater will likely be worsened by reduced surface water
infiltration in arid md semiarid areas and the increase in intrusion of salt water to coastal aquikrs from
sea level rise will further reduce the availability of usable groundwater. Agricultural sector and food
securities are threatened and if the basic adaptive measures such as changes in crop pattern, crop
breeding and types and innovative technologies, which use less water are not used global food
production especially in arid and semi-arid areas will further decline. The present situation in the
majority of the arid and semiarid countrics is not satisfactory. These countries are not able to fulfill
the required demand for water and food for people. The implementation of recycling and reuse of
wastewater S a good option in these countries. Groundwater recharge using artitcial recharge
structures and Soil Aquifer Treat ment SAT) systems equipped artificial set of lithologics Lhrough
wastcwatcr can help in minimzing the impact of cli mate change on water resources and agricultural
yield.
AT: CO2 Ag
Warming FX o/w CO2
Even if CO2 is good in isolation effects of warming hurt agriculture worse prefer
comparative evidence
Swaminathan and Kesavan, 12 (M. S., PhD, Indian geneticist and international administrator, P.C.,
Distinguished Fellow of MSSRF and Honorary Professor at IGNOU, Agricultural Research in an Era of
Climate Change, anuary 31, open access at Springerlink.com, AW)
Normally, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can help to increase the rate of photosynthesis if water
and nutrients do not become limiting factors . It should be noted that C3 and C4 plants (i.e., those
which have a 3-carbon or 4-carbon pathway of photosynthesis) respond differently. The C3 crops like
wheat, barley, rice and potatoes could respond positively to CO2 enrichment. However, as has been
pointed out by Sinha and Swaminathan [14] the rise in temperature would nullify the benefit of higher
CO2 concentration . They examined the integrated impact of a rise in temperature and CO2
concentration on the yield of rice and wheat in India. The study showed that for rice, increasing mean
daily temperature decreases the period from transplantation to maturity. Such a reduction in duration
results in lower crop yield. There are, however, genotypic differences in per-day yield potential and
there is scope for breeding for per-day productivity. In wheat, there is an adverse impact on yield if the
mean temperatures rise by 1 to 2C. For each 0.5 C increase in temperature, there would be a reduction
of crop duration of seven days, which in turn would reduce yield by 0.45 tonnes per hectare. Also, for
an increase of 1C in mean annual temperature, the thermal limit of cereal cropping in mid-latitude
northern hemisphere regions would tend to advance by about 150 to 200 km; the altitudinal limit to
arable agriculture would rise by about 150200 m. Several other studies also suggest that for the core
mid-latitude cereal regions, an average warming of 2 C may decrease potential yields by 3 to 17%. For
India as a whole, rice may become even more important than now in the national food security system,
since rice unlike wheat can give high yields under a wider range of growing conditions. For example, rice
grows under below sea level conditions in Kuttanad in Kerala, as well as in high altitude regions in the
Himalayas. The amplitude of adaptation is high is rice. This explains why there are nearly 150,000 strains
of rice in the world. The Gene Bank at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) holds around
107,000 accessions of rice. In the USA, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) [24] had
Commissioned a group of experts to assess the ways that climate change is affecting U.S. Agriculture,
land resources, water resources and biodiversity (these are the ecological foundations of sustainable
agriculture). The highlights of the Scientific Assessment of the effects of Global Change on the USA are:
(i) Life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly; but with rising temperatures
and variable rainfall, crops will begin to experience failure, especially if precipitation lessens or
becomes more variable. (ii) In arid lands, changes in temperature and precipitation will likely decrease
the vegetation cover that protects the ground surface from wind and erosion. (iii) Rising CO2 will very
likely increase photosynthesis in forests, but this increase may help to enhance wood production in
young forests on fertile soils. (iv) Increase in the stream temperatures are likely to increase as the
climate warms, which will impact aquatic ecosystems both directly and indirectly. (v) Corals in many
tropical regions are experiencing substantial mortality from increasing water temperatures, increasing
storm intensity, and a reduction in pH. In general, higher temperatures are found to result in reduced
rice yields in all seasons and in most locations. As mentioned earlier, the possible increase in rice yields
because of increased CO2 levels is nullified by a rise in temperature. Simulations of impact of climate
change on wheat yields for several locations in India using a dynamic crop growth model indicated that
productivity depended on the magnitude of temperature change. The Indian simulation studies [11]
suggested that wheat yields would be smaller than those in the current climate, even with the
beneficial effects of CO2 on crop yields, since yield reductions are associated with a shortening of the
wheat-growing season resulting from projected temperature increases.

Even if CO2 in isolation is good for agriculture the effects of warming outweigh
multiple reasons
Swaminathan and Kesavan, 12 (M. S., PhD, Indian geneticist and international administrator, P.C.,
Distinguished Fellow of MSSRF and Honorary Professor at IGNOU, Agricultural Research in an Era of
Climate Change, anuary 31, open access at Springerlink.com, AW)
The greatest adverse impact of global warming related to climate change and sea level rise will be on
the ecological foundations of agriculture broadly encompassing livelihoods, water security and food
production systems. Degradation of soil, fresh water, and biodiversity would affect adversely the
sustainability of the production system. Swaminathan [17] has pointed out that biodiversity is the feed
stock for a climate resilient agriculture. To sum up, the detrimental consequences of global warming
are multidimensional and interrelated as follows: Unpredictable deviations in monsoon behaviour
Fresh water scarcity and higher evapotranspiration Receding glaciers More frequent incidence of
extreme hydrometeorological events (cylones, hurricanes, typhoons, floods and droughts etc.) with
increased destructive potential. Emergence of widely different pests causing severe damage to
crops, infectious diseases, epidemics etc. For instance, Indian agriculture normally referred to as a
gamble with monsoon would become even more to weather behaviour vulnerable. With lesser
precipitation and increased evapotranspiration, survival and productivity of agri-horticultural crops
would become a serious problem. Several plantation crops like rubber might experience excessive heat
at the present altitudes in which they grow. Planting them at higher altitudes will lead to a further
destruction of biodiversity. The coastal soil and aquifers would become salinized and staple food crops
like paddy would come under severe stress. A rise in sea water temperature will affect mortality of
fish and their geographical distribution. Decline in the corals in the Indian Ocean is already reported. A
change in the species and intensities of pests attacking crop plants due to climate change has also
been envisioned. There are a few reports that some indigenous pests that were earlier not causing
much damage are emerging as serious pests such as foliar blight in wheat, necrosis in sunflower, bract
mosaic in banana, sheath blight in maize, and paddy, and pyrilla in sugarcane. Stem rust of wheat may
become important in North India. Similarly, the advantage of an aphid-free-season will be lost in the
case of potato seed production in North India. Farmers will have to adopt the true potato seed (TPS) or
tissue culture raised mini-tubers for raising disease-free crops. At high temperature, the physiological
processes in farm animals are also expected to increase resulting in a decline in the productivity of
meat, milk, wool, and draught power. There will also be increased incidence of diseases such as
mastitis and foot and mouth disease in dairy animals due to rise in temperature and humidity. With
every 1 C rise in temperature, yield of rice and wheat will decrease. Scientific studies by Sinha and
Swaminathan [21] two decades ago showed that 1C increase in temperature will reduce wheat
production by 4 to 5 million tonnes per year. The FAO 2009
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture) also concluded that for each
1 rise in temperature, wheat yield losses in India are likely to be around
6 million tonnes per year, or around $1.5 billion at current prices. There will be similar losses in other
crops. Swaminathan [20] pointed out that Indias resource poor farmers could lose the equivalent of
over $20 billion in income each year. The hardship and drudgery on rural women would increase even
more steeply since they are traditionally responsible to look after animals, feed, fodder, fuel wood and
water.

CO2 Bad Flawed Models
Theyre just wrong climate change and increased CO2 negatively affects all aspects
of life their models are based on glasshouse conditions
Gilkson, 10 (Andrew, PhD, Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University, Case
for climate change, April 19, http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/glikson/glikson-versus-nova.pdf,
AW)
Lost too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance between the physical
and chemical state of the Earth system and the evolving biosphere, which controls the emergence,
survival and demise of species, including humans. Forming a thin breathable veneer only slightly more
than one thousandth the diameter of Earth and evolving both gradually as well as through major
perturbations, the atmosphere acts as a lung of the biosphere, allowing an exchange of carbon gases
and oxygen with plants and animals, with feedbacks including release of methane. Species are capable
of adapting to gradual environmental change, however, as testified by the geological record abrupt
rises in CO2, methane or H2S, injection of aerosol and dust, acidification of the oceans and
consequent anoxia have led to the demise of species[8]. Since the mid-20th century climate patterns
have been tracking toward conditions increasingly similar to those recorded for the mid-Pliocene,
about 3 million years ago, a perspective which led the US Geological Survey to undertake extensive
studies of Pliocene sediments. During the mid-Pliocene, with CO2 levels of 365-415 ppm and
temperatures 3 to 4 degrees warmer that pre-industrial levels, large parts of the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets melted, sea levels rose by about 2512 meters and climate zones shifted toward
the poles. Given the current rate of CO2 rise, future release of methane from permafrost, bogs and
shallow sediments may reach levels similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55
million years-ago. At this stage release of c.2000 GtC as methane resulted in global temperature rise
near-5 degrees Celsius. In this regard, the scale of global fossil fuel reserves, about 6000 GtC counsels
caution. Claims as if high CO2 concentrations are beneficial for plants pertain to glasshouse conditions,
where high humidity is maintained, but not to open agriculture where rising CO2 and thereby
temperatures lead to droughts. Excess CO2 reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate
tissues and causes hypercapnia. The parts-per-million scale of CO2 concentrations should not conceal
the danger posed by excess amounts of the gas, as is the case with the toxic effects of minute
quantities of a variety of substances (cf. mercury, cyanide, arsenic). In marine environments,
acidification due to excess CO2 and declining pH to below 8.2 results in production of bicarbonate and
carbonic acid, which benthic fauna and corals can not use for shell growth.
Idso Indicts
Idso is a hack multiple reasons his methods are messed up
Rue, 09 (Charles, PhD, coordinator of Columban JPIC (Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation),
The perverse skills of climate change deniers, November 30,
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=17957#.U8fQPPldWSo, AW)
At the same meeting, former US lobbyist for the tobacco industry Professor Fred Singer made several
interventions on the present and future benefits brought by the oil industry. He was supported by US
Catholic layman Dr Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
partially funded by Exxon Mobil. Both of them state publicly that they work to influence the energy
and agricultural policies of governments. Beisner, Singer and Idso are part of a cluster of names which
keep popping up in the literature of climate change denying scientists and religious leaders. Their
primary concern is to attack the proposition that human activity is a major cause of climate change.
They work to maintain current fossil fuel based economic systems, and promise that the world will
not have to change its patterns of using fossil fuels. These US sources are often quoted in Australia
along with local names like Bill Kininmonth, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, David Archibald, Don Aitkin and
David Evans. It is crucial to recognise that climate change sceptics have placed themselves outside the
normal scientific community. They pile up so called 'evidence' with which to browbeat people. For
example, they misuse temperature trends and conflate readings from different spheres surrounding
the earth. They focus on minor contributors to climate change, such as the earth's 100,000-year-long
orbit of the sun, or cry 'sun spots'. They deride models of climate change as inaccurate because the
models cannot predict short term weather patterns, or are refined as more data is gathered. But the
basic physics of climate change is simple a rising percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
warms the planet. These percentages have risen during 200 years of industrial expansion and
industrial agriculture as humanity has used increasing amounts of fossil fuels.
Idso is a member of organizations known to misrepresent findings and receive big
donations from ExxonMobil
Center for Grassroots Oversight, 07 (CGO- public benefit organization that is sponsored by The
Global Center, a non-profit organization, Context of 'uly 2006: Exxon-Funded Organization Offers to
Pay Scientists to Critique 2007 IPCC Report,
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=AEIGWLettersToScientists)
ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific
consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations,
ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual
budgets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that *v]irtually all of them publish and
publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent
peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the publics understanding of global warming. Most of
these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers. After
the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol (see March 27, 2001), the oil company steps
up its support for these organizations. Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times
that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. Firefighters budgets
go up when fires go up, explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining
ExxonMobils support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: We want to
support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us.
There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is
ludicrous. Thats the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble. *NEW YORK TIMES,
5/28/2003; UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, 2007, PP. 10-11 pdf file] The following is a list of some
of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil: bullet American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - AEI receives
$1,625,000 from ExxonMobil between and 1998 and 2005. During this period, it plays host to a number
of climate contrarians. [UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, 2007, PP. 31 pdf file] bullet American
Legislative Exchange Council - In 2005, ExxonMobil grants $241,500 to this organization. Its website
features a non-peer-reviewed paper by climate contrarian Patrick Michaels. [UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS, 2007, PP. 12, 31 pdf file] bullet Center for Science and Public Policy - Started at the
beginning of 2003, this one-man operation receives $232,000 from ExxonMobil. The organization helps
bring scientists to Capitol Hill to testify on global warming and the health effects of mercury. [NEW YORK
TIMES, 5/28/2003] bullet Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Between 2004 and 2005, this
organization receives $215,000 from ExxonMobil. Its advisory panel includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert
Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz, all of whom are affiliated with
other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Idso is a hack paid off by Exxon Mobil empirically associated with non-peer reviewed
papers
Union of Concerned Scientists, 07 (Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big
Tobaccos Tactics to Manufacture uncertainty on Climate Change, anuary,
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf, AW)
The pattern of information laundering is repeated at virtually all the private, nonprofit climate change
programs ExxonMobil funds. The website of the Chicago-based heartland Institute, which received
$119,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005,54 offers recent articles by the same set of scientists. A visit to the
climate section of the website of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which received $241,500
from Exxon Mobil in 2005,55 turns up yet another non-peer reviewed paper by Patrick Michaels.56 The
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $215,000 from ExxonMobil over the past two
funding cycles of 2004 and 2005,57 boasts a similar lineup of articles and a scientific advisory panel
that includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick
Seitzall affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.58
Idso is a hack empirically paid off by oil, coal, and utility interests and uses sketchy
methods
Harkinson, 09 (Josh, staff reporter at Mother ones, No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family), December 4,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-11-idso-
family%20%20, AW)
The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a
self-described "bio-climatologist," published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world's
carbon dioxide concentration wouldn't change the planet's temperature all that much. In years that
followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology received more than
$1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper
funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling." In 1998, Idso's son Craig founded the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online
digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the
tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early
2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world's largest privately
owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center,
whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year. Since
2006, the center has mounted a spirited defense of carbon dioxide using everything from ancient tree-
ring data to elementary-school science experiments. "[S]cience tells us that putting more CO2 in the air
would actually be good for the planet," its website says. "Therefore, in invoking the precautionary
principle one last time, our advice to policy makers who may be tempted to embrace Kyoto-type
programs is simply this: Don't mess with success!" Like his dad, Craig Idso has become a preeminent
"scientific" climate change naysayer. In lieu of his father, who refuses to travel in airplanes, in June the
younger Idso jetted off to the Heartland Institute's climate change conference. There he released
"Climate Change Reconsidered," a 20-page report that suggested that Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change scientists had tweaked their findings in hopes of being invited to conferences involving
"hotel accommodations at exotic locations." More recently, the Idsos have marketed the report as a
timely expose of "Climategate Culture." In 1998, Keith Idso, vice president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and a school teacher, did an experiment with his fifth-grade science class. The lesson,
which demonstrates that plants need CO2 to thrive, has been taught in other classrooms across Arizona.
Sherwood Idso has praised his son's experiment for showing that cutting carbon emissions would reduce
"the future benefits we could have in terms of agricultural productivity." In 1999, the speaker of the
Arizona House of Representatives appointed Keith Idso to serve on the state's Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Sherwood Idso says the coal and oil interests that have supported the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide have been backing off. Fundraising is "so poor that I'm not earning
anything," he says. "Everything has to go to my son [Craig] to help him maintain himself and the five kids
that he has now, and so we're just scraping by." But the center's 2008 tax filing shows that it entered
2009 with $445,000 in cash on hand. Last year, it paid Sherwood Idso $50,000, Craig Idso $79,000, and
Craig Idso's wife, M. Anne Idso, $52,000. The center also made a $58,000 "scientific research" grant to
a group called CO2 Science. Tax records reveal that CO2 Science's $75,000 budget that year mostly
went toward paying Craig Idso a $45,000 salary, bringing his and his wife's total take from the family
business to $182,000.




AT: SO2 Screw
SO2 Bad - Ozone
SO2 also destroys the ozone causes warming, counterbalances any good effects of
SO2. Also most SO2 is from China not the US, means no link.
World Climate Report 5 (Change of Direction: Do SO2 Emissions Lead to Warming?, April 22, 2005,
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/22/change-of-direction-do-so2-emissions-
lead-to-warming/)//rh
Many scientists believe that sulfur dioxide emissions, either from un-scrubbed power plants or from
large-scale agricultural burning, serve to cool the planets surface temperature. The cooling mechanism
is fairly straightforward. Sulfur dioxide is transformed in the atmosphere into sulfate aerosol, a fine
particle that reflects away the suns radiation. The particles also serve as the condensation nuclei for
cloud droplets which also reflect away the suns energy. On the other hand, no one really knows the
magnitude of these cooling effects (if any). So we have argued that sulfate cooling is simply a fudge
factor put into climate models in order to chill the overly-hot projections they make if left to their own
devices. Now comes evidence that sulfur dioxide actually can enhance global warming. While this
doesnt mean that sulfates arent also cooling things by reflecting away radiation, the parent, sulfur
dioxide, can do some other things that make the surface warmer. According to research just published
in Geophysical Research Letters by J. Notholt and his co-authors, sulfur dioxide is converted to sulfuric
acid (remember acid rain?), which leads to more ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. Some of
these are eventually lifted upwards into the stable stratosphere where they increase the amount of
water vapor found there. Water vapor in the stratosphere serves as a greenhouse gas and is involved
in the destruction of ozone, resulting in a stratospheric cooling and a warming of the lower
atmosphere and surface. And, for once, its not from the USA. Were usually blamed for the lions share
of warming as a result of our carbon dioxide emissions. But the sulfur dioxide is largely from elsewhere.
The authors write: While anthropogenic SO2 emissions in Europe and North America have been
decreasing since around 1980, the anthropogenic SO2 emissions from China, Asia and the tropics have
been increasingFor example, van Aardenne et al (2001) report a factor of 12 increase for China and 8
for East Asia, respectively between 1950 and 1990. The authors propose that their mechanism has
been responsible for about one-quarter of the increases in stratospheric water vapor during the period
1950 to 2000. According to a NASA model published by Drew Shindell in 2001, this would account for
about 5% of the observed warming. While that seems small, it is a sign about how little we really
know (or have known) about the climatic disposition of sulfur dioxide. Every increment of warming
that it causes takes away from its putative cooling. Which means, ironically, that it can serve less and
less as an explanation as to why we have only witnessed a very modest global warming to date.
Obviously, this points to something being very wrong. We have been mentioning this for years, and
were going to mention it again: With so many non-carbon dioxide factors apparently causing warming
(soot, methane, sulfur dioxide), why isnt it warmer than heck? There are two options: Either warming
is being countered by a tremendous sulfate cooling (which should be obvious in, say, China (which is
warming by the way)) or the warming effect of carbon dioxide itself is overstated. Well bet on the
latter, but it is going to take decades for science to admit to this error after all the fear and bad policies
that is has caused.

SO2 = Extinction
Key distinction well concede that SOME SO2 emissions can cause cooling but the
current RATE at which SO2 is emitted by humans is so rapid that the SO2 overdrives
the atmospheres oxidizing capacity means that excess SO2 causes rapid warming,
acid rain, and mass extinctions volcanoes prove.
Ward 9 (Peter L., geophysicist specializing in volcanology, Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change
in four ways, February 11, 2009, Thin Solid Films, ScieneDirect)//rh
***We do not endorse gendered language
Global climate change, prior to the 20th century, appears to have been initiated primarily by major
changes in volcanic activity. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the most voluminous chemically active gas emitted
by volcanoes and is readily oxidized to sulfuric acid normally within weeks. But trace amounts of SO2
exert significant influence on climate. All major historic volcanic eruptions have formed sulfuric acid
aerosols in the lower stratosphere that cooled the earth's surface ~0.5 C for typically three years.
While such events are currently happening once every 80 years, there are times in geologic history
when they occurred every few to a dozen years. These were times when the earth was cooled
incrementally into major ice ages. There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years
when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades.
Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming. Large volumes of SO2
erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very
rapid warming. Such warming and associated acid rain becomes extreme when millions of cubic
kilometers of basalt are erupted in much less than one million years. These are the times of the
greatest mass extinctions . When major volcanic eruptions do not occur for decades to hundreds of
years, the atmosphere can oxidize all pollutants, leading to a very thin atmosphere, global cooling and
decadal drought. Prior to the 20th century, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) followed
increases in temperature initiated by changes in SO2 . By 1962, man burning fossil fuels was adding
SO2 to the atmosphere at a rate equivalent to one large volcanic eruption each 1.7 years . Global
temperatures increased slowly from 1890 to 1950 as anthropogenic sulfur increased slowly. Global
temperatures increased more rapidly after 1950 as the rate of anthropogenic sulfur emissions
increased. By 1980 anthropogenic sulfur emissions peaked and began to decrease because of major
efforts especially in Japan, Europe, and the United States to reduce acid rain. Atmospheric
concentrations of methane began decreasing in 1990 and have remained nearly constant since 2000,
demonstrating an increase in oxidizing capacity. Global temperatures became roughly constant around
2000 and even decreased beginning in late 2007. Meanwhile atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide have continued to increase at the same rate that they have increased since 1970. Thus SO2 is
playing a far more active role in initiating and controlling global warming than recognized by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Massive reduction of SO2 should be a top priority in
order to reduce both global warming and acid rain. But man is also adding two to three orders of
magnitude more CO2 per year to the climate than one large volcanic eruption added in the past. Thus
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is contributing to global warming and should be reduced. We have already
significantly reduced SO2 emissions in order to reduce acid rain. We know how to do it both technically
and politically. In the past, sudden climate change was typically triggered by sudden increases in volcanic
activity. Slow increases in greenhouse gases, therefore, do not appear as likely as currently thought to
trigger tipping points where the climate suddenly changes. However we do need to start planning an
appropriate human response to future major increases in volcanic activity.
Acid Rain Turn
SO2 emissions cause acid rain
EPA No Date (Environmental Protection Agency Students Site, What Causes Acid Rain
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/whatcauses.html)//rh
Sources of Acid Rain Acid rain is caused by a chemical reaction that begins when compounds like sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides are released into the air. These substances can rise very high into the
atmosphere, where they mix and react with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form more acidic
pollutants, known as acid rain. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides dissolve very easily in water and can
be carried very far by the wind. As a result, the two compounds can travel long distances where they
become part of the rain, sleet, snow, and fog that we experience on certain days. Human activities are
the main cause of acid rain. Over the past few decades, humans have released so many different
chemicals into the air that they have changed the mix of gases in the atmosphere. Power plants release
the majority of sulfur dioxide and much of the nitrogen oxides when they burn fossil fuels, such as
coal, to produce electricity. In addition, the exhaust from cars, trucks, and buses releases nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxide into the air. These pollutants cause acid rain. Acid Rain is Caused by Reactions
in the Environment Nature depends on balance, and although some rain is naturally acidic, with a pH
level of around 5.0, human activities have made it worse. Normalprecipitationsuch as rain, sleet, or
snowreacts with alkaline chemicals, or non-acidic materials, that can be found in air, soils, bedrock,
lakes, and streams. These reactions usually neutralize natural acids. However, if precipitation becomes
too acidic, these materials may not be able to neutralize all of the acids. Over time, these neutralizing
materials can be washed away by acid rain. Damage to crops, trees, lakes, rivers, and animals can
result.
Acid rain causes biodiversity collapse, ecosystem collapse, algal, blooms and
extinction
Wolosz 13 (Dr. Tom, professor at the Center for Earth & Environmental Sciences, SUNY at Plattsburgh,
Effects of Acid Rain, Last Updated November 13, 2013,
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/acid_rain.htm)//rh
We generally consider acid rain to affect areas which are downwind of pollution generating sites. The
northeastern United States, for instance, suffers from acid precipitation generated both locally and by coal fired plants in the mid-western
states. As a result, ecosystem damage is localized. However, acid precipitation can be caused by some natural events (volcanic eruptions,
erosion and oxidation of organic-rich sedimentary rocks) and some catastrophic events (bolide impact) which increase the amounts of CO2,
NOx and SO2 in the atmosphere. As a result, it is important to understand the effects of acid rain on animals
inorder to evaluate both possible causes for past extinction events, as well as the potential for
modern ecosystem damage. Acid Formation in the Atmosphere First, let us review some basic chemistry as it applies to acid
precipitation. Carbonic acid forms naturally in the atmosphere due to the reaction of water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), H2O + CO2 ->
H2CO3 while the burning of coal and other organics adds sulfur dioxide (SO2) and Nitrous oxides (NOx) to the atmosphere where they react to
form sulfuric acid and nitric acid, 2SO2 + H2O + O2 -> 2H2SO4 4NO2 + 2H2O + O2 -> 4HNO3 All of these acids will be buffered by reacting with
rocks, minerals, etc. on the earth's surface. The most important (and fastest) buffering comes from the reaction with (weathering of) calcite in
the form of limestone, dolomite or marble. H2CO3 + CaCO3 -> 2HCO3- + Ca+2 When this reaction occurs, the acid is neutralized and the calcite
dissolved. While the reaction with calcite is very fast (the standard test for calcite in introductory geology labs is to put very dilute acid on a
sample to see if it bubbles (reacts)), the reaction with other rocks is very slow, so most of the acid is not affected. This is why ponds in the
Adirondacks became acidified (non-calcite rock in those areas), while Lake Champlain (abundant calcitic bedrock) did not. The degree of
acidification is the pH of the water, which is defined as the negative logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ion (H+), or pH = -log [H+]. (This
to a certain degree comes from the old definition of an acid as a proton donor. A hydrogen ion is little more than a proton, so think of it as the
amount of free protons floating around). A pH of 7 is considered neutral, while a pH less than 7 is considered acidic. For example, wine has a pH
of about 3.5 and your stomach digestive fluids have a pH of about 1.9. We should also be aware that increased acidity does not
have to be constant, but instead can be episodic. High surface water discharge events (storms, snowmelts) can increase the
pH of streams and ponds to dangerous levels for short times. Effects of Acidity on Plants and Animals As a first example of the
effects of acid rain, we can examine a case which is not obvious - effects on non-aquatic, tree nesting
birds. This study was carried out in the Netherlands. It was observed that the proportion of birds laying defective eggs
rose from roughly 10% in 1983-84 to 40% by 1987-88. The defective eggs had thin and highly porous
egg shells, which resulted in eggs failing to hatch because of shell breakage and desiccation. As a result,
there was also a high proportion of empty nests and clutch desertion. It was also observed that these effects
were limited to areas of acid rain. Since the birds did not appear to be directly affected by the acidity, the food chain was
examined (these birds are positioned at the upper part of the local food chain). The difference between areas of normal
soil pH (buffered by high calcium content due to limestone and marble outcrops and bedrock) and those with acidic soil
appeared to be the presence of snails. The snails depend on the soil as their calcium source as they
secrete their shells. With much of the CaCO3leached out of the soil by the acid precipitation, the snails
could not survive in the area. The birds did not, at first, appear to be affected, because they continued to eat spiders and insects
which, while supplying a sufficiently nutritious diet for the birds, where a poor source of calcium. To test the hypothesis that the lack of calcium
was the cause of the bird's laying defective eggs, ecologists "salted" the area with chicken egg shell fragments. The birds began to eat the
chicken egg shells, and those that did laid normal eggs. In this case, acid precipitation had affects that passed on up the
food chain. AFFECTS ON AQUATIC SYSTEMS Mollusks - snails and clams. - these invertebrates are highly
sensitive to acidification because of their shells which are either calcite or aragonite (both forms a CaCO3)
which they must take from the water. - in Norway, no snails are found in lakes with a pH of less than 5. - of 20 species of
fingernail clams, only 6 were found in lakes with pH of less than 5. Arthropods - crustaceans are not found in water with a
pH less than 5. - crayfish are also uncommon in water where the pH is less than 5. This is an important
consideration because crayfish are an important food source for many species of fish. - many insects also
become rare in waters with a pH less than 5. Amphibians - as you may know, many species of amphibians are declining. To what extent acid
rain is contributing to this decline is not exactly known. However, one problem is that in places like northeastern North America amphibians
breed in temporary pools which are fed by acidified spring meltwater. In general, eggs and juveniles are more sensitive to the
affects of acidity. Zooplankton in lakes - changes in diversity among zooplankton have been noted in
studies carried out in lakes in Ontario, Canada. These studies found that in lakes where the pH was greater than 5 the zooplankton communities
exhibited diversities of 9 - 16 species with 3 - 4 being dominant. In lakes where the pH was less than 5, diversity had dropped to 1 - 7 species,
with only 1 or 2 dominants. Periphytic algae - many acidified lakes exhibit a large increase in the abundance of
periphytic algae (those that coat rocks, plants and other submerged objects). This increase has been attributed to the
loss of heterotrophic activity in the lake (i.e., the loss of both microbial and invertebrate herbivores in
the lake). Fish - as a result of acidification, fish communities have suffered significant changes in
community composition attributed to high mortality, reproductive failure, reduced growth rate,
skeletal deformities, and increased uptake of heavy metals. Mortality - effects on embryos and juveniles: - Atlantic
salmon fry have been observed to die when water with pH < 5 was introduced into breeding pools. - in
fish embryos, death appears to be due to corrosion of epidermal cells by the acid. Acidity also interferes with respiration and osmoregulation.
In all fish at a pH of 4 to 5 the normal ion and acid/base balance is disturbed. Na+ uptake is inhibited in low pH waters with low salinity. Small
fish are especially affected in this way because due to their greater ratio of body and gill surface area
to overall body weight, the detrimental ion flux proceeds faster. - in all fish low pH water causes
extensive gill damage. Gill laminae erode, gill filaments swell, and edemas develop between the outer gill lamellar cells and the
remaining tissue. - at pH <3 coagulation of mucus on gill surfaces clogs the gills, which leads to anoxia and subsequent death. Reproductive
Failure Reproductive failure has been suggested as the main reason for fish extinction due to acidity. In Ontario, Canada it was observed that in
acidified lakes female fish did not release ova during mating season. When examined, the fish were found to have abnormally
low serum calcium levels which appears to have disrupted their normal reproductive physiology.
Growth Growth may increase or decrease depending on resistance of a species to acidity. For resistant
species, growth can increase due to the loss of competing non-resistant species. On the other hand,
growth can decrease due to increase in metabolic rate caused by sublethal acid stress. In this case the
organism's rate of oxygen consumption goes up because the excess CO2 in the water increases the
blood CO2 level which decreases the oxygen carrying capacity of the hemoglobin. Skeletal Deformity
This occurs in some fish as a response to the lowered blood pH caused by increase in CO2 described
above. Bones decalcify in response to a buildup of H2CO3 in the blood as the body attempts to
maintain its normal serum osmotic concentration (i.e., the body attempts to return to a normal blood
pH level)
Health Turn
SO2 causes respiratory disease and death
EPA 13 (Environmental Protection Agency, Sulfur Dioxide: Health, Last Updated: June 28, 2013,
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/health.html)//rh
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours,
with an array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma
symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g.,
while exercising or playing.) Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and
increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses,
particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics. EPAs National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2 is designed to protect against exposure to the entire group of
sulfur oxides (SOx). SO2 is the component of greatest concern and is used as the indicator for the
larger group of gaseous sulfur oxides (SOx). Other gaseous sulfur oxides (e.g. SO3) are found in the
atmosphere at concentrations much lower than SO2. Emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2
generally also lead to the formation of other SOx. Control measures that reduce SO2 can generally be
expected to reduce peoples exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may have the important co-benefit of
reducing the formation of fine sulfate particles, which pose significant public health threats . SOx can
react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles penetrate
deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as
emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital
admissions and premature death. EPAs NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) are designed to provide
protection against these health effects.

Effects Exaggerated
Effects are overstated recent conclusive evidence
Mohan 13 (Geoffrey, Environmental Editor of the LA Times, Pollutant's cooling effect on climate may
be overstated, study shows, LA Times, May 14, 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/news/la-
climate-cooling-overstated-20130514)//rh
Dont count on sulfur dioxide to bridle climate change. The ability of that pollutant to reflect the sun is
not quite what it was assumed to be, according to new research. Sulfur dioxide -- a common pollutant
from burning fossil fuels, contributes to the formation of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, which
reflect sunlight. Figuring out just how much this can counteract greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide
and other gases has remained one of the bigger uncertainties in climate modeling. Scientists at the
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry now say that climate models probably overstate the cooling effect.
They highlighted an often-overlooked chemical process involving mineral dust in clouds that affects
the lifespan of sulfate aerosol particles. The scientists studied clouds formed on a mountaintop,
chronicling sulfur compounds in parcels of air before, during and after cloud formation. Inside clouds,
sulfur dioxide is oxidized to form sulfate. This occurs via two chemical paths. One is catalyzed with
hydrogen peroxide and ozone, and it's the process that figures heavily in most climate models. But there
is a more common oxidation path, scientists found: That reaction is aided by transition metal ions --
bits of iron, manganese, titanium and such -- that come from mineral dust particles, where water
gathers in early cloud formation. The sulfates catalyzed through these metal ions tend to form on
large, coarse grains of metallic dust, and because of their size, they fall out of the cloud at a faster rate
than finer sulfates. So the time theyre suspended in the atmosphere, and reflecting sunlight, is
briefer than previously thought, the researchers found . In places such as China and India, where sulfur
dioxide emissions are rising and there is more mineral dust in the air, the precipitation effect could
have a significant impact. Future aerosol cooling may be strongly overpredicted by current climate
chemistry models, the authors suggest.
Volcanoes NOT Emissions Good
Good SO2 is from volcanoes, not human emissions
CIRES 13 (Natural Sciences, Environment, Institutes, Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Science (CIRES) , Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming,
says CU study, March 1, 2013, http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-
not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu)//rh
A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as
much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight --
dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide. The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including
India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide
emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning, said lead study author Ryan
Neely, who led the research as part of his CU-Boulder doctoral thesis. Small amounts of sulfur dioxide
emissions from Earths surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the
atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight
back to space, cooling the planet. Neely said previous observations suggest that increases in
stratospheric aerosols since 2000 have counterbalanced as much as 25 percent of the warming
scientists blame on human greenhouse gas emissions . This new study indicates it is emissions from
small to moderate volcanoes that have been slowing the warming of the planet, said Neely, a
researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint venture of CU-
Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A paper on the subject was
published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Co-
authors include Professors Brian Toon and Jeffrey Thayer from CU-Boulder; Susan Solomon, a former
NOAA scientist now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; ean Paul Vernier from NASAs
Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.; Catherine Alvarez, Karen Rosenlof and John Daniel from
NOAA; and Jason English, Michael Mills and Charles Bardeen from the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder. The new project was undertaken in part to resolve conflicting results of two
recent studies on the origins of the sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, including a 2009 study led by
the late David Hoffman of NOAA indicating aerosol increases in the stratosphere may have come from
rising emissions of sulfur dioxide from India and China. In contrast, a 2011 study led by Vernier -- who
also provided essential observation data for the new GRL study -- showed moderate volcanic
eruptions play a role in increasing particulates in the stratosphere, Neely said. The new GRL study also
builds on a 2011 study led by Solomon showing stratospheric aerosols offset about a quarter of the
greenhouse effect warming on Earth during the past decade, said Neely, also a postdoctoral fellow in
NCARs Advanced Study Program. The new study relies on long-term measurements of changes in the
stratospheric aerosol layers optical depth, which is a measure of transparency, said Neely. Since
2000, the optical depth in the stratospheric aerosol layer has increased by about 4 to 7 percent,
meaning it is slightly more opaque now than in previous years.The biggest implication here is that
scientists need to pay more attention to small and moderate volcanic eruptions when trying to
understand changes in Earths climate, said Toon of CU-Boulders Department of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Sciences. But overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect.
Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gas
emissions from human activity just continue to go up. The key to the new results was the combined
use of two sophisticated computer models, including the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate
Model, or WACCM, Version 3, developed by NCAR and which is widely used around the world by
scientists to study the atmosphere. The team coupled WACCM with a second model, the Community
Aerosol and Radiation Model for Atmosphere, or CARMA, which allows researchers to calculate
properties of specific aerosols and which has been under development by a team led by Toon for the
past several decades. Neely said the team used the Janus supercomputer on campus to conduct seven
computer runs, each simulating 10 years of atmospheric activity tied to both coal-burning activities in
Asia and to emissions by volcanoes around the world. Each run took about a week of computer time
using 192 processors, allowing the team to separate coal-burning pollution in Asia from aerosol
contributions from moderate, global volcanic eruptions. The project would have taken a single computer
processor roughly 25 years to complete, said Neely. The scientists said 10-year climate data sets like the
one gathered for the new study are not long enough to determine climate change trends. This paper
addresses a question of immediate relevance to our understanding of the human impact on climate,
said Neely. It should interest those examining the sources of decadal climate variability, the global
impact of local pollution and the role of volcanoes.
A2: Ice Age

Ice Age Not Coming Now
Ice age not coming- science backs us up
Bailey 14 (Dan, degree in Earth Science from Central Michigan, quoting multiple articles, Are we
heading into a new Ice Age?, 2/10/14, http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-
age-intermediate.htm)
Just a few centuries ago, the planet experienced a mild ice age, quaintly dubbed the Little Ice Age. Part
of the Little Ice Age coincided with a period of low solar activity termed the Maunder Minimum (named
after astronomer Edward Maunder). It's believed that a combination of lower solar output and high
volcanic activity were major contributors (Free 1999, Crowley 2001), with changes in ocean circulation
also having an effect on European temperatures (Mann 2002). Solar Activity - Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
including Maunder Minimum Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki.
TSI from 1979 to 2009 from Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD). Could we be
heading into another Maunder Minimum? Solar activity is currently showing a long-term cooling trend.
2009 saw solar output at its lowest level in over a century. However, predicting future solar activity is
problematic. The transition from a period of 'grand maxima' (the situation in the latter 20th century) to
a 'grand minima' (Maunder Minimum conditions) is a chaotic process and difficult to predict (Usoskin
2007). Let's say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the
21st century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? Simulations of the climate response if the
sun did fall to Maunder Minimum levels find that the decrease in temperature from the sun is
minimal compared to the warming from man-made greenhouse gases (Feulner 2010). Cooling from
the lowered solar output is estimated at around 0.1C (with a maximum possible value of 0.3C) while
the greenhouse gas warming will be around 3.7C to 4.5C, depending on how much CO2 we emit
throughout the 21st century (more on this study...). Figure 2: Global mean temperature anomalies 1900
to 2100 relative to the period 1961 to 1990 for the A1B (red lines) and A2 (magenta lines) scenarios and
for three different solar forcings corresponding to a typical 11-year cycle (solid line) and to a new Grand
Minimum with solar irradiance corresponding to recent reconstructions of Maunder-minimum
irradiance (dashed line) and a lower irradiance (dotted line), respectively. Observed temperatures from
NASA GISS until 2009 are also shown (blue line) (Feulner 2010). However, our climate has experienced
much more dramatic change than the Little Ice Age. Over the past 400,000 years, the planet has
experienced ice age conditions, punctuated every 100,000 years or so by brief warm intervals. These
warm periods, called interglacials, typically last around 10,000 years. Our current interglacial began
around 11,000 years ago. Could we be on the brink of the end of our interglacial? Temperature of
Vostok, Antarctica including interglacials and Milankovitch cycles Figure 3: Temperature change at
Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). Interglacial periods are marked in green. How do ice ages begin?
Changes in the earth's orbit cause less sunlight (insolation) to fall on the northern hemisphere during
summer. Northern ice sheets melt less during summer and gradually grow over thousands of years. This
increases the Earth's albedo which amplifies the cooling, spreading the ice sheets farther. This process
lasts around 10,000 to 20,000 years, bringing the planet into an ice age. What effect do our CO2
emissions have on any future ice ages? This question is examined in one study that examines the
glaciation "trigger" - the required drop in summer northern insolation to begin the process of growing
ice sheets (Archer 2005). The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the lower insolation needs to drop
to trigger glaciation. Figure 4 examines the climate response to various CO2 emission scenarios. The
green line is the natural response without CO2 emissions. Blue represents an anthropogenic release of
300 gigatonnes of carbon - we have already passed this mark. Release of 1000 gigatonnes of carbon
(orange line) would prevent an ice age for 130,000 years. If anthropogenic carbon release were 5000
gigatonnes or more, glaciation will be avoided for at least half a million years. As things stand now, the
combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is
likely to generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years. Future
temperature rise based on various CO2 emission scenarios Figure 4. Effect of fossil fuel CO2 on the
future evolution of global mean temperature. Green represents natural evolution, blue represents the
results of anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C, orange is 1000 Gton C, and red is 5000 Gton C (Archer
2005). So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts
that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they're growing,
then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic
permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an
accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.
No Ice Age now empirics.
Blackburn 10 (Anne-Marie,Environmental Policy and BSc in Environmental Biology, climate scientist,
How we know an ice age isnt just around the corner, 9/1/10; <
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-an-ice-age-isnt-just-around-the-corner.html> HG)
According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also
known as ice ages, that last about 100,000 years. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials,
short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in
Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted
approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid
claim? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice
ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earths
orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When
this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. in turn, this
increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend.
Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years. So what are todays conditions like?
Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling.
However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely: These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak
and are not acting within the same timescale they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This
means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go
back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about
30,000 years. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling
effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earths orbit and tilt, a slight
decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global
temperatures are definitely on the rise. It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations
set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are
increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.
Global cooling not occurring- only hacks say so
Plait 13 (Phil, astronomer and author of multiple books, No, the World Isn't Cooling, 9/10/13,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and
_other_nonsense.html, HG)
The article in the Mail bears this out. In it, Rose makes a lot of jaw-dropping statements. To pick three,
he says the world is cooling, Arctic sea ice increased 60 percent over last year at this time, and the
International Panel on Climate Change is under so much attack they had to hold a "crisis" meeting.
These claims are at best misleading. The first and third are just wrong, and the second hugely cherry-
picked. Ill debunk these briefly here, but Ill note you can get the grim details at the Guardian in a great
article by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham and at Discover magazine. Hot Whopper has a dissection as
well. Roses first claim is that the world is cooling. This is simply wrong. Theres long been a claim that
global warming has stopped, but this too is wrong. Surface temperatures havent increased as much
as they did a decade or so ago, but we now understand that the extra heat from global warming is
getting stored in the oceans. Surface temperatures are a piece of the puzzle, but like their name
implies, they dont probe the depths of the problem. Remember too that nine of the 10 hottest years
since 1880 have been in the past decade.
Link Turn Warming Ice Age
Warming causes polar weather
Walsh 14(Bryan, senior writer at Time, Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap, Time, 1/6/14,
http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/, HG)
But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could
be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much
of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of
extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex
which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds
weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape
and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has
tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold, as you can see in this weatherbell.com graphic:
Graphic showing a simulation of the polar vortex over the Great Lakes on Monday night
(weatherbell.com] That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden
stratospheric warming event, a phenomenon Rick Grow explained at the Washington Post a few days
ago: Large atmospheric waves move upward from the troposphere where most weather occurs
into the stratosphere, which is the layer of air above the troposphere. These waves, which are called
Rossby waves, transport energy and momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere. This energy
and momentum transfer generates a circulation in the stratosphere, which features sinking air in the
polar latitudes and rising air in the lowest latitudes. As air sinks, it warms. If the stratospheric air
warms rapidly in the Arctic, it will throw the circulation off balance. This can cause a major disruption
to the polar vortex, stretching it and sometimes splitting it apart. (MORE: November Was Cold,
But the Climate Keeps Warming) What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing
from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs
more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm
faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet streamthe belt of fast-
flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer
southern airis driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical
ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet
stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow
southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further
south than it usually would.

Warming leads to ice age
Publius 14 (Gaius, writer (pen name), How climate change could cause an Ice Age in Europe, American Blog, 3/17/14,
http://americablog.com/2014/03/climate-change-gulf-stream-could-cause-ice-age-europe.html, HG)
How does this relate to today? It is believed that this dynamic, sudden glaciation of Europe, happens
as a result of a global warming event that melts enough fresh-water ice in the north Atlantic to
desalinate (dilute the dense salt content of) the surface part of the northern Gulf Stream. Because the
surface current is no longer heavier than the surrounding ocean, it fails to sink when cooled. This
causes the surface current to terminate further south than before, never reaching Europe. The
mechanism at issue is the same as the one were watching today global temperature increase. Were
already at +1C from the pre-Industrial norm, which is also the norm of the last 10,000 years. Prior to
industrial times, the whole of the last 10,000 years never saw a global temperature variation outside
of C. Weve already exited the climate of the Holocene, the climate of the past 10,000 years. What
awaits us? Whatever that future is, our ability to be civilized in the modern sense depends on our
ability to farm. Prior to studying the Gulf Stream, I had assumed that many major farming regions would
be lost to heat, monsoon, flooding or drought, but that many growing regions would be preserved. The
regions lost would include the California Central Valley, much of the American Midwest, the Northern
Plain of China (its breadbasket), Ukraine (another breadbasket), almost all of Africa, most of India, and
so on. But I had also assumed that areas near or north of latitude 45N (roughly Portland, Oregon, and
Paris, France, etc.) were far enough north to remain or even improve as growing regions. These would
include much of Canada, much of Europe, and all of Scandinavia. But glaciers in Europe, despite
warming elsewhere on the planet, would make almost the entire north European continent
unfarmable. Is northern Russia farmable today? I dont think so, but research will tell us for sure.
Bottom line: The future may not be the ride we want it to be. Is it time to consider initiating a Zero
Carbon regime voluntarily and interrupting most of the worst of these consequences? I still think we
have a 510 year window.
Warming causes ice age- either way it takes a long time
Wilson and Watson 6 (Stephanie and Tracy, staff writer and degree of mass communications from a Boston university, Could
reversing global warming start an ice age?, 4/21/2006, http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-
science/question780.htm, HG)
Another school of thought makes the opposite prediction: Global warming might actually lead to
another ice age. According to this theory, warming temperatures disrupt ocean currents -- particularly
the Gulf Stream, the flow that redistributes warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe. As
the Gulf Stream makes its deposits of warm water along the coasts of Great Britain and northwestern
Europe, it keeps the temperatures there warmer than they would be otherwise. The worry is that, when
Arctic ice melts as a result of global warming, huge amounts of fresh water will pour into the North
Atlantic and slow down the Gulf Stream. A study of circulation in the North Atlantic has discovered
that there already has been a 30 percent reduction in currents flowing north from the Gulf Stream
[source: Pearce]. A slowed Gulf Stream could potentially lead to dramatic cooling in Europe. Will either
of these scenarios really happen? It's hard to say for sure. Climate experts haven't even come to a
consensus about the cause and effects of global warming, let alone whether it might prevent or trigger
the next ice age. The question of whether reversing global warming might lead to an ice age could be
irrelevant if it never happens. According to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the changes in ocean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level that have
already occurred are irreversible for a thousand years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely
stopped [source: NOAA]. That means no matter how much we curb our emissions today, we may not be
able to undo the damage that has already been done anytime soon. The one thing scientists do seem to
agree on is that another ice age is not likely to occur for thousands of years -- not even remotely close
to any of our lifetimes.
No Link CO2 Levels
No link threshold is preindustrial CO2.
Tzedakis et al., 12 (P.C., Environmental Change Research Centre, Department of Geography @
University College London, with J. E. T. Channell, Department of Geological Sciences @ University of
Florida, D. A. Hodell, Department of Earth Sciences @ University of Cambridge, H. F. Kleiven, UNI
Research AS, N-5007 Bergen, and L. C. Skinner, Department of Earth Sciences @ University of
Cambridge, Determining the natural length of the current interglacial, Nature Geoscience, 1/9/12,
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html#affil-auth)
No glacial inception is projected to occur at the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppmv
(ref. 1). Indeed, model experiments suggest that in the current orbital configurationwhich is
characterized by a weak minimum in summer insolationglacial inception would require CO2
concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv (refs 2, 3, 4). However, the precise CO2
threshold4, 5, 6 as well as the timing of the hypothetical next glaciation7 remain unclear. Past
interglacials can be used to draw analogies with the present, provided their duration is known. Here we
propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw
climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt
the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by
the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-
rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the
present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was
not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation
and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the
next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 2405ppmv.


Warming Outweighs
Ice age alarmists are wrong misread reports. Proves we outweigh on timeframe.
Payne, 12 (Verity Payne, PhD from University of Leeds, Lethal ice age prevented by climate change?
The Carbon Brief, 1/9/12, http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/01/lethal-ice-age-prevented-by-
climate-change/)
A Nature Geoscience paper (published online) has found that man-made climate change might delay the onset of the next ice age, expected to
begin some 1,500 years from now. This has caused quite a stir among climate skeptics, who have rushed to proclaim that man-made
climate change " may save us from the next ice age". This enthusiastic reporting neatly exposes some inconsistencies in a
few of their favourite arguments. The Nature Geoscience paper: Man-made emissions may delay ice age It's thought that ice ages are triggered
by small changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. The pattern of these changes indicate that another ice age might begin in around 1,500
years. However, scientists have now found that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the Earth enough to prevent it from
responding in the way that it has over the last million years. Professor Jim Channell, University of Florida, one of the report's co-authors,
explains: "We know from past records that Earth's orbital characteristics during our present interglacial period are a dead ringer for orbital
characteristics in an interglacial period 780,000 years ago." Scientists would expect the Earth to behave in a similar way to that period, but
human greenhouse gas emissions may have disrupted the normal glaciation cycle. As Channell puts it: "The problem is that now we have
added to the total amount of CO2 cycling through the system by burning fossil fuels, the cooling forces can't keep up." Skeptics
struggle to get their story straight This finding has prompted an excited response from climate skeptic lobbyists and certain newspapers,
who are claiming that man-made global warming will ' thwart' the next ice age and is therefore a good thing. There are three reasons why
this is an odd argument. First, it is a tacit admission that man-made climate change is happening, will alter
temperatures significantly, and has far-reaching consequences for human society. This might seem like a surprising thing for climate skeptics to
admit. It's hardly news however that climate skeptic arguments are often selective and incoherent - as we discussed following the publication
of the BEST study results. Secondly, on at least two occasions last year (see here and here for examples), skeptics were claiming that
the Earth was poised to enter a new 'mini ice age'. To subsequently trade on the idea that climate change is good because it will prevent
ice ages does look suspiciously like having it both ways at once. But the biggest problem for the skeptics is that being pleased about a
(potential) lack of climate disruption occurring 1,500 years into the future does rather beg the question of why they aren't
worried about climate disruption occurring much sooner - over the next century, say. It's a basic error to sensationalise a
possible event that's more than a thousand years away while ignoring the disruption to the climate expected in the interim - but this is exactly
what the media coverage does. The Daily Mail opt for the headline ' Human carbon emissions could put OFF a lethal new ice age, say scientists'
- parroting the skeptic blogs in claiming that "we would be better off in a warmer world." This statement doesn't fit with the most
comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature to date - that conducted by the IPCC in 2007 ( AR4). Meanwhile the Telegraph turn to
climate skeptic lobbyists the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) for their information: "The Global Warming Policy Foundation said the
study demonstrated that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were preventing a 'global disaster'". ...in 1500 years time, surely? "The think
tank, set up by Lord Lawson, cited a controversial theory proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe in 1999 which said
we 'must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate.'" One might wonder why the GWPF are
focusing on a potential benefit which is 1,500 years away, on the basis of a single scientific paper, when they are so vociferous in their rejection
of the consensus scientific position, which is supported by the work of thousands of researchers. Missing the point Indeed, the reaction of
skeptics to this study misses the point, according to co-author Dr Luke Skinner, department of Earth Sciences at the
University of Cambridge. He points out that the skeptic notion that we are somehow 'preserving' our climate by
releasing greenhouse gases is flawed: "Where we're going is not maintaining our currently warm climate but heating it much
further, and adding CO2 to a warm climate is very different from adding it to a cold climate. "The rate of change with CO2 is basically
unprecedented, and there are huge consequences if we can't cope with that." Skinner also comments on BBC Radio 4's
Today programme: "If anything, the study... suggests that the climate system is quite sensitive to quite small changes in CO2, let alone the huge
change that we've been responsible for over the last 200 years." In other words, what Dr Skinner is saying is that you can't have it both
ways. If human greenhouse gas emissions are capable of preventing disruptive climate shifts in 1,500 years
time, they're capable of causing disruptive climate shifts well before then. After all, the average global
temperature difference during an ice age can be as little as 4C - and we might see that by the end of the century, never mind in 1,500 years'
time.

Warming o/w on timeframe- worse
Chameides 08 (Bill, dean of Dukes school of environment, Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age Predicting
Future Climate, 10/30/08, http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/futureclimate/, HG)
The IPCCs warming predictions are based on climate simulations with an important underlying
assumption what I call the all things being equal assumption: the models assume that external
factors, such as the solar output, continue to behave pretty much the way they have in the recent past.
These models also use a reasonable range of projections for greenhouse gas emissions and values for
uncertain model parameterization. All the models predict continued and significant warming. Of
course, these predictions could all be wrong. The models themselves could have a serious flaw (which
causes them to over-predict rather than under-predict greenhouse warming), and/or some important
external parameter like the Sun could suddenly, unexpectedly change in a way to cancel out greenhouse
warming. But while its important to recognize these possibilities, it is essential that we weigh their
probability versus the risks we face if the models are correct. (And remember the models could also be
under-predicting.) In that vein, lets look at two of the more popular arguments that global warming is
not a problem. Ice Ages Our current climate regime - a regime weve had for the past ~2 million years
- is characterized by long periods of ice ages and shorter warm periods. The last ice age ended about
12,000 years ago, and since then weve been in a warm period. Some argue that global warming is no
concern, since the Earth will naturally switch back to an ice age. This is very likely to be true: an ice age
is almost certainly in our planets future. But its a question of when. Our current concerns about
climate change focus on the coming decades to the next century - the time period relevant to our
childrens and grandchildrens experience. But the ice age/warm period cycle operates on a time scale
of tens of thousands of years. Scientists have figured out that ice ages are triggered by subtle changes
in the Earths orbit about the Sun. The next such triggering is not expected to occur any time soon
tens of thousands of years from now. Not quite soon enough to be relevant to our childrens well-
being.
All of their data comes from studies in the 1970s- prefer recency of our data
Cook 11 (John, Climate communication fellow for the global change institute, What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?,
4/7/11, http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm, HG)
Mainstream Media What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most
cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that
suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." "Meteorologists disagree about
the cause and extent of the cooling trend But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend
will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." A 1974 Time magazine article Another
Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture: "When meteorologists take an average of temperatures
around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three
decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of
another ice age." Peer-Reviewed Literature However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A
survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global
cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The
large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of
CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Figure 1: Number of
papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling
papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008). Scientific Consensus In the 1970s, the most
comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was
the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion
was "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what
determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict
climate" This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:
"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of
the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of
climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint
statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy,
Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific
bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific
consensus... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Protection Agency NASA's
Goddard Institute of Space Studies American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics National
Center for Atmospheric Research American Meteorological Society The Royal Society of the UK Canadian
Meteorological and Oceanographic Society American Association for the Advancement of Science
Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling
predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and
Schneider (1971): "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be
sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5K." Yes, their global cooling projection
was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic
scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early
1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of
countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did
atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s: SO2
emissions Figure 2: Global sulfur dioxide emissions by source (PNNL) Similarly, if we now limit CO2
emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control. Summary So global cooling
predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number
of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global
warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and
overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions
in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the
SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2
emissions causing global warming.

Warming Representations

Warming Representations Good Discourse Key

We must talk about warming to change consciousnessacademic debate over
policy and science is key
Crist 4 (Eileen, Professor at Virginia Tech in the Department of Science and Technology, Against the social construction of nature and
wilderness, Environmental Ethics 26;1, p 13-6, http://www.sts.vt.edu/faculty/crist/againstsocialconstruction.pdf)

Yet, constructivist analyses of "nature" favor remaining in the comfort zone of zestless agnosticism
and noncommittal meta-discourse. As David Kidner suggests, this intellectual stance may function as a mechanism against facing
the devastation of the biospherean undertaking long underway but gathering momentum with the imminent bottlenecking of a triumphant
global consumerism and unprecedented population levels. Human-driven extinctionin the ballpark of Wilson's
estimated 27,000 species per yearis so unthinkable a fact that choosing to ignore it may well be the
psychologically risk-free option. Nevertheless, this is the opportune historical moment for intellectuals
in the humanities and social sciences to join forces with conservation scientists in order to help create
the consciousness shift and policy changes to stop this irreversible destruction. Given this outlook, how
students in the human sciences are trained to regard scientific knowledge, and what kind of messages
percolate to the public from the academy about the nature of scientific findings, matter immensely.
The "agnostic stance" of constructivism toward "scientific claims" about the environmenta stance
supposedly mandatory for discerning how scientific knowledge is "socially assembled"[32]is, to borrow a legendary one-liner,
striving to interpret the world at an hour that is pressingly calling us to change it.

Technological Thought Good
Critiques of climate science will be exploited by groups interested in destroying the
environment
Benton 5 (Ted BENTON Sociology @ Essex, 2005, in After Postmodernism eds. Jose Lopez and Garry Potter p. 137-138)

Second, the post-Kuhnian relativist aproaches to the sociology of science, in challenging the proclaimed finality and cultural authority of big
science, saw themselves as on the side of 'the underdog', pressing for democratic accountability on the part of the scientific
establishment - even for a thoroughgoing democratisation of knowledge itself. Sociologists of science have tended to see
'technoscience' as indissolubly tied to political and industrial power and domination. To call into question its
epistemological authority has been to undermine a key source of legitimation for established power. However, the politics of the
critique of science becomemore complex and ambivalent in the face of the new ecological issues. While
many Greens see the interests associated with technoscience as largely to blame for many ecological hazards, they also rely on
scientific detection, measurement and theoretical explanations in making out the Green case. The
construction of incinerators for waste disposal adjacent to working-class estates, the noise and fumes emitted by heavy road-traffic, the loss of
treasured landscapes and so on, are forms of ecological degradation which are readily perceptible, and may enter directly into the discourses of
popular movements. However, many other, often moresinister and catastrophic, forms of ecological transformation
may only be detected by scientific instrumentation. Nuclear and other forms of radiation, low
concentrations of toxins in food and drinking water, antibiotic-resistant pathogens, shifts in the
chemical composition of the upper atmosphere and so on fall into this category. In other cases, the scale of
transformation is what is ecologically significant and, here again, scientific modelling and measurement
displace the evidence provided by the senses of necessarily localised human agents. Global climate
change, biodiversity loss, ozone depletion are among the transformations which fall into this
category. Finally, rational discourse about policy options depends on (but is certainly not restricted
to) best-available scientific thinking about thecausal mechanisms involved(the 'greenhouse' effect,
CO2 exchanges at the surface of the oceans, pholovvnthesis, mechanisms of cloud-formation and many others in the case of
dinsate 'hanged. To expose thenormatively and culturally 'constructed' character of those scientific research
programmes which have so far indcnt-ifled, measured and explained the hazardous dynamics of ecological change is to run
a serious political risk. The big industrial complexes, such as the biotech, pharmaceutical, agribusiness,
petrochemical, construction and road transport sectors, together with their state sponsors, have a lifeline
thrown to them. That the knowledge -base which exposes the ecological 'externalities' of their
activities is culturally biased and epistemologically questionable is music to their ears. Why put the
brakes on wealth creation and progress on the basis of such flimsy and questionable evidence (see R. Rowell,
1996, esp. chap. 5)? These misuses of the work of constructionist sociology of environmental science are often seen as problematic from the
standpoint of its practitioners (see, for example, r} a special issue of Social Studies of Science, 1996). Of course, it would be quite posble to
accept these implications of he approach, in the face of unwanied political consequences: perhaps the weakening or even abandoning of
environmental regulation and technteal safety standards could be accepted as an appropriate response to the sociologied dchunking of en
ironmental science. lot esnnglv, however, few constructionists would be happy with such an outconic. the question is, can they coherently or
consistently unhappy about it? Winne i9% and Burninghaio md. Coopei (1999) oiler sophisticated defences of their own variants of construe
onism from this sort of 'realist' criticism. They claim, variously, that the 'taking of sides' in environmental conflicts is not necessarily the most
productive role for social scientists to take, and that, notwithstanding rite realist critique. it often possible to combine constructionism with
cotmitiimmred cn'-ironmen iahsns. These contributions deserve much fuller responses than I have space for here hot, as I shall argue below.
dicnt are other reasons for scepticism about the more radical versions of constructionism.



Warming Defense/Warming Good
Warming Science Wrong
Warming Not Anthropogenic
Models behind anthropogenic warming are flawed polynomial cointegration proves
anthropogenic warming is temporary at worst.
Beenstock et al, 12 (M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz2, and N. Paldor3 1Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel 2Department of Economics, the George Washington University, 2115 G St, Washington
DC, USA 3Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram,
Jerusalem, Israel, 11/21/12, Earth System Dynamics, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, AS)
We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polyno- mially cointegrate with global
temperature and solar irradi- ance. Therefore, data for 18802007 do not support the an- thropogenic
interpretation of global warming during this pe- riod. This key result is shown graphically in Fig. 3
where the vertical axis measures the component of global temper- ature that is unexplained by solar
irradiance according to our estimates. In panel a the horizontal axis measures the anomaly in the
anthropogenic trend when the latter is derived from forcings of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide. In panel b the horizontal axis measures this anthropogenic anomaly when apart from these
greenhouse gas forcings, it includes tropospheric aerosols and black carbon. Panels a and b both show
that there is no relationship between tem- perature and the anthropogenic anomaly, once the warming
effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.However, we find that greenhouse gas forcings
might have a temporary effect on global temperature. This result is il- lustrated in panel c of Fig. 3 in
which the horizontal axis measures the change in the estimated anthropogenic trend. Panel c clearly
shows that there is a positive relationship between temperature and the change in the anthropogenic
anomaly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.Currently, most of the
evidence supporting AGW the- ory is obtained by calibration methods and the simulation of GCMs.
Calibration shows, e.g. Crowley (2000), that to explain the increase in temperature in the 20th century,
and especially since 1970, it is necessary to specify a sufficiently strong anthropogenic effect.
However, calibrators do not re- port tests for the statistical significance of this effect, nor do they
check whether the effect is spurious12. The implication of our results is that the permanent effect is
not statistically significant. Nevertheless, there seems to be a temporary an- thropogenic effect. If the
effect is temporary rather than per- manent, a doubling, say, of carbon emissions would have no long-
run effect on Earths temperature, but it would in- crease it temporarily for some decades. Indeed, the
increase in temperature during 19751995 and its subsequent stabil- ity are in our view related in this
way to the acceleration in carbon emissions during the second half of the 20th century (Fig. 2). The
policy implications of this result are major since an effect which is temporary is less serious than one
that is permanent.The fact that since the mid 19th century Earths tempera- ture is unrelated to
anthropogenic forcings does not contra- vene the laws of thermodynamics, greenhouse theory, or any
other physical theory. Given the complexity of Earths cli- mate, and our incomplete understanding of
it, it is difficult to attribute to carbon emissions and other anthropogenic phe- nomena the main cause
for global warming in the 20th cen- tury. This is not an argument about physics, but an argument
about data interpretation. Do climate developments during the relatively recent past justify the
interpretation that global warming was induced by anthropogenics during this pe- riod? Had Earths
temperature not increased in the 20th cen- tury despite the increase in anthropogenic forcings (as was
the case during the second half of the 19th century), this would not have constituted evidence against
greenhouse the- ory. However, our results challenge the data interpretation that since 1880 global
warming was caused by anthropogenic phenomena. Nor does the fact that during this period
anthropogenic forcings are I(2), i.e. stationary in second differences, whereas Earths temperature and
solar irradiance are I(1), i.e. stationary in first differences, contravene any physical theory. For physical
reasons it might be expected that over the millennia these variables should share the same order of
integration; they should all be I(1) or all I(2), otherwise there would be persistent energy imbalance.
However, dur- ing the last 150 yr there is no physical reason why these vari- ables should share the same
order of integration. However, the fact that they do not share the same order of integration over this
period means that scientists who make strong in- terpretations about the anthropogenic causes of
recent global warming should be cautious. Our polynomial cointegration tests challenge their
interpretation of the data.Finally, all statistical tests are probabilistic and depend on the specification of
the model. Type 1 error refers to the probability of rejecting a hypothesis when it is true (false positive)
and type 2 error refers to the probability of not rejecting a hypothesis when it is false (false negative). In
our case the type 1 error is very small because anthropogenic forcing is I (1) with very low probability,
and temperature is polynomially cointegrated with very low probability. Also we have experimented
with a variety of model specifications and estimation methodologies. This means, however, that as with
all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule
out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility
is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.
It has not been proven that global warming is not caused by humans the best facts
point to the fact that it is because of natural causes.
Watts 13, (Global Warming: Antrhopogenic or Not?, Anthony - marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years
professional experience who has held academic positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where
he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999, January 30, 2013,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/, G.V.)
The current scientific reality is that the IPCCs hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been
repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great
research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain
link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide
emissions. In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and
continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarised by an seo consultant in the reports of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals
contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all
the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far.
All their extinction claims are contrived their models only tell 1 side of the story.

Lomborg 8 (Bjorn, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the
Copenhagen Business School, Warming warnings get overheated, The Guardian, August 15, 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/carbonemissions.climatechange)//mm

These alarmist predictions are becoming quite bizarre, and could be dismissed as sociological oddities , if it
weren't for the fact that they get such big play in the media. Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a
global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a
"catastrophe" and the beginning of the "extinction" of the human race. This is simply silly . His
evidence? That 4C would mean that all the ice on the planet would melt, bringing the long-term sea
level rise to 70-80m, flooding everything we hold dear, seeing billions of people die. Clearly, Tickell has maxed
out the campaigners' scare potential (because there is no more ice to melt, this is the scariest he could ever conjure). But he is wrong. Let
us just remember that the UN climate panel, the IPCC, expects a temperature rise by the end of the
century between 1.8 and 6.0C. Within this range, the IPCC predicts that, by the end of the century, sea levels will rise
18-59 centimetresTickell is simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400. Tickell will undoubtedly claim that he was talking about what
could happen many, many millennia from now. But this is disingenuous. First, the 4C temperature rise is predicted on a century scale
this is what we talk about and can plan for. Second, although sea-level rise will continue for many centuries to come, the models unanimously
show that Greenland's ice shelf will be reduced, but Antarctic ice will increase even more (because of increased precipitation in Antarctica) for
the next three centuries. What will happen beyond that clearly depends much more on emissions in future centuries. Given that CO2 stays in
the atmosphere about a century, what happens with the temperature, say, six centuries from now mainly
depends on emissions five centuries from now (where it seems unlikely non-carbon emitting
technology such as solar panels will not have become economically competitive). Third, Tickell tells us how the
80m sea-level rise would wipe out all the world's coastal infrastructure and much of the world's farmland"undoubtedly" causing billions to
die. But to cause billions to die, it would require the surge to occur within a single human lifespan. This
sort of scare tactic is insidiously wrong and misleading , mimicking a firebrand preacher who claims
the earth is coming to an end and we need to repent. While it is probably true that the sun will burn
up the earth in 4-5bn years' time, it does give a slightly different perspective on the need for
immediate repenting. Tickell's claim that 4C will be the beginning of our extinction is again many times beyond wrong and misleading,
and, of course, made with no data to back it up. Let us just take a look at the realistic impact of such a 4C temperature rise. For the Copenhagen
Consensus, one of the lead economists of the IPCC, Professor Gary Yohe, did a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a
temperature rise over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as temperatures rise,
more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold ; agricultural yields will decline in the tropics, but
increase in the temperate zones , etc. The model evaluates the impacts on agriculture, forestry, energy,
water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease. The bottom line is
that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is about 0.25% of global GDP).
Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070, when the damages will begin to
outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is
simply not the end of humanity . If anything, global warming is a net benefit now; and even in three
centuries, it will not be a challenge to our civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to be 1,700%
richer by the end of this century.

Dont trust their climate models real world measurements conclude negative.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

Climate models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century, fail
to incorporate chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the physical processes
employed in the models, and often diverge so greatly in their assumptions and findings that they
cannot be said to validate each other. Climate models fail to correctly simulate future precipitation
due to inadequate model resolution on both vertical and horizontal spatial scales, a limitation that
forces climate modelers to parameterize the large-scale effects of processes that occur on smaller scales
than their models are capable of simulating. This is particularly true of physical processes such as cloud
formation and cloud- The internal variability component of climate change is
strong enough to overwhelm any anthropogenic temperature signal and generate global cooling
periods (between 1946 and 1977) and global warming periods (between 1977 and 2008), yet models
typically underestimate or leave out entirely this component, leading to unrealistic values of climate
sensitivity Climate models fail to predict changes in sea surface temperature and El Nio/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events, two major drivers of the global climate. There has been little or no
improvement to the models in this regard since the late-
summer desiccation of soil with higher temperatures, but real-world data show positive soil moisture
trends for regions that have warmed during the twentieth century. This is a serious problem since
accurate simulation of land surface states is critical to the skill of weather and climate forecasts. While
climate models produce a wide range of climate sensitivity estimates based on the assumptions of their
builders, estimates based on real-world measurements find that a doubling of the atmospheres CO2
concentration would result in only a 0.4 or 0.5 C rise in temperature.

Global Warming is not anthropogenic scientific proof proves.
Ferrara 9, (THE GREAT HOAX, -The American Spectator, Peter- Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute,
General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on
Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, 12.16.09, http://spectator.org/articles/40388/great-hoax, G.V.)
The Warmongers you see on television claiming awell-established scientific consensus in favor of man-caused global warming
are pretending, or play-acting, for the purpose of misleading you. Quite to the contrary, the scientific argument for man-caused
global warming was thoroughly demolished earlier this year with the release of the 880-page study, Climate
Change Reconsidered, authored by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The response to that study can be taken as an admission by global warming advocates that they cannot defend t heir position in debate. Instead, what we
hear from the Warmongers is a steady stream of name-calling ("deniers"), and, unfortunately, outright lies, as shown further below. Now exposed as well is the
dishonest manipulation of basic data. In sharp contrast, first rate, blue chip scientists are increasingly concluding that humans
have little effect on global temperatures, and that natural causes and temperature patterns continue to dominate. These
include Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first
Director of the National Weather Satellite Service, Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Roy Spencer, Principal
Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, WilliamHapper, Cyrus Fogg
Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, Syun-ichi Akasofu, Professor of Physics and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of
Alaska, Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, and David
Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, among many others. Physics icon Freeman Dyson recently expressed similar views in the New
York Times. There is no collection of scientists in the world smarter and better than these. Indeed, as will be shown below, as a result of the work
of these scientists, we now have scientific proof that the notion of significant man-caused global warming is false.

Global warming models have failed
Bastasch, Michael, Daily Caller Investigative Researcher. February 11, 2014. Report: 95% of global
warming models are wrong. The Daily Caller. http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-
global-warming-models-are-wrong/
Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they
never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been
wrong. Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create
policies have failed miserably. Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and
satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models have over-forecast
the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower
tropospheric temperatures (UAH). Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global
warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar
activity and natural climate cycles. Some scientists have even argued that increased coal use in China has caused the planet to cool slightly.
But there does not seem to be any solid agreement on what caused global surface temperatures to
stop rising.
Climate change models arent accurate or reliable
The Free Library. 17 Jul. 2014 "When all models are wrong: more stringent quality criteria are
needed for models used at the science/policy interface, and here is a checklist to aid in the responsible
development and use of models.." National Academy of Sciences
2014http://www.thefreelibrary.com/When+all+models+are+wrong%3a+more+stringent+quality+criteri
a+are+needed...-a0358194116
The specialized literature now makes clear that the more one understands climate, the more model
predictions of specific climate futures become uncertain: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change produces larger, as opposed to smaller, prediction uncertainty ranges as more and more processes,
scenarios, and models are incorporated and cascading uncertainties make their effect felt in the final estimates . Climate
dynamics are complex and climate science is hard, so it would be a mistake to expect otherwise. Still, the discourse on climate is
populated by crisp numbers based on mathematical modeling. An example is the often-mentioned 50% probability
that global temperature would not increase more than 2[degrees] Celsius (a climate policy target) if humankind succeeds in keeping the
greenhouse gas concentration at or below 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is a measure for describing how much
global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause. These model-generated numbers are of course
nowhere near as crisp as they appear, and even a standard sensitivity analysis would reveal huge
uncertainty bounds once the uncertainties associated with each input assumption were propagated
through the models. Many small uncertainties multiplied together yield huge aggregate
uncertainties. The challenge becomes even more daunting when modelers turn their attention to the
economic consequences of changes in atmospheric composition. For example, the well-regarded Review on the
Economics of Climate Change, conducted by a team led by British economist Nicholas Stern, quantifies the economic impact of climate change
through a cost/benefit analysis that computes fractional losses in gross domestic product 200 years from now. Such an effort is so remote from
current predictive capacity as to verge on the irresponsible. 'What are the uncertainties associated with these
predictions? No one has any idea. In this way, the legitimacy of useful tools such as cost/benefit
analysis is undermined. Concerns about the usefulness or relevance of modeling are no longer
confined to the scientific literature or to expert blogs (such as www.allmodelsarewrong or www.wattsupwiththat.com )
but have become part of the public discourse. The beliefs of the public and policymakers about what
should be done on climate ( or on the economy, or on many other less currently resonant issues) are relying on what
models are forecasting about the future, with little if any sensitivity to the limits on what the
models are actually capable of forecasting with any accuracy.
Volcanoes
Volcanoes cause CO2 spike not AGW.
Casey, 14 (Timothy, consulting geologist for Principia Scientific International, Volcanic Carbon
Dioxide, Principia Scientific International, 6/15/14, http://www.principia-scientific.org/volcanic-carbon-
dioxide.html)
Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify
industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the
atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering,
corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery
of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and
provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we
may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions
are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric
CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic. 1.0 Introduction: How Volcanoes make the Carbon Budget Holier than Thou. If we neglect to ask
how the greenhouse effect of various gases is quantified in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties, the idea of anthropogenic
global warming may well survive long enough for us to ask how the carbon budget establishes that observed increases in CO2 (Keeling et al.,
2005) could not be caused by anything other than human activity. Plimer (2001), Wishart (2009), and Plimer (2009) point out that an
enormous and unmeasured amount of CO2 degases from volcanoes. This is not such a silly idea given that the
source chemistry for lavas contains a surprising amount of carbon dioxide. Along with H2O, CO2 is one of the lightest volatiles (materials of
relatively low melting point), found in the mantle (Wilson, 1989). The fluid nature of the aesthenosphere, or upper mantle of the earth, ensures
that lighter volatiles are fractionated, buoyed towards the surface, and either extruded or outgassed into the atmosphere via volcanoes and
faults. The "solid earth", a term popular amongst climatologists, is a deceptive misnomer as the aesthenosphere is a deeply convecting fluid
upon which flexible sheets of crust (i.e. plates) float. This deeply convecting fluid tears these delicate plates apart at rift zones and crushes them
together like the bonnet of a wrecked car at convergence zones. Mountains rise out of fold belts resulting from the crumpling of plates, and
where differences in plate buoyancy allow, one plate rides over another, forcing the other plate to follow the convection current into the
aesthenosphere. Furthermore, this liquid aesthenosphere, which continues to create new crust at rifting zones such as the mid oceanic ridges,
melts down subducting crust as the residue of this crust is drawn deeper into the mantle. While volatiles trapped in the remaining crustal
residue are ultimately assimilated into the mantle, lighter volatiles from the crustal melt are fractionated and float up towards the surface to
feed plate margin volcanoes. Volatiles, such as CO2, are more prone to outgassing at the surface via tectonic and volcanic activity
because of the fluid nature of the earth. 1.1 The Importance of CO2 in Volcanic Emissions. The importance of juvenile (erupted and
passively emitted) volcanic CO2 is due to the fact that carbon, and particularly carbon dioxide has a strong
presence in mantle fluids, so much so that it is a more abundant volcanic gas than SO2 (Wilson, p. 181; Perfit et al., 1980). According
to Symonds et al. (1994) CO2 is the second most abundantly emitted volcanic gas next to steam.


AT: IPCC
IPCC data is wrong they ignore key research.
NIPCC 3/14 (Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, an independent research body
funded by the Heartland Institute, 5/14, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html, 7/17/14, AC)
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly contradict, IPCCs pessimistic narrative of death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods. The impact of rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has not been anything like what IPCC would
have us believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those sound science would suggest. Why is this
research and perspective missing from IPCCs reports? NIPCC has been publishing volumes containing
this research for five yearslong enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCCs reports to have
taken notice, if only to disagree. But the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to IPCCs Fifth
Assessment Report suggest otherwise. Either IPCCs authors purposely ignore this research because it
runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped at
any cost, or they are inept and have failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the
pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the
general public. Because the stakes are high, this is a grave disservice. How CO2 enrichment has
affected global food production and biospheric productivity is a matter of fact, not opinion. The
evidence is overwhelming that it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading to greater
biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing human
population. In sharp contrast to IPCCs pessimistic forecast of declining food production, NIPCCs
authors say a future warming of the climate coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food needs of the planets growing population. They
find the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend to overcome any negative effects
associated with changed weather conditions. ournalists, policymakers, and the interested public
should demand to know why IPCC either hides or is silent about these truths

IPCCs climate studies are exaggerated
Rose, David. Writer for Daily Mail. September 14, 2013. Worlds top climate scientists confess:
Global warming is just quarter of what we thought- and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases
wrong. Daily Mail UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-
confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
A leaked copy of the worlds most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent
doom were drastically wrong . The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this
month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-
yearly assessments are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. Yet the leaked report
makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have
increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. Back then,
it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per
decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by
computer climate models. But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to
2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions . The 31-page summary for
policymakers is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC
scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon
emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
Their models dont meet the basic standards of the scientific method.

Bell, Professor of Space Architecture at the University of Houston, 2012
(Larry, Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change, Forbes, January 10, Online:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-
change/)

Finally, three major available global surface temperature record sources report a steady-to-cooling
trend since 2001. These measurements contradict the strong warming predicted by all IPCC models
during the same period that are attributed primarily to a continuing increase in CO2 emissions.
Indeed, only one global surface record source shows a slight increase in the temperature since 2001.
This occurred because missing temperature data needed to be adjusted or filled in to complete the
recordswhich appears to be the case with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies model data
resulting from poor sampling during the last decade for Antarctic and Arctic regions and the use of a
1200 km smoothing methodology.The Duke University/NASA JPL study estimates that as much as 0.3
degrees of warming from 1970 to 2000 may have been naturally induced by the 60-year modulation
during the warming phase, amounting to at least 43-60% of the 0.5-0.7 degrees allegedly caused by
human greenhouse emissions. Additional natural warming can be explained by increased solar activity
during the last four centuries, as well as simply being part of a natural and persistent warming
recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age of AD 1300-1900.Nicola Scaletta concludes that the
scientific method requires that a physical model fulfill two conditionsit must be able to reconstruct
as well as predict (or forecast) direct physical observations. Here, he argues that all climate models
used by the IPCC can do neither. They seriously fail to properly reconstruct even the large multi-
decadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature which have climatic meaning.
Consequently, the IPCC projections for the 21st century cannot be trusted. In fact, he argues that By
not properly reconstructing the 20-year and 60-year natural cycles we found that the IPCC GCMs have
seriously overestimated also the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to recent
warming.Unlike the current IPCC models, the astronomical harmonics model can have real climate
forecasting value. By combining current trend information with natural cycle patterns Scafetta believes
that the global temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of
the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. He goes on to say: If multi-secular natural cycles (which
according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700-2010 warming and may
contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same projected anthropogenic
emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3-1.2 degrees C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0-
3.6 degree C projected warming.

The IPCC has empirically manipulated data to elevate the risk of climate change:

Ridley 12 (Matt Ridley. Mr. Ridley writes the Mind and Matter column in The Wall Street Journal and
has written on climate issues for various publications for 25 years. Cooling Down the Fears of Climate
Change, Wall Street Journal. December 18, 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?KEYWORDS=c
ooling+down+the+fears+of+climate+change) -RH
Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are
irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How
much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.The general public is not
privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired
successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has
made significant contributions to the subject of climate change. He first collaborated with others to expose major
statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had,
by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading
University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small
risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the
results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

Do not trust the IPCC no objective process of selection, no adequate peer-review
process, phony measurements of certainty, and vague conclusions.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

In 2010, the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC), a scientific body composed of the heads of national science academies
around the world, revealed major flaws in the IPCCs peer-review process. The IAC reported (InterAcademy Council, 2010)
that IPCC lead authors fail to give due consideration to properly documented alternative views (p.
20), fail to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors (p. 21), and are not
consider*ing+ review comments carefully and document*ing+ their responses (p. 22). The IAC found the IPCC has no formal
process or criteria for selecting authors and the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents (p. 18).
Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and do not always nominate the best scientists
from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations
are given more weight than scientific qualifications (p. 18). The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians
and environmental activistsa problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or
policymakersis plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the mainstream of alarmist climate change thinking.
*M+any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessments findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,
the auditors wrote, and the scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report too political (p. 25). Note especially this
description by the IAC of how the consensus of scientists is actually obtained by the IPCC: Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy
Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that
have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25). Another problem documented by the IAC that was
noted in NIPCC-1 is the use of phony confidence intervals and estimates of certainty in the Summary for
Policy Makers (pp. 2734). We knew this was make-believe, almost to the point of a joke, when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott
Armstrong (2006) on the science of forecasting makes it clear scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote
on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as 80% confident. Yet
this is how the IPCC proceeds. The IAC authors say it is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty (p. 34), a
hugeunderstatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called level of understanding scale,
which is mush-mouth for consensus. The IAC authors warn, also on p. 34, that conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely
as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of very high confidence will have little substantive value.


AT: IPCC Extinction Claims
No Clear Prediction on UN Climate Change Extinction Rates
Aulakh 7/17/14, (Raveena Aulakh, reporter at the Toronto Star covering the environment, UN climate
body backtracks on risk of species extinction,
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/03/30/un_climate_body_backtracks_on_risk_of_species_ex
tinction.html, 7/17/14, AC)
Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seem to have quietly backpedalled on
the risk of species extinction. In its last assessment report in 2007, the IPCC said humans had shrunk
the habitats of many life forms and it predicted that 20 to 30 per cent of all animal and plant species
faced a high risk for extinction if average global temperatures rose by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. The UN
climate body now says it is no longer as certain. In the new report, scientists say forecasts of very
high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated. While scientists agree
that the risk of species extinction will increase due to climate change, there is low agreement
concerning the fraction of species at increased risk, the regional and taxonomic distribution of such
extinctions and the time frame over which extinctions could occur. Hence, this new assessment does
not include concrete figures about the percentage of species that could become extinct due to global
warming. So is it all OK for other life forms? Not at all, says Jeremy Kerr, a biologist with the University
of Ottawa. There is a lot of evidence of biological impact (of climate change) but there is not much
evidence of specific extinction, he said. There are projections, models of what we think could
happen in 40 or 50 years, said Kerr. The problem is they are models, unlike the evidence for climate
change, which is supported by recent past observations in the last several decades, models of
extinction risk have not yet demonstrated that those rates are rising right now.

AT: Rapid Warming
The rate of global warming is significantly slower than models suggest
Fyfe, Gillett, and Zwiers. Climate scientists. September 2013. Overestimated global warming over
the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (19932012) rose at a rate of 0.14 0.06 C
per decade (95% confidence interval)1 . This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by
the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).
To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117
simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information ). These models generally
simulate natural variability including that associated with the El NioSouthern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions
as well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations,
aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon, for example ), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and
stratospheric ), land use (for example, deforestation ) and solar variability. By averaging simulated temperatures
only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface
temperature of 0.30 0.02 C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate
of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide
warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty



AT: Cook (Consensus)

Even if there is consensus, it means nothing our evidence is specific to their study.
Montford, 13 (Andrew, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the
Corruption of Science; The Climategate Inquiries; Nullius in Verba: The Royal
Society and Climate Change, 9/2013, Global Warming Policy Foundation,
Consensus? What Consensus? http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/montford-consensus.pdf,
AS)

Cook et al. set out to demonstrate the existence of an overwhelming consensus on global warming.
While their approach appears to owe more to public relations than the scientific method, there is
little doubt that there is a scientific consensus, albeit not the one that the authors of the paper have
led people to believe exists.The consensus as described by Cook et al. is virtually meaningless and tells
us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified
extent.The last word on the paper goes to Professor Mike Hulme, founder of the Tyndall Centre, the
UKs national climate research institute:The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed
and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the
desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite
it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of right and wrong to that adopted in *an
earlier study+: dividing publishing climate scientists into believers and non-believers. It seems to me
that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse.
Havent they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

The consensus cited by Cook is shallow doesnt say anthropogenic warming is
consequential.

Montford, 13 (Andrew, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the
Corruption of Science; The Climategate Inquiries; Nullius in Verba: The Royal
Society and Climate Change, 9/2013, Global Warming Policy Foundation,
Consensus? What Consensus? http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/montford-consensus.pdf,
AS)

The shallow consensusThe formulation that humans are causing global warming could have two
different meanings. A deep consensus reading would take it as all or most of the warming is caused
by humans. A shallow consensus reading would imply only that some unspecified proportion of the
warming observed is attributable to mankind.Differences over extent of any human influence is the
essence of the climate debate. The vast majority of those involved scientists, economists,
commentators, activists, environmentalists and sceptics accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas that will, other things being equal, warm the planet. But whether the effect is large or small is
unknown and the subject of furious debate. The leaked Second Order Draft of the IPCCs Fifth
Assessment Report shows a range of figures for effective climate sensitivity the amount of warming
that can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. At one end is a study by the eminent
atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen, which estimates less than 1C of warming per doubling.6If true,
this would mean that climate change was inconsequential. At the other end are estimates based on
computer simulations, which would, if realised, be disastrous.It is possible to show that when Cook
and his colleagues say that there is consensus of the proposition that humans are causing global
warming, they are adopting the shallow definition. According to the protocols used by the volunteers
who rated the abstracts, a paper was said to endorse the consensus if it accepted the concept of
anthropogenic global warming, either implicitly or explicitly, and regardless of whether it quantified the
extent of human influence on the planets temperature. Most papers on mitigation appear to have been
taken to implicitly endorse the consensus,7although some seem to have been rated as neutral. A paper
was only said to reject the consensus if it minimised the human contribution, for example by proposing
that natural mechanisms dominate or, more explicitly, suggested that the human contribution is
minimal. There was therefore an asymmetry in the classifications, with papers accepting the influence
of a large or an unspecified level of human influence included in the consensus and only those actively
minimising the human influence recorded as rejecting it. For example, the guidance given to the
volunteer raters suggests that an abstract containing the words Emissions of a broad range of
greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change should be taken as explicit
but unquantified endorsement of the consensus. Clearly the phrase quoted could imply any level of
human contribution to warming. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the consensus as
revealed by Cook et al. was indeed the shallow one.


Models Faked

Climate change models are being faked
James Delingpole and Kit Eastwood. 23 June 2014. "Global Warming Fabricated by NASA and
NOAA". Breitbart Online. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-
Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has
posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments. When the
raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling.
However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global
warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic. This is especially noticeable on the US temperature
records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen -
that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s. As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report: In the U.S.
there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing
greenhouse gases in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country. However,
Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted
to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-
breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made
the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before
they looked either flat or declining. These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US
temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.
Global warming models false.
Sadar 14, (Why the former Ice Age became global warming, then climate change Washington
Examiner, Anthony - Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: A
Heretic's Guide to Climate Science, July 7, 2014, http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-former-ice-
age-became-global-warming-then-climate-change/article/2550565 G.V.)
On June 23, the Supreme Court laid down a small speed bump on the highway leading from "carbon pollution" control to climate nirvana. Yet there is still much
bluster from the Obama administration and one of its political enforcers, the Environmental Protection Agency, on the "certainty" of human-caused climate change
and the urgency of saving the earth from prosperous people and cheap energy. Of the high court's ruling, Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation, said her agency is "very pleased with the decision." So hold on to your wallets. Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter! But, how
certain are predictions of climate change? Well, like the climate itself, the hypothesis of man-made climate change
cycles through history. Take recent history for example. In the 1970s, the hypothesis was that the globe was potentially headed for the next ice age. I
know this not only because of pronouncements from popular press at the time, but also because, as an undergraduate student at one of the top schools of
meteorology, Penn State University, the buzz I heard was that the global climate was moving toward seriously colder conditions. To substantiate this claim,
professors referenced not only recent climate trends and observations but also the work of respected scientists, such as astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, who
had investigated long-term climate cycles. According to the Milankovitch Theory, which is based on cyclical variations of the Earths orbit around the sun, the
globe was heading for some big-time icy changes. Even outside the college campus, the culture was primed for the next ice age, as evidenced by a Christian tract by
Walter Lang and Vic Lockman. The pamphlet asked in its title, "Need we fear another Ice Age?" And Leonard Nimoy courageously trekked "in search of the coming
Ice Age" on television. Of course, technological fixes were proposed, like adding coal dust to the surface of advancing glaciers so that the encroaching ice would
absorb more solar energy and melt away. Yet what a difference a few decades make. Today, it is fashionable to expect disaster from
too much warmth. So the smart money is on promoting dire predictions and consequences of rising
thermometers, even in the face of no global warming for more than 15 years. From my own 35 years of experience in
the atmospheric science profession as an air-pollution meteorologist, air quality program administrator and science educator, I can attest the fact that long-range,
global climate-change outlooks are nothing but insular professional opinion. Such opinion is not
worthy of the investment of billions of dollars to avoid the supposed catastrophic consequences of
abundant, inexpensive fossil fuels and, subsequently, to impoverish U.S. citizens with skyrocket energy costs. I have conducted or overseen a hundred
air-quality studies, many using sophisticated atmospheric modeling. Such modeling comparable to or even involving the same models as those used in
climate modeling produced results for relatively short-term, local areas that, although helpful to understanding air quality impact issues,
were far from being able to bet billions of taxpayer dollars on. Yet similar climate models that imagine conditions for the entire globe for decades into the future are
used to do just that bet billions of taxpayer dollars. Bottom line, nobody can detail with any billion-dollar-spending degree of
confidence what the global climate will be like decades from now. But, its easy to predict that, given enough monetary
incentive and the chance to be at the pinnacle of popularity, some climate prognosticators and certainly every capitalizing politician will
continue to proffer convincing climate claims to an unwary public.


A2 Tipping Point

Lack of Continental Connectivity Prevents a True Global Tipping Point Too Many
Variations across the Terrestrial Biosphere
Brook et al 13 (Barry Brook, leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert
Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
and is also Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaides Environment
Institute in Australia. Erle Ellis, Ph.D., Cornell University, 1990 Associate Professor,
Geography & Environmental Systems University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(UMBC) Visiting Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture Graduate School of
Design, Harvard University. Michael P. Perring, Research Associate, School of Plant
Biology at University of Western Australia. Anson Mackay, the Environmental Change
Research Centre and the Palaeoclimate Research Group within the Department of
Geography at University College London, one of the worlds leading universities and
Vice-Dean for Research in the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences. Linus
Blomqvist, Director of Research and a member of the Breakthrough Advisory Board at
the Breakthrough Institute, the lead author of a critical evaluation, published in the
open-access journal PLoS Biology, of the methodology behind the Ecological Footprint
and the oft-cited claim that humanity is in a state of global ecological overshoot.
Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points?, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 7/13,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534713000335, 7/18/14, AC)

Rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the climate change they cause can act as a
global driver of changes in biodiversity and ecosystem processes [29] and are known to cause
nonlinear responses in ecosystems on local to regional scales [30]. For instance, some global-climate
models coupled to simulations of vegetation dynamics have predicted that the Amazon basin and its
rainforest might exhibit a decadal-scale regime shift to drier savanna at warming of over 34 C [31],
whereas boreal forests might respond nonlinearly at a threshold in the 35 C region [1]. However, local
and regional ecosystems vary considerably in their responses to climate change and their regime shifts
are therefore likely to vary considerably across the terrestrial biosphere. Apart from the direct effects
of CO2 fertilization, most climatic variables that drive ecosystem responses, including temperature and
precipitation, are likely to change heterogeneously across the terrestrial biosphere. Intercontinental
connectivity mediated by atmospheric trace gases is similarly likely to be weak, because atmospheric
CO2 changes driven by biotic changes such as vegetation shifts are far lower and slower than current
rates of anthropogenic CO2 inputs from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. Hence, the
heterogeneity and independence of ecosystem responses, and the spatially variable changes in
specific climatic drivers, indicate that the biospheric response would tend to be gradual, without a
global tipping point at any specific level of change. The conversion of terrestrial biomes into
agricultural and settled landscapes has reduced the areas of habitat available to native species while
altering often negatively many globally important ecological processes [32]. However, land-use
change is a complex, dynamic, and physically varied process and ecosystems responses in terms of
global biogeochemical cycles depend on a wide array of ecosystem characteristics, including pre- and
post-conversion states (e.g., deforestation followed by crops versus regrowth), and successional
dynamics. Although conversion of land for human uses often reduces rates of carbon sequestration,
nutrient turnover, and water cycling, it can also enhance them under some circumstances [33]. For
instance, converting native grasslands to pastures by introducing livestock has little in common with
forest conversion to pastures, and habitat conversions are rarely complete; most anthropogenic
landscapes are heterogeneous mosaics of different land uses and land covers [34]. Indeed, these
heterogeneous effects are reflected in the relatively stable aggregate levels of global net primary
production (NPP) [35] and sustained or even increasing rates of carbon sequestration in the terrestrial
biosphere [36] over the past half-century, even as land-use change has continued, today reaching the
highest levels in human history (Figure 1) 34 and 37. When assessed against our criteria (see above), the
spatial unevenness and mixed aggregate impacts of human-induced habitat loss suggest that a
tipping-point pattern is unlikely at the planetary scale.

No Evidence For World Wide Tipping Point Lack Of Uniform Climate Change Effects
and Completely Connected Biosphere
Ellis 13 (Erle Ellis, Ph.D., Cornell University, 1990 Associate Professor, Geography &
Environmental Systems University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Visiting
Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture Graduate School of Design, Harvard
University., Time to forget global tipping points, 3/11/13, New Scientist,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729070.200-time-to-forget-global-tipping-
points.html#.U8kup8RDtHQ, 7/18/14, AC)

Or will it? This is a question that inspires intense debate among ecologists and global change
scientists. Some say that we are heading rapidly for a global tipping point a threshold beyond which
the entire biosphere will shift into a new and mostly undesired state. Others, like me, are convinced
that no theoretical or empirical evidence exists for such a claim, and that a widespread belief in the
existence of such a point of no return threatens to push ecological science and its application in the
wrong direction. Let us examine the evidence. Ecologists have long been aware that tipping points
exist in local and regional ecosystems. For example, when nutrients are added to a lake, its ecological
properties tend to continue as before until the lake suddenly shifts to a new state. The water changes
from clear to turbid; communities of plants, fish and other species change almost completely. Shifting
the lake back into its previous state is possible, but requires massive efforts. Among other examples
of local and regional tipping points are the rapid collapse of coral reefs in the face of rising ocean
acidity and the transformation of ecosystems by the extinction of a dominant species, or the
introduction of a new one. With such strong evidence of tipping points in regional ecosystems, why
wouldn't we expect such tipping points to exist in the biosphere as a whole? Examine the mechanisms
that produce tipping points, and the answer becomes clear. Tipping points happen when the
components of a system respond gradually to an external force until a level of change is reached at
which the response becomes non-linear and synergistic. This amplifies the effect of the force and
rapidly drives the system into a new state. To respond in this way, systems must meet certain
requirements. Either external forces are applied uniformly and each part of the system responds in
the same way, or the system must be highly interconnected to allow synergistic responses to emerge.
Or both. Do these criteria apply to the biosphere as a whole? I think not. For planetary tipping points
to exist, the forces of humanity would need to act uniformly across the planet, all ecosystems would
need to respond to them in the same way, and the response would need to be transmitted rapidly
across Earth's many ecosystems and continents. Even the force of human-induced climate change, so
evident across the planet, does not meet these requirements. For example, it warms and dries some
regions while cooling and moistening others. Even if it did uniformly heat Earth's ecosystems, this
would not produce a coherent global shift in ecology because local ecosystems respond so differently,
often in opposing ways. Finally, organisms and ecosystems in different biomes and on different
continents are not strongly connected. Animals, plants and microorganisms are limited in their
interactions by distance and barriers such as oceans and mountain ranges. Even with human-induced
species invasions, there is no species capable of colonising all of Earth's biomes not even the mighty
cockroach. So there is little chance of anthropogenic climate change leading to a global tipping point
in the biosphere. When it comes to other changes, including land use, habitat fragmentation and
extinction, the case for a global tipping point is even weaker.

Terrestrial Biosphere Not at Risk for Global Tipping Point
Lenton et al 13 (Timothy Lenton, Professor of Climate Change and Earth System
Science at the University of Exeter, worked at the University of East Anglia and was
awarded the Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. Hywel Williams, Lecturer
in Systems Ecology at the University of Exeter, College of Life and Environmental
Sciences. On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 7/13,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534713001456, 7/18/14, AC)

Tipping points in the terrestrial biosphere tend to be spatially localised [2], although they can stretch
to subcontinental scales when vegetation is tightly coupled to atmospheric dynamics [8]. Therefore,
the challenge is to explain how they can become planetary in scale. One possibility is globally
homogeneous drivers acting on a universal biological or ecological threshold, such that all locations
tip synchronously; however, this is unlikely given the heterogeneity of climate change and ecosystems
[2]. More interestingly, globally near-synchronous change could arise 2 and 3 from a tipping cascade
or domino dynamics, where tipping one part of the biosphere triggers a response that tips another
part and so on. This demands a network view where spatial homogeneity and strong connectivity of
nodes could contribute to system-wide tipping [9]. The terrestrial biosphere probably fails to meet
either of these conditions [2]. However, domino effects in terrestrial ecosystems may be promoted by
connectivity with the climate system 3 and 8.

Tipping Points Provide Controversy among Scientists No Specifics or Exact Data on
Time Frame
Revkin 9 (Andrew C Revkin, He reported on the global environment in print and on Dot Earth. He has
spent a quarter century covering subjects ranging from Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami to the
assault on the Amazon and the troubled relationship of climate science and politics. He has been
reporting on the environment for The New York Times since 1995. 28/3/09, New York Times, Among
Climate Scientists, a Dispute Over Tipping Points,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html, 7/17/14, AC)
The climate is nearing tipping points, the NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen wrote in The
Observer newspaper of London. If we do not change course, well hand our children a situation that is
out of their control. The resulting calamities, Dr. Hansen and other like-minded scientists have warned,
could be widespread and overwhelming: the loss of untold species as ocean reefs and forests are
disrupted; the transformation of the Amazon into parched savanna; a dangerous rise in sea levels
resulting from the melting of the mile-high ice sheets in West Antarctica and Greenland; and the
thawing of the Arctic tundra, which would release torrents of the greenhouse gas methane into the
atmosphere. But the idea that the planet is nearing tipping points thresholds at which change
suddenly becomes unstoppable has driven a wedge between scientists who otherwise share deep
concerns about the implications of a human-warmed climate. Environmentalists and some climate
experts are increasingly warning of impending tipping points in their efforts to stir public concern. The
term confers a sense of immediacy and menace to potential threats from a warming climate dangers
that otherwise might seem too distant for people to worry about. But other scientists say there is
little hard evidence to back up specific predictions of catastrophe. They worry that the use of the term
tipping point can be misleading and could backfire, fueling criticism of alarmism and threatening
public support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think a lot of this threshold and tipping point
talk is dangerous, said Kenneth Caldeira, an earth scientist at Stanford University and the Carnegie
Institution and an advocate of swift action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If we say we passed
thresholds and tipping points today, this will be an excuse for inaction tomorrow, he said. While
studies of climate patterns in the distant past clearly show the potential for drastic shifts, these
scientists say, there is enormous uncertainty in making specific predictions about the future. In some
cases, there are big questions about whether climate-driven disasters like the loss of the Amazon or
a rise in sea levels of several yards in a century are even plausible. And even in cases where most
scientists agree that rising temperatures could lead to unstoppable change, no one knows where the
thresholds lie that would set off such shifts

Tipping Points are Metaphors to Increase Public Attention - Not Data Supported Deadlines
Russel et al 9 (Chris Russill, an Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. He completed his Ph.D in communication at Penn State, his M.A.
and B. A. at York University in Toronto. Zoe Nyssa, Ziff Environmental at Harvard University, studies the
emergence and contemporary practices of conservation biology in order evaluate their impact globally
on endangered species. 8/9, The tipping point trend in climate change communication, Science
Direct.com, pgs 336-334, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937800900034X,
7/16/14, AC)
The use of tipping points originates in a desire to reshape how the public views dangerous climate
change. Hansen's (2005) initial use of tipping point emerged in opposition to the burning embers
diagram of the IPCC AR3, a representation that was criticized as fuzzy and incapable of motivating
action. The depiction had no clear thresholds and the possibility of large-scale discontinuities was simply
one reason for concern among many. Tipping points, on the other hand, suggest moments or intervals
of high sensitivity to abrupt and irreversible changes, and they are intended to aid in the identification
of discrete thresholds for danger. Media coverage emphasizes these points in a sensational and
alarming way. As Hansen (2007b) argued, the rationale for tipping points is the belief that their use
conveys aspects of climate change that have been an impediment to public appreciation of the
urgency of addressing human-caused global warming. Lenton et al. (2008) quite consciously develop
their vocabulary on behalf of a proposal for a global warning system. The initial decision to use tipping
points is based primarily in assumptions regarding communicative effect. If tipping points are
considered in terms of generative metaphor, this intention is more apparent. Proponents of tipping
points believe that public opinion does not express suitable urgency, and that the lack of urgency
results from the false sense of security produced by smooth projections of change (Lenton et al.,
2008, p. 1792). Critics of tipping points argue that increased public urgency is not warranted, or that it
may not have the desired effect (leading instead to fatalism or cynicism). Some of the disagreement
over tipping points is based in a difference of opinion regarding the ability to determine a discrete
threshold for danger. Tipping points draw attention to intervals of sensitivity to rapid, non-linear
change, but the determination of a tipping point is entangled with assumptions regarding the capacity
of humans to respond to danger. Tipping points express anxiety over the possibility that climate
change could pose problems incapable of human solution, or a loss of control. In so far as social
behavior is the primary referent for tipping points, Gladwell's assumptions regarding human
communication are usually accepted without discussion. There is a greater need to acknowledge the
metaphorical character of tipping point warnings of climate change danger, as scientists and others
strive to reshape climate change as a social policy problem. This does not preclude the development
of concepts and models. As part of this process, it may prove helpful to better distinguish tipping
points, in the sense of change coming from the internal dynamics of a system rather than an external
force, from thresholds (a shift from one identifiable regime to another at an identifiable point without
entailing rapid change), feedbacks (a forcing that that is rapidly cumulative over cycles but which
remains the same), and other concepts implied in the explanation of climatic systems. Finally, the
tendency to slip between or conflate physical and social references in tipping point discourse should
be assessed more critically. There are numerous examples of this problem and it is perhaps
encouraged by the conclusion of Lenton et al. (2008) in favor of a rigorous study of tipping elements in
human socioeconomic systems (p. 1792). In such instances, it is clear that the use of tipping point
frameworks imply not only a policy orientation, but also an understanding of how human
communication guides social behavior. The appropriateness of tipping points should be debated and
assessed in terms that make these assumptions explicit.
Warming Inevitable
CO2 Levels = Irreversible
Warming is irreversible regardless of CO2 emissions- even complete cessation does
not solve.
Solomon 08 Susan Solomon, Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide
emissions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Dec 16,
2008, Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.long, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)
Over the 20th century, the atmospheric concentrations of key greenhouse gases increased due to
human activities. The stated objective (Article 2) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system. Many studies have focused on projections of possible 21st century dangers (13). However,
the principles (Article 3) of the UNFCCC specifically emphasize threats of serious or irreversible
damage, underscoring the importance of the longer term. While some irreversible climate changes
such as ice sheet collapse are possible but highly uncertain (1, 4), others can now be identified with
greater confidence, and examples among the latter are presented in this paper. It is not generally
appreciated that the atmospheric temperature increases caused by rising carbon dioxide
concentrations are not expected to decrease significantly even if carbon emissions were to completely
cease (57) (see Fig. 1). Future carbon dioxide emissions in the 21st century will hence lead to adverse
climate changes on both short and long time scales that would be essentially irreversible (where
irreversible is defined here as a time scale exceeding the end of the millennium in year 3000; note that
we do not consider geo-engineering measures that might be able to remove gases already in the
atmosphere or to introduce active cooling to counteract warming). For the same reason, the physical
climate changes that are due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere today are
expected to be largely irreversible. Such climate changes will lead to a range of damaging impacts in
different regions and sectors, some of which occur promptly in association with warming, while others
build up under sustained warming because of the time lags of the processes involved. Here we illustrate
2 such aspects of the irreversibly altered world that should be expected. These aspects are among
reasons for concern but are not comprehensive; other possible climate impacts include Arctic sea ice
retreat, increases in heavy rainfall and flooding, permafrost melt, loss of glaciers and snowpack with
attendant changes in water supply, increased intensity of hurricanes, etc. A complete climate impacts
review is presented elsewhere (8) and is beyond the scope of this paper. We focus on illustrative
adverse and irreversible climate impacts for which 3 criteria are met: (i) observed changes are already
occurring and there is evidence for anthropogenic contributions to these changes, (ii) the phenomenon
is based upon physical principles thought to be well understood, and (iii) projections are available and
are broadly robust across models.

Warming is unstoppable- new IPCC report doesnt account for long term CO2 or the
rate of CO2 uptake.
Eby et al 09 M. EBY, K. ZICKFELD, AND A. MONTENEGRO (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
University of Victoria) D. Archer (Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago) K.J
Meissner and A.J Weaver (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria) (Lifetime of
Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature
Perturbations, ournal of Climate, May 15, 2009, Available at:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2554.1, Accessed On: 7/18/2014, IJ)

The projection of the climatic consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the twenty-rst
century has been a major topic of climate research. Nevertheless, the long-term consequences of
anthropogenic CO2 remain highly uncertain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) reported that about 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from
the atmosphere within 30 years and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries
(Denmanet al. 2007, p. 501). Although the IPCC estimate of the time to absorb 50% of CO2 is accurate
for relatively small amounts of emissions at the present time, this may be a considerable
underestimation for large quantities of emissions. Carbon sinks may become saturated in the future,
reducing the systems ability to absorb CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is currently the dominant anthropogenic
greenhouse gas implicated in global warming (Forster et al. 2007); therefore, estimating the lifetime of
anthropogenic climate change will largely depend on the perturbation lifetime of CO2. The
perturbation lifetime is a measure of the time over which anomalous levels of CO2 or temperature
remain in the atmosphere (dened here to be the time required for a fractional reduction to 1/e).
Carbon emissions can be taken up rapidly by the land, through changes in soil and vegetation carbon,
and by dissolution in the surface ocean. Ocean uptake slows as the surface waters equilibrate with the
atmosphere and continued uptake depends on the rate of carbon transport to the deep ocean. Ocean
uptake is enhanced through dissolution of existing CaCO3, often referred to as carbonate compensation.
As CO2 is taken up, the ocean becomes more acidic, eventually releasing CaCO3 from deep sediments.
This increases the ocean alkalinity, allowing the ocean to take up additional CO2. Carbonate
compensation becomes important on millennial time scales, whereas changes in the weathering of
continental carbonate and silicate are thought to become important on the 10 000 100 000-yr time scale
(Archer 2005; Sarmiento and Gruber 2006; Lenton and Britton 2006).



Policy action cant solve- claims that warming is reversible neglect CO2 longevity
Solomon 08 Susan Solomon, Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide
emissions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Dec 16,
2008, Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.long, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)

It is sometimes imagined that slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of
the assumption that a choice can always be made to quickly reduce emissions and thereby reverse
any harm within a few years or decades. We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon
dioxide emissions, because of the longevity of the atmospheric CO2 perturbation and ocean warming.
Irreversible climate changes due to carbon dioxide emissions have already taken place, and future
carbon dioxide emissions would imply further irreversible effects on the planet, with attendant long
legacies for choices made by contemporary society. Discount rates used in some estimates of economic
trade-offs assume that more efficient climate mitigation can occur in a future richer world, but neglect
the irreversibility shown here. Similarly, understanding of irreversibility reveals limitations in trading of
greenhouse gases on the basis of 100-year estimated climate changes (global warming potentials,
GWPs), because this metric neglects carbon dioxide's unique long-term effects. In this paper we have
quantified how societal decisions regarding carbon dioxide concentrations that have already occurred
or could occur in the coming century imply irreversible dangers relating to climate change for some
illustrative populations and regions. These and other dangers pose substantial challenges to humanity
and nature, with a magnitude that is directly linked to the peak level of carbon dioxide reached.
Feedbacks Make It Inevitable
Warming irreversible b/c of feedback loops
Mims 12 (Christopher, staff writer for Grist, Climate scientists: Its basically too late to stop warming, 3/26/12,
http://grist.org/list/climate-scientists-its-basically-too-late-to-stop-warming/, HG)
If you like cool weather and not having to club your neighbors as you battle for scarce resources, nows
the time to move to Canada, because the story of the 21st century is almost written, reports Reuters.
Global warming is close to being irreversible, and in some cases that ship has already sailed. Scientists
have been saying for a while that we have until between 2015 and 2020 to start radically reducing our
carbon emissions, and what do you know: That deadlines almost past! Crazy how these things sneak up
on you while youre squabbling about whether global warming is a religion. Also, our science got better
in the meantime, so now we know that no matter what we do, we can say adios to the planets ice
caps. For ice sheets huge refrigerators that slow down the warming of the planet the tipping point
has probably already been passed, Steffen said. The West Antarctic ice sheet has shrunk over the last
decade and the Greenland ice sheet has lost around 200 cubic km (48 cubic miles) a year since the
1990s. Heres what happens next: Natural climate feedbacks will take over and, on top of our
prodigious human-caused carbon emissions, send us over an irreversible tipping point. By 2100, the
planet will be hotter than its been since the time of the dinosaurs, and everyone who lives in red states
will pretty much get the apocalypse theyve been hoping for. The subtropics will expand northward, the
bottom half of the U.S. will turn into an inhospitable desert, and everyone who lives there will be
drinking recycled pee and struggling to salvage something from an economy wrecked by the
destruction of agriculture, industry, and electrical power production. Water shortages, rapidly rising
seas, superstorms swamping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure: Its all a-coming,
and anyone who is aware of the political realities knows that the odds are slim that our government will
move in time to do anything to avert the biggest and most avoidable disaster short of all-out nuclear
war. Even if our government did act, we cant control the emissions of the developing world. China is
now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet and its inherently unstable autocratic
political system demands growth at all costs. That means coal. Meanwhile, engineers and petroleum
geologists are hoping to solve the energy crisis by harvesting and burning the nearly limitless supplies of
natural gas frozen in methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean, a source of atmospheric carbon
previously considered so exotic that it didnt even enter into existing climate models. So, welcome to the
21st century. Hope you packed your survival instinct.
Feedbacks make climate change an unstoppable and inevitable force
Carey 12 (John, senior correspondent for Buisness Times, Global Warming: Faster Than Expected?, 10/16/12,
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n5/full/scientificamerican1112-50.html, HG)
Over the past decade scientists thought they had figured out how to protect humanity from the worst
dangers of climate change. Keeping planetary warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) would, it was thought, avoid such perils as catastrophic sea-level rise and searing
droughts. Staying below two degrees C would require limiting the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), up from today's 395 ppm and the preindustrial era's
280 ppm. Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the
globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected. More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is
disappearing than had been forecast. Regions of permafrost across Alaska and Siberia are spewing out
more methane, the potent greenhouse gas, than models had predicted. Ice shelves in West Antarctica
are breaking up more quickly than once thought possible, and the glaciers they held back on adjacent
land are sliding faster into the sea. Extreme weather events, such as floods and the heat wave that
gripped much of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 are on the rise, too. The conclusion? As scientists, we
cannot say that if we stay below two degrees of warming everything will be fine, says Stefan
Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam in Germany. The X factors
that may be pushing the earth into an era of rapid climate change are long-hypothesized feedback
loops that may be starting to kick in. Less sea ice, for example, allows the sun to warm the ocean water
more, which melts even more sea ice. Greater permafrost melting puts more CO2 and methane into the
atmosphere, which in turn causes further permafrost melting, and so on. The potential for faster
feedbacks has turned some scientists into vocal Cassandras. Those experts are saying that even if
nations do suddenly get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to stay under the
450-ppm limit, which seems increasingly unlikely, that could be too little, too late. Unless the world
slashes CO2 levels back to 350 ppm, we will have started a process that is out of humanity's control,
warns James E. Hansen, director of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Sea levels might climb
as much as five meters this century, he says. That would submerge coastal cities from Miami to
Bangkok. Meanwhile increased heat and drought could bring massive famines. The consequences are
almost unthinkable, Hansen continues. We could be on the verge of a rapid, irreversible leap to a
much warmer world. Alarmist? Some scientists say yes. I don't think that in the near term, catastrophic
climate change is in the cards, says Ed Dlugokencky of Noaa, based on his assessment of methane
levels. Glaciologist W. Tad Pfeffer of the University of Colorado at Boulder has examined ice loss around
the planet and concludes that the maximum conceivable ocean rise this century is less than two meters,
not five. Yet he shares Hansen's sense of urgency because even smaller changes can threaten a
civilization that has known nothing but a remarkably stable climate. The public and policy makers
should understand how serious a sea-level rise of even 60 to 70 centimeters would be, Pfeffer warns.
These creeping disasters could really wipe us out. Although scientists may not agree on the pace of
climate change, the realization that specific feedback loops may be amplifying the change is causing a
profound unease about the planet's future. We have to start thinking more about the known unknowns
and the unknown unknowns, explains Eelco Rohling, a professor of ocean and climate change at the
University of Southampton in England. We might not know exactly what all possible feedbacks are, but
past changes demonstrate that they exist. By the time researchers do pin down the unknowns, it may
be too late, worries Martin Manning, an atmospheric scientist at Victoria University of Wellington in
New Zealand and a key player in the 2007 round of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports: The rate of change this century will be such that we can't wait for the science. top of
page Hot Past Suggests Hot Future One big reason scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about
rapid climate change is improved understanding of our distant past. In the 1980s they were stunned to
learn from the record written in ice cores that the planet had repeatedly experienced sudden and
dramatic swings in temperature. Since then, they have put together a detailed picture of the past
800,000 years. As Hansen describes in a new analysis, there are remarkably tight correlations among
temperature, CO2 levels and sea levels: they all rise and fall together, almost in lockstep. The
correlations do not prove that greenhouse gases caused the warming. New research by Jeremy Shakun
of Harvard University and his colleagues, however, points in that direction, showing that the CO2 jump
preceded the temperature jump at the end of the last ice age. They conclude in a recent Nature paper
that warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature
change. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Some changes in the past were
incredibly rapid. Work on Red Sea sediments by Rohling shows that during the last warm period
between ice agesabout 125,000 years agosea levels rose and fell by up to two meters within 100
years. That's ridiculously fast, Rohling says. His analysis indicates that sea levels appear to have been
more than six meters higher than they are todayin a climate much like our own. That doesn't tell you
what the future holds, but man, it gets your attention, says Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at
Pennsylvania State University. Also surprising is how little extra energy, or forcing, was required to
trigger past swings. For instance, 55 million years ago the Arctic was a subtropical paradise, with a balmy
average temperature of 23 degrees C (73 degrees F) and crocodiles lurking off Greenland. The tropics
may have been too hot for most life. This warm period, dubbed the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum (PETM), apparently was sparked by a preceding bump of about two degrees C in the planet's
temperature, which was already warmer than today. That warming may have caused a rapid release of
methane and carbon dioxide, which led to more warming and more emissions of greenhouse gases,
amplifying further warming. The eventual result: millions of years of a hothouse earth *see The Last
Great Global Warming, by Lee R. Kump; Scientific American, uly 2011+. In the past 100 years humans
have caused a warming blip of more than 0.8 degree C (1.4 degree F). And we are pouring greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere 10 times faster than what occurred in the run-up to the PETM, giving the
climate a mighty push. If we spend the next 100 years burning carbon, we are going to take the same
kind of leap, says Matthew Huber, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University.
We are also shoving the climate harder than the known causes of various ice ages did. As Serbian
astronomer Milutin Milankovic noted nearly 100 years ago, the waxing and waning of ice ages can be
linked to small variations in the orbit and tilt of the earth. Over tens of thousands of years the earth's
orbit changes shape, from nearly circular to mildly eccentric, because of varying pulls from other
planets. These variations alter the solar energy hitting the planet's surface by an average of about 0.25
watt per square meter, Hansen says. That amount is pretty small. To cause the observed swings in
climate, this forcing must have been amplified by feedbacks such as changes in sea ice and
greenhouse gas emissions. In past warmings, feedback just follows feedback, follows feedback, says
Euan Nisbet, a professor of earth sciences at the Royal Holloway, University of London. The climate
forcing from human emissions of greenhouse gases is much higherthree watts per square meter and
climbing. Will the climate thus leap 12 times faster? Not necessarily. We can't relate the response from
the past to the future, Rohling explains. What we learn are the mechanisms that are in play, how they
are triggered and how bad they can get
Mitigation Fails
Cease in Gases Wont Stop Warming From Being Inevitable
Solomon 2010
(Susan, Atmospheric Chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 11-11-10,
Persistence of Climate Changes Due To A Range Of Greenhouse Gases,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2972948/, HG)
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases increased over the course of the
20th century due to human activities. The human-caused increases in these gases are the primary
forcing that accounts for much of the global warming of the past fifty years, with carbon dioxide being
the most important single radiative forcing agent (1). Recent studies have shown that the human-
caused warming linked to carbon dioxide is nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 y, even if emissions
of the gas were to cease entirely (25). The importance of the ocean in taking up heat and slowing the
response of the climate system to radiative forcing changes has been noted in many studies (e.g., refs. 6
and 7). The key role of the oceans thermal lag has also been highlighted by recent approaches to
proposed metrics for comparing the warming of different greenhouse gases (8, 9). Among the
observations attesting to the importance of these effects are those showing that climate changes caused
by transient volcanic aerosol loading persist for more than 5 y (7, 10), and a portion can be expected to
last more than a century in the ocean (1113); clearly these signals persist far longer than the radiative
forcing decay timescale of about 1218 mo for the volcanic aerosol (14, 15). Thus the observed climate
response to volcanic events suggests that some persistence of climate change should be expected even
for quite short-lived radiative forcing perturbations. It follows that the climate changes induced by
short-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) may not
decrease in concert with decreases in concentration if the anthropogenic emissions of those gases
were to be eliminated. In this paper, our primary goal is to show how different processes and timescales
contribute to determining how long the climate changes due to various greenhouse gases could be
expected to remain if anthropogenic emissions were to cease. Advances in modeling have led to
improved AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) as well as to Earth Models of
Intermediate Complexity (EMICs). Although a detailed representation of the climate system changes on
regional scales can only be provided by AOGCMs, the simpler EMICs have been shown to be useful,
particularly to examine phenomena on a global average basis. In this work, we use the Bern 2.5CC EMIC
(see Materials and Methods and SI Text), which has been extensively intercompared to other EMICs and
to complex AOGCMs (3, 4). It should be noted that, although the Bern 2.5CC EMIC includes a
representation of the surface and deep ocean, it does not include processes such as ice sheet losses or
changes in the Earths albedo linked to evolution of vegetation. However, it is noteworthy that this
EMIC, although parameterized and simplified, includes 14 levels in the ocean; further, its global ocean
heat uptake and climate sensitivity are near the mean of available complex models, and its computed
timescales for uptake of tracers into the ocean have been shown to compare well to observations (16).
A recent study (17) explored the response of one AOGCM to a sudden stop of all forcing, and the Bern
2.5CC EMIC shows broad similarities in computed warming to that study (see Fig. S1), although there are
also differences in detail. The climate sensitivity (which characterizes the long-term absolute warming
response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) is 3 C for the model used here.
Our results should be considered illustrative and exploratory rather than fully quantitative given the
limitations of the EMIC and the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. Results One Illustrative Scenario to
2050. In the absence of mitigation policy, concentrations of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide can be expected to increase in this century. If emissions were to
cease, anthropogenic CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere by a series of processes operating at
different timescales (18). Over timescales of decades, both the land and upper ocean are important
sinks. Over centuries to millennia, deep oceanic processes become dominant and are controlled by
relatively well-understood physics and chemistry that provide broad consistency across models (see, for
example, Fig. S2 showing how the removal of a pulse of carbon compares across a range of models).
About 20% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of
years (with a range across models including the Bern 2.5CC model being about 19 4% at year 1000 after
a pulse emission; see ref. 19), until much slower weathering processes affect the carbonate balance in
the ocean (e.g., ref. 18). Models with stronger carbon/climate feedbacks than the one considered here
could display larger and more persistent warmings due to both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases,
through reduced land and ocean uptake of carbon in a warmer world. Here our focus is not on the
strength of carbon/climate feedbacks that can lead to differences in the carbon concentration decay,
but rather on the factors that control the climate response to a given decay. The removal processes of
other anthropogenic gases including methane and nitrous oxide are much more simply described by
exponential decay constants of about 10 and 114 y, respectively (1), due mainly to known chemical
reactions in the atmosphere. In this illustrative study, we do not include the feedback of changes in
methane upon its own lifetime (20). We also do not account for potential interactions between CO2 and
other gases, such as the production of carbon dioxide from methane oxidation (21), or changes to the
carbon cycle through, e.g., methane/ozone chemistry (22). Fig. 1 shows the computed future global
warming contributions for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide for a midrange scenario (23) of
projected future anthropogenic emissions of these gases to 2050. Radiative forcings for all three of
these gases, and their spectral overlaps, are represented in this work using the expressions assessed in
ref. 24. In 2050, the anthropogenic emissions are stopped entirely for illustration purposes. The figure
shows nearly irreversible warming for at least 1,000 y due to the imposed carbon dioxide increases, as
in previous work. All published studies to date, which use multiple EMICs and one AOGCM, show
largely irreversible warming due to future carbon dioxide increases (to within about 0.5 C) on a
timescale of at least 1,000 y (35, 25, 26). Fig. 1 shows that the calculated future warmings due to
anthropogenic CH4 and N2O also persist notably longer than the lifetimes of these gases. The figure
illustrates that emissions of key non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CH4 or N2O could lead to warming
that both temporarily exceeds a given stabilization target (e.g., 2 C as proposed by the G8 group of
nations and in the Copenhagen goals) and remains present longer than the gas lifetimes even if
emissions were to cease. A number of recent studies have underscored the important point that
reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are an approach that can indeed reverse some past
climate changes (e.g., ref. 27). Understanding how quickly such reversal could happen and why is an
important policy and science question. Fig. 1 implies that the use of policy measures to reduce emissions
of short-lived gases will be less effective as a rapid climate mitigation strategy than would be thought if
based only upon the gas lifetime. Fig. 2 illustrates the factors influencing the warming contributions of
each gas for the test case in Fig. 1 in more detail, by showing normalized values (relative to one at their
peaks) of the warming along with the radiative forcings and concentrations of CO2 , N2O, and CH4 . For
example, about two-thirds of the calculated warming due to N2O is still present 114 y (one atmospheric
lifetime) after emissions are halted, despite the fact that its excess concentration and associated
radiative forcing at that time has dropped to about one-third of the peak value.


Arctic Melt Inevitable
Regardless of previous or future climate policies, ice-melt is unstoppable.
Rignot 14 Eric Rignot , glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the lead author of last
week's landmark scientific paper on West Antartica (Global warming: it's a point of no return in West
Antarctica. What happens next? The Guardian, May 17, 2014, Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-
melting-global-warming-nasa, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)

We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the
Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable, with major consequences it will mean
that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the
collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three
and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.
Two centuries if that is what it takes may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to stop
this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get
a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction
targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however the Antarctic system will at
least take longer to get to this point.
The Amundsen sea sector is almost as big as France. Six glaciers drain it. The two largest ones are Pine
Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). They stretch over 500km.
What this means is that we may be ultimately responsible for triggering the fast retreat of West
Antarctica. This part of the continent was likely to retreat anyway, but we probably pushed it there
faster. It remains difficult to put a timescale on it, because the computer models are not good enough
yet, but it could be within a couple of centuries, as I noted. There is also a bigger picture than West
Antarctica. The Amundsen sea sector is not the only vulnerable part of the continent. East Antarctica
includes marine-based sectors that hold more ice. One of them, Totten glacier, holds the equivalent of
seven metres of global sea level.
Alt Cause No Solvency
Cant Solve Emissions Military
Alt cause warming Military
Barnett 3 (Jon, School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Melbourne, Security and Climate Change, Global Environmental Change 13 (2003) 717,
ScienceDirect)//rh
As the organizations principally responsible for national security, and commanding a large share of
public resources for that purpose, the worlds militaries will increasingly have to manage the
challenges of climate change. Militaries are major emitters of greenhouse gases. A crude indicator of
the scale of this can be gained from taking the share of a countrys GNP spent on its military as
representative of the militarys share of that countrys overall greenhouse gas emissions (assum ing
military emissions per unit of GNP are the same as the national mean of emissions per unit of GNP).
Following this procedure: military expenditure was 113% of 1995 GNP in the Russian Federation, so the
Russian armed forces emits roughly 185 million metric tons of CO2: military expenditure was 3% of
1995 (NP in the United Kingdom, so the UK armed forces emit some 17 million metric tons of CO2; and
military expenditure was 18% of 1995 GNP in the United States, so by this reckoning, the US armed
forces emit some 210 million metric tons of CO2 (data from World Bank. 2000b). Indeed, worldwide
military activity may be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the United
Kingdom. In this respect, militaries are a problem rather than a solution to environmental insecurity.
Other Nations Gut Solvency
China and India will continue to produce CO2 even if the US stops
Bastasch 14 (Michael, reporter for the Daily Caller, Obama admits his climate agenda wont curb
global warming, 1/23/14, http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/23/obama-admits-his-climate-agenda-wont-
curb-global-warming/, HG)
President Barack Obama admitted in an interview with The New Yorker that his plan to lower U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions by banning new coal plants would do little to curb global warming since
developing countries like China and India will still use coal power. The Obama administration published
its proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits for new coal plants which would effectively ban coal power.
That is, unless they use commercially unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Tighter
emission controls for coal plants are part of Obamas plan to fight global warming. Critics of the
administration argue that banning coal plants wont curb global warming because developing
countries continue to build coal plants, frustrating U.S. efforts to lower global carbon emissions.
Obama conceded that fact, but argued that limiting emissions here will only help the U.S. because other
countries will come to us for the technology once weve developed it. And so if we can figure out a
carbon-capture mechanism that is sufficiently advanced and works, then we are helping ourselves,
because the Chinese and the Indians are going to build some coal plants, and even if we dont build
another coal plant in this country, there are going to be a lot of coal plants around the world that are
built, Obama told the New Yorker. And we have a huge investment in trying to figure out how we can
help them do it more cleanly, he added. Obama hopes that by requiring new U.S. coal plants to use CCS
technologies, the country could become a world leader and export the technology abroad when other
nations can afford it. If the U.S. doesnt lead, Obama argues, other countries will not follow. And its not
sufficient for us to just tell them to stop, Obama said. Were going to have to give them some help.
Were going to have to take some of our research and development on things like clean-coal technology
and be able to export it to them or license it to them Theres going to be a process where we help
them leapfrog some of the development stages that we went through. This is why Im putting a big
priority on our carbon action plan here. Its not because Im ignorant of the fact that these emerging
countries are going to be a bigger problem than us, Obama added. Its because its very hard for me to
get in that conversation if were making no effort. And its not an answer for us to say, Well, since the
Chinese and the Indians are the bigger problem, we might as well not even bother. Indeed, countries
like China and India are set to ramp up their coal use dramatically. The World Resource Institute reports
that 76 percent of the proposed coal-fired capacity is in India and China nearly 1,200 coal plants have
been proposed globally, totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts of power. The Chinese greenlit 100
million metric tons of new coal production capacity last year as part of the governments plan to bring
860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015. The U.S. coal industry, however, says CCS is
not yet proven technology as there are no commercial-scale coal plants in the country that uses the
technology. In fact, when the Environmental Protection Agency wrote its rule limiting coal plant
emissions it only cited CCS projects that were government funded and not in operation. *I+t is
disingenuous to state that the technology is ready, said Charles McConnell, former assistant secretary
of energy in Obama. Studies have verified that implementation of *CSS+ technology is necessary to
comply with EPAs proposed *EPA carbon-emissions limits] regulation and meet the [greenhouse gas]
targets necessary for limiting CO2 emissions to our atmosphere. However, commercial *CSS+
technology currently is not available to meet EPAs proposed rule. The cost of current CO2 capture
technology is much too high to be commercially viable, said McConnell, who now serves as the
executive director of the Energy & Environment Initiative at Rice University. Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/23/obama-admits-his-climate-agenda-wont-curb-global-
warming/#ixzz35oqakkuy
Plan fails- China has to curb emissions
Atkin 14 (Emily, reporter for climate progress and has a degree in journalism, Stopping Climate Change Almost Impossible If China
Cant Quit Coal, Report Says, 5/12/14, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/12/3436673/coal-dependent-
china/, HG)
If China doesnt begin to limit its coal consumption by 2030, it will be almost impossible for the
world avoid a situation where global warming stays below 2C, a new study released Monday found.
The study, led by the U.K.s Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, recommends China put a cap on
greenhouse gas emissions from coal by 2020, and then swiftly reduce its dependency on the fossil
fuel. The reductions would not only increase public health and wellness and decrease climate change,
but could also have a major positive effect on the global dynamics of climate cooperation, the report
said. The actions China takes in the next decade will be critical for the future of China and the world,
the study said. Whether China moves onto an innovative, sustainable and low-carbon growth path this
decade will more or less determine both Chinas longer-term economic prospects in a natural resource-
constrained world, and the worlds prospects of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to
manage the grave risks of climate change. The general question surrounding the prevention of climate
change is whether the earth can avoid a 2C situation that is, whether we can reduce greenhouse
gas emissions swiftly enough to keep global average surface temperatures from rising to 2C (3.6F)
above pre-industrial levels. World leaders, including China, agreed to avoid that 2C situation in 2009 by
signing the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, a three-page nonbinding pledge to fight climate change. In
2011, one-fifth of the worlds total fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions came solely from Chinas coal,
and coal was responsible for more than 80 percent of the countrys 8 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions
that year. But despite increasing calls for China to reduce its coal-burning not only because of climate
impacts but because of infamous, choking air pollution it has been unclear whether the country has
made enough effort to actually make a dent in its consumption. The country has taken steps to replace
thousands of small-scale coal mines with large ones, and its largest cities have pledged to make drastic
reductions in emissions. However, a Chinese government report recently found that only a tiny
fraction of Chinese cities fully complied with pollution standards in 2013, while approving the
construction of more than 100 million tonnes of new coal production capacity in 2013, according to a
Reuters report. Coal, in absolute terms, is growing in China, Fergus Green, one of the authors of the
study, told ThinkProgress. But its share of electricity is declining as other sources of electricity take up
additional shares of capacity. So we see absolute growth, but signs of serious moderation. Green, who
co-authored the study along with London School of Economics scholar Nicholas Stern, said the effort
was less of an empirical game to try to predict what would happen in China, and more of a
recommendation for how the country could realistically reduce its emissions and how those reductions
would benefit the country and the world. The paper, he said, was a response to indications from Chinas
leadership that it is looking to transform growth models to be more efficient over the coming years.
One doesnt just go to China and tell them what they should do, but there are serious discussions that
are happening in China about when their coal consumption will peak, he said. Really what were
saying is that there are strong benefits for China and for the world in terms of greenhouse gas mitigation
if China were to peak at the early end of 2020. Green noted that one of the less obvious benefits of
China peaking its coal production would be the catalyzing effect it would have on other countries
efforts to combat climate change. With China as the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases,
politicians in other countries including the United States have made the argument that nothing
they do can actually stop climate change from happening. If other countries, particularly the United
States, can see that China is serious about declining its consumption, it could be potentially a tipping
point that does stimulate more ambitious action from other countries, Green said. We could actually
get an international agreement. However, if China does not become serious about reducing its coal
consumption soon, the chances of climate change mitigation become lower and lower. If China goes
beyond 15 gigatons of carbon emissions by 2030, then *mitigation+ would be almost impossible, Green
said. The longer you delay, the more faster the decline has to be, and the more implausible that
becomes.
India and China override any gains that Western countries make- other countries
wont model b/c of profit motive
Mcardle 12 ( Megan, editor at The Atlantic, Why We Should Act to Stop Global Warmingand Why
We Won't, 2/28/12, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/why-we-should-act-to-
stop-global-warming-and-why-we-wont/253752/, HG)
This for a set of targets that, from the planet's perspective, did roughly nothing to delay the onset of
global warming. If it's this hard to make weak targets work, how are we going to get a global consensus
for strong ones? Addressing global warming is the mother of all collective action problems. The
reductions needed to avoid catastrophe are very sizeable, and they must occur across the globe. Yet
fossil fuel resources are fungible. Oil that is not burned in the United States does not stay tidily in the
ground; it gets shipped somewhere else, like China. This is especially true these days, when there's
basically no spare capacity; close to every available barrel is being pumped. In this environment,
lowering our oil consumption lowers the price, but not supply. This is a nice charitable gift to emerging
nations, but the climate does not care whether the carbon comes from fat, disgusting Americans
thundering around in their mongo SUVs, or soulful Indian peasants getting their first tractor. It will
warm up, or not, just the same. And I've seen no evidence that the Chinese, or the Indians, plan to do
much of anything to reduce their emissions in the near-term. They talk a bunch about green initiatives,
which makes westerners all excited, but from what I can tell, their green initiatives with teeth are aimed
at reducing their deadly, ubiquitous air pollution, not their carbon emissions. Oh, they may reduce the
carbon intensity of their Gross Domestic Product as their economy upskills. But the United States is
actually relatively carbon-efficient per dollar of GDP compared to China or India. It's just that we have a
lot more dollars worth of GDP. For China to grow while merely holding its emissions steady--and their
carbon output already surpasses ours and Canada's combined--then the improvement in carbon
intensity will have to match their rate of growth. So far, this hasn't happened, and given that China has
vast coal deposits that it's using to bring electricity to its citizens, it doesn't seem likely to in the near
future. Yes, they've made a big investment in solar panel production . . . for export to rich countries that
subsidize them. I'm not criticizing China or India, mind you--I'd be less than enthusiastic about a bunch
of rich countries telling me that I wasn't allowed to get rich, too, because that would be bad for the
planet. But I don't find the alternative--a one-for-one offset by the rich world--very plausible either.
Energy is a key input into GDP. And note how cranky we've gotten about a fairly small and temporary
reduction in our national income.
Global emissions means that US cant solve- other countries wont model
Brown and Stamm 13 (Alexander and Stephanie, reporters for the National Journal, Why Obama Can't Fix Climate Change,
11/11/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-obama-can-t-fix-climate-change-20131111, HG)
In 2005, China and the U.S. posted nearly identical levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Today it's not
even close. While the North American superpower has cut its emissions by a small but measurable
amount, the burgeoning Asian giant has become far and away the world's top emissions producer
with no signs of slowing down. Few believe that this week's U.N. climate talks in Warsaw will produce a
significant agreement, but it's worth noting the extent of the global community's role, particularly
developing nations, in the planet's yearly increases of carbon emissions. Not until 2006 did the U.S.
cede its place as the world's worst emitter, but since then the reversal in trends has been stark. The U.S.
and the European Union have dropped carbon emissions by a combined 9 percent; the rest of the
world has seen its emissions spike by more than 33 percent. Put another way, the U.S./E.U. share of
global carbon emissions has dropped from nearly 35 percent to less than 26 percent in just seven years.
In total, global emissions have climbed nearly 18 percent since 2006, despite notable cutbacks by many
of the planet's industrialized nations. Most troubling is that the continued rise leaves the world well
short of where scientists say it needs to be to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. SHARE
THIS STORY Most scientists believe we need to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius this
century to avoid the most serious fallout. To achieve that, they've laid out incremental goals for
emissions reductions. But by 2020, says a U.N. report released last weekeven if every nation that has
pledged cutbacks meets its self-imposed standardscarbon emissions will still be 18 percent to 27
percent higher than needed to stay off a pathway to 2 degree rises without significant costs. The year
2020 could also signal another milestone in the shifting climate paradigm. It's estimated that, by then,
developing nations will have accounted for more than half of all carbon emissions since 1850. Still,
that doesn't get the United States off the hook. America is still the leading carbon emitter in all-time
cumulation, and it's responsible for many of the technologies that have led to continued emissions
spikes elsewhere. And, of course, it will still bear the consequences if a rise in temperature isn't halted.
Worse, there's little the U.S. can do to reverse that trend. Even if America had discovered a way to cut
its emissions to zero between 2005 and 2012, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent global
emissions from climbing. And it's unlikelyeven with the most ambitious agenda, regulations, and
technological advancesthat we will make anything but incremental progress for the foreseeable
future. Meanwhile, emissions in places like China are climbing by leaps and bounds, and there's not
much we can do to stop it. That doesn't mean we're not trying. Last month, the Obama administration
announced a near-complete end to financing of overseas coal plants, joining World Bank policies set this
summer that would cut investments on such projects. It may be a matter of time before those new
standards show results, as other donors and the private sector are likely to fill the void. Still,
administration officials expressed optimism that public backers would follow the lead of federal
policymakers. So while President Obama's climate directives at home have sparked a firestorm of
controversy, the U.S.'s ability to dent the global onrush of climate change is marginal at best.
Meanwhile, few Americans will be paying attention as the global community assembles this week in
Poland, in what could be one of our few chances to make a meaningful difference on climate


CFCS
CFCS responsible for global warming, not CO2-disregard ___________ because they
focus on CO2
Bastasch 13 (Michael Bastach, quoting studies REPORT: CO2 IS NOT RESPOSNIBLE FOR GLOBAL
WARMING May 30, 2013 http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/report-co2-not-responsible-for-global-
warming/2/, HG)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) not carbon emissions are the real culprit behind global warming,
claims a new study out of the University of Waterloo. Conventional thinking says that the emission
of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we
have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional
understanding is wrong, said Qing-Bin Lu, a science professor at the University of Waterloo and author
of the study. In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar
ozone hole and global warming, Lu said. Ads by Google Ads by CouponDropDown Lus findings
were published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B and analyzed data from 1850 to the
present. Lus study runs counter to the long-standing argument that carbon dioxide emissions were the
driving force behind global warming. Recently scientists warned that carbon concentrations were
nearing the 400 parts per million level. Scientists say that carbon dioxide levels must be lowered to 350
ppm to avoid the severe impacts of global warming. The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone
and should serve as a wake-up call for all of us to support clean-energy technology and reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases before its too late for our children and grandchildren, said Tim Lueker, an
oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher who is a member of the Scripps CO2 Group. Lu notes that
data from 1850 to 1970 show carbon emissions increasing due to the Industrial Revolution. However,
global temperatures stayed constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the
temperatures should have risen by 0.6C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002,
reads the studys press release. Ads by Google CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable chemicals
containing atoms of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine that are used to make aerosol sprays, blowing
agents for foams and packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants according to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Montreal Protocol phased out the production of CFCs as
they were believed to be linked to ozone depletion. According to the National Institutes of Health, CFCs
are considered a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, because they absorb heat in the atmosphere and
send some of it back to the earths surface, which contributes to global warming. From the University
of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim, writes global warming blogger Anthony Watt. While plausible,
due to the fact that CFCs have very high [Global Warming Potential] numbers, their atmospheric
concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by
comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation, Watt added. But, I
have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven
electron-reaction mechanism is valid, Id say it is a case of further study is needed, and worth funding.
When Barack Obama promised to slow the earths rising sea levels and heal the planet during the 2008
campaign, he probably had no idea that curbing carbon dioxide emissions might not lower the sea
levels. A study published in the Journal of Geodesy found that the sea level has only risen by 1.7
millimeters per year over the last 110 years about 6.7 inches per century all while carbon dioxide
concentrations in the air have risen by a third, suggesting that rising carbon concentrations have not
impacted the rate at which sea levels are rising. The study used data from the Gravity Recovery And
Climate Experiment satellite mission and analyzed continental mass variations on a global scale,
including both land-ice and land-water contributions, for 19 continental areas that exhibited significant
signals over a nine-year period from 2002 to 2011. The results echoed a study conducted last year,
which also found that sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years. This
was also suggested by two other studies conducted in the last decade. The latest results show once
again that sea levels are not accelerating after all, and are merely continuing their modest rise at an
unchanged rate, said Pierre Gosselin, who runs the climate skeptic blog NoTricksZone. The more
alarmist sea level rise rates some have claimed recently stem from the use of statistical tricks and
the very selective use of data. Fortunately, these fudged alarmist rates do not agree with real-life
observations. Overall the latest computed rates show that there is absolutely nothing to be alarmed
about. Other experts agree, citing data regarding the Earths rate of rotation. For the last 40-50
years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions, writes Nils-Axel Mrner,
former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University , in the
ournal Energy and Environment. The Earths rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to
2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly
falling, sea levels. But in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, U.S. coastal states have been more concerned
about the possible effects of global warming on rising sea levels. A report by 21 U.S. scientists,
commissioned by Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin OMalley, found that the sea levels are rising faster
than they predicted five years ago. Florida Keys residents are also concerned about sea levels by the
island that have risen 9 inches in the past decade, according to a tidal gauge that has operated since pre-
Civil War days. It doesnt need a lot of rocket science, said Donald Boesch, president of the University
of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Weve got tide gauges that show us sea level is
increasing. This is a real phenomenon. We should take it seriously and have to plan for it. The
Maryland report found that ocean waters and the Chesapeake Bay might only rise about one foot by
2050, but the studys authors said that it would be prudent to plan for a two-foot rise in sea levels to
account for the risks of flooding caused by storms. The state has already seen sea levels rise by about a
foot in the past century half coming from the natural sinking of the land and the other half coming
from rising seas from a warming ocean. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also announced a
$20 billion plan to adapt to global warming to prepare the city for rising sea levels and hotter
summers. A report commissioned by New York City found that the number of sweltering summer days
could double, maybe even triple, and that waters surrounding the city could rise by 2 feet or more New
York City can do nothing and expose ourselves to an increasing frequency of Sandy-like storms that do
more and more damage, Bloomberg remarked. Or we can make the investments necessary to build a
stronger, more resilient New York investments that will pay for themselves many times over in the
years go to come.
CFCs are the root cause- science proves- the Montreal accords are the key not the aff
Lu 13 (QB, Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND
GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE,
5/30/13, https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says, HG)
Furthermore, the substantial combined data of total solar irradiance, the sunspot number and cosmic rays from multiple measurements
have unambiguously demonstrated that the natural factors have played a negligible effect on Earths climate since 1970. Moreover, in-depth
analyses of time-series data of CO2, halogen-containing molecules and global surface temperature have shown solid evidence that the GH
effect of increasing concentrations of non-halogen gases has been saturated (zero) in the observed data recorded since 1850. In particular, a
statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R=-0.05) between CO2 concentration and
the observed global surface temperature corrected by the removal of the solar effect during 1850-
1970. In contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients of 0.96-0.97 is obtained between corrected
or uncorrected global surface temperature and total level of stratospheric halogenated molecules
from the start of considerable atmospheric CFCs in 1970 up to the present. These results strongly show that the recent
global warming observed in the late 20th century was mainly due to the GH effect of human-made halogen-containing molecules (mainly
CFCs). Moreover, a refined calculation of the GH effect of halogenated molecules has convincingly demonstrated that they (mainly CFCs)
-2002. Owing to the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, the
globally mean level of halogen-containing molecules in the stratosphere has entered a very slow
decreasing trend since 2002. Correspondingly, a very slow declining trend in the global surface
temperature has been observed. It is predicted that the success of the Montreal Protocol will lead to a long-term slow return of
the global surface temperature to its value in 1950-1970 for coming 50-70 years if there is no significant emission of new GH species into the
atmosphere. In summary, the observed data have convincingly shown that CFCs are the major culprit not
only for O3 depletion via conspiring with cosmic rays but also for global warming during
1970~2002. The successful execution of the Montreal Protocol has shown its fast effectiveness in
controlling the O3 hole in the polar region and a slow cooling down of the global surface temperature.
The O3 loss in the polar region is estimated to recover to its 1980 value by 2058, faster than recently
expected from photochemical model simulations,68,69 while the return (lowering) of global surface
temperature will be much slower due to the slow decline of the stratospheric halogenated molecules in
low and mid latitudes. This leads to an interesting prediction that global sea level will continue to rise
in coming 1~2 decades until the global temperature recovery dominates over the O3 hole recovery.
After that, both global surface temperature and sea level will drop concurrently. It should also be
noted that the mean global surface temperature in the next decade will keep nearly the same value as in
the past decade, i.e., the hottest decade over the past 150 years. This, however, does not agree with
the warming theory of CO2. If the latter were correct, the current global temperature would be at least
a slow cooling trend has begun. This study also
shows that correct understandings of the basic physics of cosmic ray radiation and the Earth blackbody
radiation as well as their interactions with human-made molecules are required for revealing the
fundamental mechanisms underlying the ozone hole and global climate change. When these
understandings are presented with observations objectively, it is feasible to reach consensuses on these
scientific issues of global concern. Finally, this study points out that humans are mainly responsible for
the ozone hole and global climate change, but international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol and
the Kyoto Protocol must be placed on firmer scientific grounds. This information is of particular
importance not only to the research community, but to the general public and the policy makers.

Corporations
Corporations fight against climate change regulation making it impossible to stop
Milne 2/19 (Seumas, columnist and editor for the Guardian, The Guardian, 2/19/14, Climate change deniers
have grasped that markets can't fix the climate,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/20/climate-change-deniers-markets-fix, HG)
Its an unmistakable taste of things to come. The floods that have deluged Britain may be small beer on
a global scale. Compared with the cyclone that killed thousands in the Philippines last autumn, the
deadly inundations in Brazil or the destruction of agricultural land and hunger in Africa, the south of
England has got off lightly. But the message has started to get through. This is exactly the kind of
disaster predicted to become ever more frequent and extreme as greenhouse gas-driven climate
change heats up the planet at a potentially catastrophic rate. And it's exposed the David Cameron who
wanted to "get rid of all the green crap" and who slashed flood defence spending by 100m a year as
weak and reckless to his own supporters. Of course there have been plenty of floods in the past, and it's
impossible to identify any particular weather event as directly caused by global warming. But as the Met
Office's chief scientist Julia Slingo put it, "all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play
in it". With 4% more moisture over the oceans than in the 1970s and sea levels rising, how could it be
otherwise? If it weren't for the misery for the people at the sharp end, you might even imagine there
was some divine justice in the fact that the areas hit hardest, from the Somerset Levels to the Thames
valley are all Tory heartlands. It's the same with the shale gas fracking plans the government is so keen
on: the fossil fuel drilling and mining so long kept away from the affluent is now turning up on their
Sussex doorstep. How do the locals feel that their government cut flood defences for the areas now
swimming in water in the name of austerity, while one in four environment agency staff is being axed
and the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, slashed his department's budget for adaptation to
global warming by 40%? Not too impressed, to judge by the polling. But then, paradoxically, Paterson is
in fact a climate change denier in what was supposed to be "the greenest government ever", a man
who refused to accept a briefing from the chief scientific adviser at the energy and climate change
department, reckons there are benefits to global warming and thinks "we should just accept that the
climate has been changing for centuries". Of course he's not alone among Conservatives in being what
one of his cabinet colleagues called "climate stupid". The basic physics may be unanswerable, 97% of
climate scientists agree that carbon emissions are dangerously heating up the planet, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn it's 95% likely that most of the temperature rise since
1950 is due to greenhouse gases and deforestation, the risk of a global temperature rise tipping above
1.52C be catastrophic for humanity. But the climate flat-earthers are having none of it. As a result,
what should be a pressing debate about how to head off global calamity has been reframed in the
media as a discussion about whether industrial-driven climate change is in fact taking place at all as if
it were a matter of opinion rather than science. The impact of this phoney controversy during an
economic crisis has been dramatic: in the US, the proportion of the population accepting burning fossil
fuels drives climate change dropped from 71% to 44% between 2007 and 2011. In Britain, the numbers
who believe the climate isn't changing at all rose from 4% to 19% between 2005 and 2013 (though the
floods seem to be correcting that). The problem is at its worst in the Anglo-Saxon world which has also
historically made the largest contribution to pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Take Australia, which
is afflicted by longer and hotter heatwaves, drought and bushfires. Nevertheless, its rightwing prime
minister Tony Abbott dismisses any link with climate change, which he described as crap, and has
pledged to repeal a carbon tax on the country's 300 biggest polluters. The move was hailed by his
political soulmate, the Canadian prime minister and tar sands champion Stephen Harper, as an
important message to the world. And in the US, climate change denial now has the Republican party in
its grip. What lies behind the political right's growing refusal to accept the overwhelming scientific
consensus? There's certainly a strong tendency, especially in the US, for conservative white men to
refuse to accept climate change is caused by human beings. But there shouldn't be any inherent reason
why people who believe in social hierarchies, individualism and inequality should care less about the
threat of floods, drought, starvation and mass migrations than anyone else. After all, rightwing people
have children too. Part of the answer is in the influence of some of the most powerful corporate
interests in the world: the oil, gas and mining companies that have strained every nerve to head off
the threat of effective action to halt the growth of carbon emissions, buying legislators, government
ministers, scientists and thinktanks in the process. In the US, hundreds of millions of dollars of
corporate and billionaires' cash (including from the oil and gas brothers Koch) has been used to rubbish
climate change science. That is also happening on a smaller scale elsewhere, including Britain. But
climate change denial is also about ideology. Many deniers have come to the conclusion that climate
change is some kind of leftwing conspiracy because the scale of the international public intervention
necessary to cut carbon emissions in the time demanded by the science simply cannot be
accommodated within the market-first, private enterprise framework they revere. As Joseph Bast, the
president of the conservative US Heartland Institute told the writer and campaigner Naomi Klein: for the
left, climate change is "the perfect thing", a justification for doing everything it "wanted to do anyway".
When it comes to the incompatibility of effective action of averting climate disaster with their own
neoliberal ideology, the deniers are absolutely right. In the words of Nicholas Stern's 2006 report,
climate change is "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen". The intervention, regulation,
taxation, social ownership, redistribution and global co-operation needed to slash carbon emissions
and build a sustainable economy for the future is clearly incompatible with a broken economic model
based on untrammelled self-interest and the corporate free-for-all that created the crisis in the first
place. Given the scale of the threat, the choice for the rest of us could not be more obvious.
Capitalism/Economics/Neolib
Capitalist nations wont solve global warming
Smith 14 (Jack, former editor at the Guardian, writing for the Center of Research on Globalization, Global Capitalism and Climate
Change, 5/25/14, http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-capitalism-and-climate-change/5383709, HG)
Despite the reality of climate change, the major capitalist industrialized countries most certainly the
United States are moving at a snails pace, if moving at all, to mitigate its decimating effects on life on
Earth. At issue is whether the capitalist system is willing and able to bring about the immense changes
required to prevent climate change from developing into a global catastrophe from mid-to-end century.
The evidence so far is that it will not move fast enough. Virtually all scientists and most concerned
people now understand why climate change is happening, and that it will become much worse. Some of
them are part a growing mass movement to stop climate change, which we strongly support. But theres
a catch. At this point, the problem is deeply embedded in a capitalist economic system based upon the
relentless exploitation of the Earth and all its resources to obtain super profits that largely accrue to a
small minority of people. Capital must be sharply challenged as a system if climate change is to be
halted. Some progress is being made in the conversion from oil, natural gas and coal to solar,
hydropower, wind, biomass (biofuel) and geothermal energy, mainly in several smaller social
democratic or liberal countries of Europe and elsewhere. But such progress is the exception and is
dwarfed by the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrialized capitalist economies, led by the
U.S. and China. Of these societies, China now the worlds largest annual contributor of CO2 to the
atmosphere is devoting the greatest amount of resources and money to develop sources of green
energy, but the gap between its fossil and renewable fuels is immense. The U.S., which was the principal
emitter of CO2 for well over a hundred years and remains the number one cumulative contributor of
poisons in the atmosphere, became number two a few years ago. Washington lags far behind most
major industrial countries in efforts to limit greenhouse emissions. American presidents have known
about an impending climate catastrophe at least since the Clinton Administration in the 1990s but have
done virtually nothing about it.Given its wealth and powerful status as global hegemon, the United
States government under the regimes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, has been the principal
obstacle to concerted global climate action. President Obama has finally decided after five years to use
the powers he already possesses without the need of Congressional approval to implement certain
limited beneficial environmental measures, but this is hardly good enough. Now he is even giving
hopeful speeches about climate change. But his few insignificant accomplishments are buried by a
mountain of missed opportunities and his dedication to drilling for as much oil and fracking for as
much gas as possible, turning our country into Saudi America. As said in mid-May by Paul Jay, the senior
editor of The Real News Network: Obama has a big bully pulpit. He could be rallying the country for a
new, green America but *hes done+ next to nothing since he was elected. It is convenient to blame
the far right and Tea Party know-nothings for Americas shameful lethargy in this regard, but thats
simply not the main problem. Climate deniers in Congress, exasperating as they are, constitute the
farcical sideshow of a much bigger economic and political three-ring circus known as U.S.A. Inc. the
worlds largest business/government monopoly. Its run by the wealthiest sector of the population,
including the corporate, banking and finance chieftains, and their well-paid minions in business and
government, the mass media and other key institutions. Theoretically, American democracy is a means
of organizing a society based first and foremost on an honest electoral system to choose its leaders and
hold them responsible. The electoral system is still based on one person, one vote, but it is corrupted
absolutely by the power of big money contributions from the multi-millionaires and billionaires in the
ruling class. And by seeing to it there are only two viable parties to choose from both capitalist, one
representing the right and far right and the other the center right the Plutocracy cannot lose, no
matter who wins. Being capitalist, its also supposed to mean a society where citizens may not be
economically equal, but assuredly not as unequal as conditions in the U.S. today. Of all the OECDs major
industrial economies America is last in equality. In its quest for ever-greater profits, this ruling class is
shredding what remains of that democracy. In the process it has also fought to lower the income and
politically disempower the middle and working classes. According to economic columnist Eduardo Porter
in the May 14, New York Times: The growing concentration of income can, in fact, make inequality
more difficult to correct, as the wealthy bring their wealth to bear on the political process to maintain
their privilege. Whats more, disparities in income seem to produce political polarization and gridlock,
which tend to favor those who receive a better deal from the prevailing rules. Whats this got to do
with climate change? Everything. Fossil fuel interests (oil, gas, coal) are major elements of the U.S.
economy so much so that Washington subsidizes this industry with from $10 billion up to $52
billion a year (which includes costs of defending pipelines and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf). Fossil
fuel makes its owners, executives and stockholders incredibly rich. All Americas industries and
corporations are dependent in one way or another on prevailing energy resources. Most big
corporations and financial interests are wedded to the short-term profit picture, such as a companys
quarterly economic performance charts. Heads roll when profits drop. The fossil fuel industry in
particular, and big business in general, fear profits will fall if the U.S. sharply lowers greenhouse gas
emissions. Another factor is that a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to
stop the devastation of the ecological system means that the consumption in the richer countries
inevitably must be reduced an utter anathema for capitalism, which is based on continual expansion
of demand. Neither the existing ruling class nor the political system will support the required massive
and prompt transition torenewable fuels and the establishment of a sustainable ecological policy to slow
down and eventually halt the continual increase in global warming and the decimation of the natural
and human environment. It will take decades of transformation away from fossil fuels and from
conspicuous consumption for tangible progress to be made.But only in this way can global warming and
ecological disaster be avoided. In effect, however, the owners of big capital say to this: No go! Our
profits may fall. And were certainly not going to tell consumers to cut back on demand! We can make
lots of money by adjusting to climate change building sea walls, retrofitting businesses, schools and
other structures to withstand powerful hurricanes or tornadoes, building houses in cooler parts of the
country, selling air-conditioners, extracting oil from the Arctic and Antarctic and so on and on. Its
endless. We can finally sell refrigerators to Eskimos! Dont you realize that adapting to climate change
can be an economic boom for big business? There are two options confronting the American people: (1)
Long-term survival and a revived world for future generations by swiftly replacing fossil fuels to mitigate
a potential climate change calamity for the 9.5 billion human beings who will inhabit the increasingly
inhospitable world of 2050. (2) The other option, evidently intended to protect the economic status quo
and strengthen immediate profits, is to prolong the transition to renewable energy as long as possible,
meanwhile focusing on profiting from adaptation to rising temperatures and sea levels and so on.
Working toward a better world required requires a radical solution. Theres a fitting slogan in parts of
the worldwide environmental movement that expresses the real situation: System Change, Not
Climate Change. The existing capitalist system demonstrably works against the needs of the masses
of people, and not only in climate change. The U.S. economy is in long-term stagnation, kept going by
financial bubbles that profit the wealthy and penalize the middle class, working class and poor;
joblessness is expected to remain high in future years; 50% of the American people are low income or
poor; many young people, saddled with excessive college debts, are often rewarded with substandard
jobs and pay; personal privacy of almost any kind is on the way out, now that the NSA knows all and
sees all. Theres more war, racism, sexism, dead-end minimum wage jobs, and so on and on. It is
imperative that a far more powerful environmental movement develops in the next few years to put
some effective breaks on greenhouse gas emissions and the despoliation of the land, water and quality
of life. Its time for the various components of the environmental and left political movements, while
retaining their identities and missions, to unite in action on the issue of climate change and build the
struggle for climate sanity into a powerful political force. In this connection, it is timely to recall this
statement by Hungarian philosopher Istvn Mszros: The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that if
there is no future for a radical mass movement in our time there can be no future for humanity itself.
The best opportunity we have to end increasing climate change before high temperatures, air
pollution, flooded coastlines, droughts, fierce storms, scarcity of potable water and famine reach
disastrous heights is system change. This is already obvious to much of the left and will become
clear to those in the struggle as the crisis increases but the government and business are content to
take minimal steps, concentrating more on adaptation than mitigation. The capitalist industrial world
has done much to improve life in the last 200 years (not counting wars, imperialism, colonialism,
exploitation and inequality) but now that same economic systems industrialization is threatening life on
Earth. The only alternative system to global capitalism, is 21st century socialism, which has learned a lot
from its 150 years of efforts, experiences, trials, errors, and successes. It took capitalism over 600 years
to get to where it is now, including the colonial theft of three-quarters of the world and the degradation
of its peoples, hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow segregation laws, gross inequality, wage-theft, the
subjugation of women, child labor, the holocaust imposed upon Native Americans, two World Wars
(including another holocaust), thousands of nuclear weapons ready for the next war, grotesque poverty
for over half the 7.2 billion people on Earth today, and predictions of much worse environment changes
with each passing decade. That, they say, is the price of progress. Another price, if we allow it to
happen,will be severe climate change for future generations.Actually, capital is proving itself incapable
of doing the right thing about three existential matters confronting the world and its people today and
in the future: climate change, poverty/inequality, and wars. Socialism isnt finished because of the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the development of market economies in some remaining societies.
The first chapter of a longer book is over. Its time for socialisms second chapter. Socialism comes in
different varieties but none of them would allow profits to stand in the way of creating a society based
on renewable fuels, sustainable developmentand new ecological, industrial, economic and social
policies. It wouldnt tolerate great inequality and poverty. It would do its best to avoid war. In our view
the world needs this desperately requires system change, not climate change.
The forces of industrial capital stop a change in global warming
McCright and Dunlap 11(Aaron and Riley, professors at Michigan State and Oklahoma State, Sociological quarterly, THE
POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLARIZATION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLICS VIEWS OF GLOBAL WARMING, 20012010, 1/2011,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x/asset/j.1533-
8525.2011.01198.x.pdf?v=1&t=hxq56efm&s=7fb65ef4f9a86fc3ef0b5b9c2422a4147b5f7918, HG)
More generally, our results raise questions about theories of reflexive modernization that suggest that
forces of reflexivity, such as the scientific community and social movements, impel modern societies
to confront the negative consequences of industrial capitalism (e.g., Beck et al. 1994; Mol 1996).
McCright and Dunlap (2010) argue that these theories give insufficient attention to forces of anti-
reflexivity, such as the American conservative movement, that defend the current economic system by
challenging critiques mounted by the scientific community, environmentalists, and liberal policymakers
(also see Lahsen 2005; Jacques 2006; Demeritt 2006; Oreskes and Conway 2010). Indeed, among elites
and organizations within our society, there is an enduring conflict between forces of reflexivity (those
mostly on the Left who identify problems with our economic system) and forces of anti-reflexivity
(those mostly on the Right who defend the industrial capitalist order of modernity against such
critiques). Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over climate change, the most
challenging global environmental problem and one with the greatest regulatory implications.

Neoliberalism causes ecological collapse to be unavoidable- no aff solvency
Foster 2013(John, professor of sociology, The Fossil Fuels War, 9/2013, Retrieved from EBSCOhost, HG)
The shift to a supply-side struggle targeting corporations represents a maturing of the movement and a
growing radicalization. Still, the more elite-technocratic and pro-capitalist elements, which appear to
be in the drivers seat within the climate movement in the United States, remain wedded to the
continuation of todays capitalist commodity society. The prevailing strategic outlook of the U.S.
climate movement is largely predicated on the technologically optimistic assumption that there are
currently available concrete alternatives to fossil fuels, particularly wind and solar, which, when
combined with other renewable sources such as biomass, biofuels, and limited-scale hydroelectric
power, will allow society to substitute renewable energies for fossil fuels in the near term without
altering societys social relations. The solar revolution, it is often declared, is here.39 This outlook has
allowed the movement to narrow its opposition to the fossil-fuel industry alone, confining its demands
to keeping fossil fuels in the ground, blocking the transport of fossil fuels, and divesting in fossilfuels
corporations. As McKibben has stated, movements need enemies and the strategy has been to focus
not on capitalism but on the fossil-fuel industry as a rogue industry. Public Enemy Number One.40
This has been highly successful in sparking the growth of the movement. Yet, there are serious questions
with regard to where all of this is headed. Will the current struggle metamorphose into the necessary
full-scale revolt against capitalist environmental destruction? Or will it be confined to very limited, short-
term gains of the kind compatible with the system? Will the movement radicalize, leading to the full
mobilization of its popular base? Or will the more elite-technocratic and pro-capitalist elements within
the movement leadership in the United States ultimately determine its direction, betraying the
grassroots resistance? These considerations all point to the limitations of what appears to be the
governing outlook of the climate movement, promoted by its elitetechnocratic elements. The current
ecological popular front has its basis in its singular opposition to fossil fuels and the fossil-fuel
industry, and is largely premised on the notion the solar revolution will provide the solution to the
climate problem, allowing for the continuation of the current socioeconomic order with relatively few
adjustments. However, stopping climate change and the destruction of the environment in general
requires not just a new, more sustainable technology, greater efficiency, and the opening of channels
for green investment and green jobs; it requires an ecological revolution that will alter our entire
system of production and consumption, and create new systems geared to substantive equality, and
ecological sustainabilitya revolutionary reconstitution of society at large.46 It means
comprehending, as Marx presciently did in the nineteenth century, the metabolic relation between
society and nature based in production itselfand the dangers associated with capitalisms growing
metabolic rift. For Marx, the very destruction of that metabolism in the human relation to nature
compels its systematic restoration as a regulative law of social production, in a form adequate to the
full development of the human race.47 The materialist conception of history has often been
interpreted in wayscontrary to Marxthat systematically excluded ecological conditions from the
analysis. Yet an argument can be made that the working class during its most class-conscious and
revolutionary periods has been just as concerned with overall living conditionsincluding urban and
rural community and the interaction with the natural environmentas with working conditions (in the
narrow sense). A clear indication of this, reflecting the times in which it was written, is provided by
Engelss 1844 Condition of the Working Class in England, where environmental conditions were
presented as of even greater importance to the overall material conditions of the working class than
factory conditionsalthough the root cause resided in the class basis of production.48 In todays world,
the undermining of the lifeworld of the great majority of the population is occurring in relation to both
economy and environment. We can therefore expect the most radical movements to emerge precisely
where economic and ecological crises converge on the lives of the underlying population. Given the
nature of capitalism and imperialism and the exigencies of the global environmental crisis, a new,
revolutionary environmental proletariat is likely to arise most powerfully and most decisively in the
global South. Yet, such developments, it is now clear, will not be confined to any one part of the
planet.49 The bottom line in an accounting ledger is one of capitalisms most enduring metaphors. We
are now facing an ecological bottom linea planetary carbon budget together with planetary
boundaries in general that represents a more fundamental accounting. Without a thoroughgoing
transformation of production and consumption, and also social consciousness and cultural forms, the
world economy will continue to emit carbon dioxide on a business-as-usual basis, pushing us all the
way to the redline of 2C and beyondto a world in which climate change is increasingly beyond our
control. In Hansens words: It is not an exaggeration to suggest, based on [the] best available scientific
evidence, that burning all fossil fuels could result in the planet being not only ice-free but human-
free.50 Under these conditions what is needed is a decades-long ecological revolution, in which an
emergent humanity will once again, as it has innumerable times before, reinvent itself, transforming
its existing relations of production and the entire realm of social existence, in order to generate a
restored metabolism with nature and a whole new world of substantive equality as the key to
sustainable human development. This is the peculiar challenge and burden of our historical time.51


Impact Defense
AT: Try or Die
None of their studies have predictive validity reject try or die framing.

Sadar 7/7 (Anthony J., Prof @ Geneva College specializing in Earth and Environmental Science,
Statistics, Air Pollution Meteorology and Engineering, Why the former Ice Age became global warming,
then climate change, Washington Examiner 7/7/14, http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-coming-
ice-age-became-global-warming-then-climate-change/article/2550565)//mm
Today, it is fashionable to expect disaster from too much warmth. So the smart money is on promoting
dire predictions and consequences of rising thermometers, even in the face of no global warming for
more than 15 years. From my own 35 years of experience in the atmospheric science profession as an
air-pollution meteorologist, air quality program administrator and science educator, I can attest the fact
that long-range, global climate-change outlooks are nothing but insular professional opinion . Such
opinion is not worthy of the investment of billions of dollars to avoid the supposed catastrophic
consequences of abundant, inexpensive fossil fuels and, subsequently, to impoverish U.S. citizens
with skyrocket energy costs. I have conducted or overseen a hundred air-quality studies, many using
sophisticated atmospheric modeling. Such modeling comparable to or even involving the same
models as those used in climate modeling produced results for relatively short-term, local areas
that, although helpful to understanding air quality impact issues, were far from being able to bet
billions of taxpayer dollars on. Yet similar climate models that imagine conditions for the entire globe
for decades into the future are used to do just that bet billions of taxpayer dollars. Bottom line,
nobody can detail with any billion-dollar-spending degree of confidence what the global climate will
be like decades from now. But, its easy to predict that, given enough monetary incentive and the
chance to be at the pinnacle of popularity, some climate prognosticators and certainly every
capitalizing politician will continue to proffer convincing climate claims to an unwary public.

A2: Extinction/Laundry List
Reject climate alarmism their impacts are not backed by peer-reviewed data.
Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)
Many people have long believed that the ongoing rise in the airs carbon dioxide or CO2 content has
been causing the world to warm, due to the greenhouse effect of this radiatively-active trace gas of
the atmosphere; and they believe that the planet will continue to warm for decades -- if not centuries --
to come, based upon economic projections of the amounts of future fossil fuel (coal, gas and oil) usage
and climate-model projections of the degree of global warming they expect to be produced by the CO2
that is emitted to the atmosphere as a result of the burning of these fuels. The same people have also
long believed that CO2-induced global warming will lead to a whole host of climate- and weather-
related catastrophes, including more frequent and severe floods, droughts, hurricanes and other
storms, rising sea levels that will inundate the planets coastal lowlands, increased human illness and
mortality, the widespread extinction of many plant and animal species, declining agricultural
productivity, frequent coral bleaching, and marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans. And
because of these theoretical model-based projections, they have lobbied local, regional and national
governments for decades in an attempt to get the nations of the world to severely reduce the
magnitudes of their anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But are the scenarios painted by these climate
alarmists true portrayals of what the future holds for humanity and the rest of the biosphere if their
demands are not met? This is the question recently addressed in our Centers most recent major report:
Carbon Dioxide and Earths Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path. In it, we describe the findings of many
hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that analyzed real-world data pertaining to the host of
climate- and weather-related catastrophes predicted by the worlds climate alarmists to result from
rising global temperatures. The approach of most of these studies was to determine if there had been
any increasing trends in the predicted catastrophic phenomena over the past millennia or two, the
course of the 20th century, or the past few decades, when the worlds climate alarmists claim that the
planet warmed at a rate and to a degree that they contend was unprecedented over the past thousand
or two years. And the common finding of all of this research was a resounding No! But even this near-
universal repudiation of climate-alarmist contentions has not been enough to cause them to alter
their overriding goal of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Invoking the precautionary principle,
they essentially say that the potential climatic outcomes they foresee are so catastrophic that we cannot
afford to gamble upon them being wrong, evoking the old adage that it is better to be safe than sorry,
even if the cost is staggering. If this were all there were to the story, we all would agree with them.
But it is not, for they ignore an even more ominous catastrophe that is rushing towards us like an out-
of-control freight train that is only years away from occurring. And preventing this ominous future
involves letting the airs CO2 content continue its historical upward course, until the age of fossil fuels
gradually peaks and then naturally, in the course of unforced innovation, declines, as other sources of
energy gradually become more efficient and less expensive, and without the forced intervention of
government.
A2: CC Causes War
Climate change wont cause conflict their claims are highly speculative, driven by
political agendas, and are influenced by many alt causes.
Barnett 3 (Jon, School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Melbourne, Security and Climate Change, Global Environmental Change 13 (2003) 717,
ScienceDirect)//rh
It is necessary to be cautious about the links between climate change and conict. Much of the
analogous literature on environmental conflicts is more theoretically than empirically driven, and
motivated by Northern theoretical and strategic interests rather than informed by solid empirical
research (Barnett. 2000. Glcditsch. l99). This in part reflects the long-standing difficulties in finding
meaningful evidence of the determinants of violent conflict and war at international and subnational
levels. the basis of existing environment-conflict research there is simply insufficient evidence and too
much uncertainty to make anything other than highly speculative claims about the effect of climate
change on violent conflict, a point that both policy makers and climate scientists should not lose sight
of. Ultimately, as Baechlcr argue, there is a need for more elaborate case studies which are linked
with other studies of conflict that deal with interacting crucial issues such as poverty. ethnicity and
state (1999b, p. l0). Only then can assessments of utility for policy be delivered. Three criteria can be
used to frame and scale such a research programme: political scale (between or below states): the
nature of governance: and the nature of environmental (as opposed to resource) changes affected by
climate change. These will now be discussed in turn. 4.1 Political Scale Despite the ambiguity of past
environment-conict research, there is common agreement that there are links (if vague) between
environmental change and violent conflict. However, it has not been shown that environmental factors
are the only or even important factors leading conflict (Homer-Dixon and Butt. 998; Buech 1er. 1999c).
Other factors such as poverty and inequities between groups, the availabiliy of weapons, ethnic
tensions, external indebtedness, institutional resilience, state legitimacy and its capacity and
willingness to intervene seem to matter as much if not more than environmental change per se (see
Baechier. 1999b). Importantly, it has been comprehensively demonstrated that environmental factors
do not, and nor are they likely to trigger open conflict between nation-states (Baechlcr, 1999a; Homer-
Dixon and Percival. 1996; Wolf. 999). So, except in the case of a low probability/ high impact event such
as widespread loss of land as a result of melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (causing sea-level to risc
by some 46m), climate change impacts are unlikely to be a factor in violent conflicts between states
(van Ireland et al.. 1996 are in agreement). This applies equally to climate change mitigation where it
seems extremely unlikely that violence will erupt between states over disagreements about
greenhouse gas emission reductions, although changes in the political economy of energy resources
may change the nature of competition between states. Conflicts in which environmental change
appears to be a contributing factor tend to be within rather than between states, and it is at this sub-
state level that a climate change-conflict research agenda would most proftably focus.
Warming does not cause war or economic decline the IPCC underestimates adaptive
capacity.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)
The IPCC systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater
wealth and technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be
estimated. Even accepting the IPCCs and Stern Reviews worst-case scenarios, and assuming a
compounded annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per
capita in developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level
in 2200. Thus, even developing countries future ability to cope with climate change would be much
better than that of the U.S. today. greenhouse
gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found even the best biofuels have the
potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity (Delucchi, 2010). Biofuel production
consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops and wildlife for land, and
is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worlds demand for fuels. The notion that
global warming might cause war and social unrest is not only wrong, but even backwards that is,
global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the past, whereas global warming has coincided
with periods of peace, prosperity, and social stability

AT: Biodiversity
Scientific study says climate change solves ecosystem biodiversity
Bastasch 5/15 (Michael Bastasch, Global Warming Is Increasing Biodiversity Around The World 1:00
PM 05/15/2014 Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/15/global-warming-is-increasing-
biodiversity-around-the-world/#ixzz37jn1MRk6)
A new study published in the journal Science has astounded biologists: global warming is not harming
biodiversity, but instead is increasing the range and diversity of species in various ecosystems. Environmentalists have long warned that
global warming could lead to mass extinctions as fragile ecosystems around the world are made unlivable as temperatures increase. But a
team of biologists from the United States, United Kingdom and Japan found that global warming has
not led to a decrease in biodiversity. Instead, biodiversity has increased in many areas on land and in the
ocean. Although the rate of species extinction has increased markedly as a result of human activity across the biosphere, conservation
has focused on endangered species rather than on shifts in assemblages, reads the editors abstract
of the report. The study says species turnover was above expected but do not find evidence of
systematic biodiversity loss. The editors abstract adds that the result could be caused by
homogenization of species assemblages by invasive species, shifting distributions induced by climate
change, and asynchronous change across the planet. Researchers reviewed 100 long-term species monitoring studies from around the
world and found increasing biodiversity in 59 out of 100 studies and decreasing biodiversity in 41 studies.
The rate of change in biodiversity was modest in all of the studies, biologists said. But one thing in particular that shocked the studys authors
was that there were major shifts in the types of species living in ecosystems. About 80 percent of the ecosystems
analyzed showed species changes of an average of 10 percent per decade much greater than anyone has previously
predicted. This, however, doesnt mean that individual species arent being harmed by changing
climates. The study noted that, for example, coral reefs in many areas of the world are being replaced by a type of algae. In the oceans we
no longer have many anchovies, but we seem to have an awful lot of jellyfish, Nick Gotelli, a biologist at the University of Vermont and one of
the studys authors, told RedOrbit.com. Those kinds of changes are not going to be seen by just counting the number of species that are
present. We move species around, Gotelli added. There is a huge ant diversity in Florida, and about 30 percent of the ant species are non-
natives. They have been accidentally introduced, mostly from the Old World tropics, and they are now a part of the local assemblage. So you
can have increased diversity in local communities because of global homogenization. The study comes with
huge implications for current species preservation strategies, as most operate under the assumption that biodiversity will decrease in a
warming world. But if biodiversity is increasing, then conservationists may need a new way to monitor the effects of global warming on
ecosystems.
AT: Oceans/Ecosystems
CO2 benefits plants ocean and ecosystem collapse is hype.
Delingpole 4/4 (by JAMES DELINGPOLE 4 Apr 2014, WORLD DOING JUST FINE; GLOBAL WARMING IS
GOOD; CO2 IS OUR FRIEND' SAY SCIENTISTS, http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-
London/2014/04/04/World-doing-just-fine-Global-Warming-is-Good-CO2-is-our-friend-say-Scientists)
The latest verdict is in on 'climate change' - and the news is good. The planet is greening, the oceans are
blooming, food production is up, animals are thriving and humans are doing better than ever: and all
thanks to CO2 and global warming. So say the authors of the latest Climate Change Reconsidered report
by the NIPCC - that's the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, an independent
research body funded by the Heartland Institute. The scientific team, led by atmospheric physicist Fred
Singer, geographer and agronomist Craig Idso, research physicist Sherwood B. Idso and marine geologist
Bob Carter, has assessed the peer-reviewed evidence and reached a conclusion somewhat different
from the scaremongering narrative which has been promoted in the last week by the IPCC and its amen
corner in the mainstream media: reports of the planet's imminent demise have been somewhat
exaggerated; in fact we're doing just fine. Here are their latest report's key findings. Biological Impacts
Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant and is greening the planet. Far from damaging food production it is
helping to increase it, as are rising temperatures. Ecosystems are thriving and rising CO2 levels and
temperatures pose no significant threat to aquatic life. Global warming will have a negligible effect on
human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases but will, on balance, be beneficial because cold is
a deadlier threat to the human species than warmth. CO2, Plants And Soil Numerous studies show that
CO2 is good for plants, increasing their growth-rate, reducing their reliance on water and making them
less vulnerable to stress. Increased CO2 has resulted in reduced topsoil erosion, has encouraged
beneficial bacteria, and improved aerial fertilization - creating more plantlife which will help sequester
the carbon apparently of so much concern to environmentalists. Plant Characteristics Rising CO2 will
improve plant growth, development and yield. It enables plants to produce more - and larger - flowers,
thus increasing productivity. It also helps plants grow more disease-resistant. Earth's Vegetative Future
Rising CO2 has led to a greening of the planet. Agricultural production has increased dramatically across
the globe in the last three decades, partly because of new technologies but partly also because of the
beneficial warmth and increased CO2. Terrestrial Animals There is little if any evidence to support the
IPCC's predictions of species extinction which are based mainly on computer models rather than hard
data. Amphibian populations will suffer little, if any, harm. Bird populations may have been affected by
habitat loss - but not by "climate change" to which they are more than capable of adapting. Polar bears
have survived periods climatic change considerably more extreme than the ones currently being
experienced. Butterflies, insects, reptiles and mammals tend on balance to proliferate rather than be
harmed by "climate change." Aquatic Life Multiple studies from multiple oceanic regions confirm that
productivity - from phytoplankton and microalgae to corals, crustaceans and fish - tends to increase with
temperature. Some experts predict coral calcification will increase by about 35 per cent beyond pre-
industrial levels by 2100, with no extinction of coral reefs. Laboratory studies predicting lower PH levels
- "ocean acidification" - fail to capture the complexities of the real world and often contradict
observations in nature. Human Health Warmer temperatures result in fewer deaths associated with
cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and strokes. In the US a person who dies of cold loses on
average in excess of ten years of life, whereas someone who dies from heat loses likely no more than a
few days or weeks of life. Between 3 and 7 per cent of the gains in longevity in the US in the last three
decades are the result of people moving to warmer states. There is a large body of evidence to suggest
that the spread of malaria will NOT increase as a result of global warming. Rising CO2 is increasing the
nutritional value of food with consequent health benefits for humans. The report concludes: The impact
of rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first
centuries has not been anything like what IPCC would have us believe and its forecasts differ wildly
from those sound science would suggest. Either IPCC's authors purposely ignore this research because
it runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped at
any cost or they are inept and have failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the
pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers and the
general public. Because the stakes are high this is a grave disservice.
AT: Oceans/Reefs
No coral reefs or acidification impact warming triggers adaptive responses and Co2
isnt responsible.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)
While some corals exhibit a propensity to bleach and die when sea temperatures rise, others exhibit
a positive relationship between calcification, or growth, and temperature. Such variable bleaching
susceptibility implies that there is a considerable variation in the extent to which coral species are
adapted to local environmental conditions (Maynard et al., 2008). research suggests
corals have effective adaptive responses to climate change, such as symbiont shuffling, that allow
reefs in some areas to flourish despite or even because of rising temperatures. Coral reefs have
been able to recover quickly from bleaching events as well as damage from cyclones. Bleaching
and other signs of coral distress attributed to global warming are often due to other things,
including rising levels of nutrients and toxins in coastal waters caused by runoff from agricultural
activities on land and associated increases in sediment delivery. The IPCC expresses concern that
rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are lowering the pH values of oceans and seas, a process
called acidification, and that this could harm aquatic life. But the drop in pH values that could be
attributed to CO2 is tiny compared to natural variations occurring in some ocean basins as a result
of seasonal variability, and even day-to-day variations in many areas. Recent estimates also cut in
half the projected pH reduction of ocean waters by the year 2100 (Tans, 2009). Real-world data
contradict predictions about the negative effects of rising temperatures, rising CO2 concentrations,
and falling pH on aquatic life. Studies of algae, jellyfish, echinoids, abalone, sea urchins, and coral
all find no harmful effects attributable to CO2 or acidification.
Increase in CO2 cannot increase ocean acidification
SPPI & Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 10 (A New Propaganda
Film by Natl. Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data Written by SPPI & Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Tuesday, 05 January 2010 14:00)
Why cant rising atmospheric CO2 acidify the oceans? First, because it has not done so before. During
the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is
today: yet that is when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. During the Jurassic era, 175
million years ago, there was again 20 times as much CO2 as there is today: yet that is when the delicate
aragonite corals first came into being. Secondly, ocean acidification, as a notion, suffers from the same
problem of scale as global warming. ust as the doubling of CO2 concentration expected this century
will scarcely change global mean surface temperature because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere
in the first place, so it will scarcely change the acid-base balance of the ocean, because there is already
70 times as much CO2 in solution in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Even if all of the
additional CO2 we emit were to end up not in the atmosphere (where it might in theory cause a 4 very
little warming) but in the ocean (where it would cause none), the quantity of CO2 in the oceans would
rise by little more than 1%, a trivial and entirely harmless change. Thirdly, to imagine that CO2 causes
ocean acidification is to ignore the elementary chemistry of bicarbonate ions. Quantitatively, CO2 is
only the seventh-largest of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base
balance, so that in any event its effect on that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2
is different from all the other substances in that it acts as the buffering mechanism for all of them, so
that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the oceans at all. Fourthly, as Professor Ian Plimer
points out in his excellent book Heaven and Earth (Quartet, London, 2009), the oceans slosh around
over vast acreages of rock, and rocks are pronouncedly alkaline. Seen in a geological perspective,
therefore, acidification of the oceans is impossible. For these and many other powerful scientific
reasons, compellingly explained in great detail in Craig Idsos masterly review of the scientific literature
in this field, the acid-base balance of the oceans will remain in the future much as it has been in the past
and, even if it were to change by the maximum quantity imagined by the most lurid of the scientists who
have tried to foster this particular scare, the sea creatures that it is supposed to damage would either be
unaffected by it or thrive on it.
Empirics disprove corals have faced much worse.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)
The Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) disagreed with the IPCC in 2009, presenting
a review of the extensive literature on coral reefs showing, inter alia, that there was no simple linkage
between high temperatures and coral bleaching, that coral reefs have persisted through geologic
time when temperatures were as much as 10 15C warmer than at present and when CO2
concentrations were two to seven times higher than they are currently, and that coral readily
adapts to rising sea levels (Idso and Singer, 2009).
Adaptation
Adaptation Solves Impacts
Adaptation is inevitable- only preemptively adapting to the effects of warming solves.
Oreskes et al 10 Naomi Oreskes American historian of science. She became Professor of the
History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University), David
A. Stainforth (Senior Research Fellow, Grantham Research Institute on. Climate Change and the
Environment and Centre for the Analysis) Leonard A. Smith (Department of Statistics, Research
Professor Centre for the Analysis of Time Series) (Adaptation to Global Warming: Do Climate Models
Tell Us What We Need to Know?, Chicago Journals, December 2010, Available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/CATS/Publications/Publications%20PDFs/80_AdaptationtoGlobalWarming_2010.p
df, Accessed on: 7/18/2014, IJ
Scientic experts have conrmed that anthropogenic warming is underway, and some degree of
adaptation is now unavoidable. However, the details of impacts on the scale of climate change at
which humans would have to prepare for and adjust to them are still the subject of considerable
research, inquiry, and debate. Planning for adaptation requires information on the scale over which
human organizations and institutions have authority and capacity, yet the general circulation models
lack forecasting skill at these scales, and attempts to downscale climate models are still in the early
stages of development. Because we do not know what adaptations will be required, we cannot say
whether they will be harder or easiermore expensive or lessthan emissions control. Whatever
improvements in regional predictive capacity may come about in the future, the lack of current
predictive capacity on the relevant scale is a strong argument for why we must both control greenhouse
gas emissions and prepare to adapt. Could we say that adaptation is more realistic than mitigation
even if we could accurately predict the direction, if not the magnitude, of future change? That is to
say, if we knew for sure that future summer conditions in California would be drier overall, could we
then assert that adaptation would be cheaper and easier than mitigation? The answer here is also no
because adaptation strategies will not necessarily always be available, even if we know what we need to
do. Some agricultural crops, such as almonds and apricots, are not easily moved. Even if farmers could
move their trees in response to temperature changes, other constraints, such as sunlight, soil type,
timing of pollinators, and weather variability, will restrict adaptation options, as will the existence of
national boundaries. Farmers in Washington state will not necessarily be able to move to British
Columbia, and it appears unlikely that Mexican farmers will be given free reign in California. Some might
claim that, given sufcient funds, agriculturalists may be able to adapt to almost anything. Soils can be
modied, plants can be moved into greenhouses, and articial sunlight might even be employed in
warm, dark, northern climates. This is true, but it undermines the presumption that adaptation will
necessarily be cheap A critic might argue that our argument here presupposes that adaptation need be
preemptive and that often people (and perhaps other species) can respond to events after they have
occurred. (After all, organisms that have shifted their range in the past did so, presumably, without
having predicted the need.) For those who survive these events, at least, this is true, but as recent
events in New Orleans have demonstrated, post hoc responses can be costly in terms of dollars,
livelihoods, and lives. Tens of billions of dollars in damages from hurricanes might have been averted
by hundreds of millions of dollars spent on levees, sea walls, and evacuation plans.11 Adaptation to
current conditions is sensible, and the costs of adaptation to local conditions 100 years from now can
only be deemed small if one claims to know the local conditions to be faced 100 years from now.
Moreover, most of the proposed adaptive responses to climate change do imply anticipating events
and preparing appropriate responses. Under circumstances of high uncertainty, a rational decision
maker might wish to prepare for a range of plausible outcomes, and the cost of rational adaptation will
increase in such cases as the range of plausible outcomes increases. In southern California, for example,
there have been discussions of the need to prepare for future droughts through the capture,
purication, and reuse of domestic wastewater. Such systems cost billions of dollars and are highly
unpopular politicallyhence, the moniker toilet to tapbut they would almost surely be warranted if
we knew that future conditions would be consistently drier. However, wetter conditions, or a winter
shift from snowfall to rainfall, could mean greater risk of oods and mud slides, perhaps warranting
investment in reservoirs, ood control, and slope stabilization. Is it realistic to expect civic leaders to
extract sufcient funds to build desalination plants beside larger reservoirs?
Warming is inevitable means adaptation is the only way to solve.
Trisolini 14 Katherine Trisolini, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. J.D.
Stanford Law School; M.A. Political Science, University of California at Berkeley; B.A. Oberlin College,
(HOLISTIC CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNANCE: TOWARDS MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION SYNTHESIS,
University of Colorado Law Review, July 18, 2014, Available at:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?, Accessed on: 7/18/2014, IJ)
Unfortunately, the need for climate change adaptation can no longer be ignored. While scientists
admonish us that GHG [*618] production trajectories must be cut deeply and quickly to avoid the worst
impacts,
n2
past emissions already have committed the planet to at least some further warming.
n3

Consequently, even under the best emissions scenarios, this century will see more frequent and severe
storms, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and fires.
n4
Sea level is anticipated to rise, possibly abruptly,
although projections vary dramatically.
n5
Researchers expect that these changes will exacerbate
security risks, alter food production, shift disease vectors, and prompt human migrations, among other
phenomena.
n6
In light of these impending changes, this Article argues that effective climate change
governance requires fundamentally rethinking physical and regulatory infrastructure that was
designed for historically more stable climatic conditions. The legal system should direct investment
toward adaptive and adaptable infrastructure that reduces human risks, decreases reliance on
complex networks, and curbs (or at least does not exacerbate) the degree of scientific uncertainty that
legislators and administrative agencies will face while regulating in an unfamiliar and evolving physical
environment. Part of this rethinking process asks whether legal mechanisms designed to mitigate
climate change by incentivizing GHG emissions reductions will aid or hinder adaptation. The most
effective policy will synthesize both efforts, favoring coordinated over unilateral approaches to either
issue. Initially, legal scholarship on climate change focused heavily on mitigation.
n7
Although not a
subject of analysis until [*619] recently, and by some accounts a formerly "taboo" topic, scholars have
begun turning attention to strategies for adapting to a changed climate. While mitigation aims to limit
the extent of global warming (for example, by reducing fossil fuel combustion or sequestering carbon
dioxide), adaptation reduces harm to humans, animals, and ecosystems from the warming that does
occur. Adaptation measures could include, for example, shifting populations away from coastal areas
that are vulnerable to rising seas. The increasing attention to adaptation likely stems from recognition
that some degree of warming and ecosystem change is now inevitable ; hence mitigation can limit,
but not eliminate, adverse impacts. Analyses of mitigation and adaptation in the United States have
largely occurred on parallel tracks.
n10
Scholars have extensively debated the best design of mitigation
regimes - focusing predominantly on proposals to incentivize GHG emissions reductions through market
mechanisms such as cap-and-trade.
n11
With the recent entry of adaptation into legal scholarship,
academics have asked how to promote ecosystem resilience and reduce harm to human
populations. n12They have also evaluated how environmental and natural resources law should
change to give agencies new decision-making tools and increased flexibility.
n13
However, with few
exceptions, scholars have not yet considered the intersection of these two issues. Up to now, federal
policymakers have similarly analyzed [*620] mitigation and adaptation separately. Given that changing

Adaptation is necessary - adapting is more effective than mitigation and works better
with public policy
Economist 10 The Economist, (Adapting to climate change: Facing the consequences, The
Economist, Nov 25
th
, 2010, Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/17572735, Accessed On:
7/17/2014, IJ)
Many of these adaptations are the sorts of thingmoving house, improving water supply, sowing
different seedsthat people will do for themselves, given a chance. This is one reason why adaptation
has not been the subject of public debate in the same way as reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions
from industry and deforestation have. But even if a lot of adaptation will end up being done privately,
it is also a suitable issue for public policy. For a start, some forms of adaptationflood barriers, for
instanceare clearly public goods, best supplied through collective action. Adaptation will require
redistribution, too. Some people and communities are too poor to adapt on their own; and if emissions
caused by the consumption of the rich imposes adaptation costs on the poor, justice demands
recompense. Furthermore, policymakers' neat division of the topic of climate change into mitigation,
impact and adaptation is too simplistic. Some means of adaptation can also act as mitigation; a
farming technique which helps soil store moisture better may well help it store carbon too. Some
forms of adaptation will be hard to distinguish from the sort of impact you would rather avoid. Mass
migration is a good way of adapting if the alternative is sitting still and starving; to people who live
where the migrants turn up it may look awfully like an unwelcome impact. Its frequently private and
slightly blurry nature is not the only reason why adaptation has been marginalised. The green pressure
groups and politicians who have driven the debate on climate change have often been loth to see
attention paid to adaptation, on the ground that the more people thought about it, the less motivated
they would be to push ahead with emissions reduction. Talking about adaptation was for many years
like farting at the dinner table, says an academic who has worked on adaptation over the past decade.
Now that the world's appetite for emissions reduction has been revealed to be chronically weak,
putting people off dinner is less of a problem. Another reason for taking adaptation seriously is that it
is necessary now. Events such as this year's devastating floods in Pakistan make it obvious that the
world has not adapted to the climate it already has, be it man-made or natural. Even if the climate were
not changing, there would be two reasons to worry about its capacity to do more harm than before. One
is that it varies a lot naturally and the period over which there are good global climate records is short
compared with the timescale on which some of that variability plays out. People thus may be ignoring
the worst that today's climate can do, let alone tomorrow's. The other is that more lives, livelihoods and
property are at risk, even if hazards do not change, as a result of economic development, population
growth and migration to coasts and floodplains.

Adaptation solves- new IPCC report proves it is the better solution
Rodgers 14 Paul Rodgers, scientific journalist for Forbes magazine (Climate Change: We can Adapt,
Says IPCC, Forbes, March 31, 2014, Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/03/31/climate-change-is-real-but-its-not-the-end-of-
the-world-says-ipcc/, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)
Yet for the first time, the IPCC is offering a glimmer of hope. It acknowledges that some of the changes
will be beneficial including higher crop yields in places like Canada, Europe and Central Asia and
that in others cases, people will be able to adapt to them. The really big breakthrough in this report is
the new idea of thinking about managing climate change, said Dr Chris Field, the global ecology director
at the Carnegie Institution in Washington and a co-chairman of the report. We have a lot of the tools
for dealing effectively with it. We just need to be smart about it. Climate-change adaptation is not an
exotic agenda that has never been tried, said Field. Governments, firms, and communities around
the world are building experience with adaptation. This experience forms a starting point for bolder,
more ambitious adaptations that will be important as climate and society continue to
change.Adaptations could include better flood defences or building houses that can withstand
tropical cyclones. Vicente Barros, another co-chairman, said: Investments in better preparation can
pay dividends both for the present and for the future.Despite the shift, one scientist, Professor
Richard Tol, an economist at Sussex University, withdrew his name from the report claiming that it was
still too alarmist.

Solving thorough adaptation is the most cost-effective option.
Population Council 04 Population council-conducts research and delivers solutions to improve
lives around the world.(Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, Population and Development
Review, Sep 3, 2004, Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3401431, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)
Although our understanding of the causes and consequences of relatively abrupt changes in climate is
imperfect, it makes sense to develop practical strategies could be used to reduce economic and eco-
logical systems' vulnerabilities to change. In that spirit, it is worth investigating "no-regrets" policies
that provide benefits whether an abrupt climate change ultimately occurs or not. By moving scientific
and public-policy research in directions that enhance system adaptability, it might be possible to
reduce vulnerability at little or no net cost. For example, the phaseout of chloro- fluorocarbons over
the past two decades, and their replacement with relatively benign gases having shorter atmospheric
residence times, reduced nations' contributions to global warming while also diminishing the risks posed
by ozone depletion. No-regrets measures in anticipation of abrupt climate change could include low-
cost steps to: slow climate change; improve climate forecasting; slow biodiversity loss; improve water,
land, and air quality; render institutions more robust to major disruptions; and adopt technological
innovations that increase the resiliency of market and ecological systems. The potential value of such
measures is not restricted to the United States. With growing globalization, adverse social and eco-
nomic impacts are now more likely than ever to spill across national boundaries. It is especially
important that the needs of poorer countries, which could be highly vulnerable to the effects of abrupt
climate change, be given sufficient attention and support.

Only adaptation avoids catastrophic damage- large amounts of adaptation solve.
Parry et al 9 Martin Parry (Co-chair of the IPCC's 2007 Working Group II assessment and is now at
the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College
London) Jason Lowe (head of mitigation advice at the Met Office)& Clair Hanson (Deputy director of the
2007 IPCC Working Group II technical support unit and is at the University of East Anglia) (Overshoot,
adapt and recover, Nature, April 30, 2009, Available at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/4581102a.html, Accessed on: 7/17/2014, IJ)
The damage from these levels of warming could be substantial, placing billions more people at risk of
water shortage and millions more at risk of coastal flooding. To avoid such damage will require massive
investment in adaptation, such as improving water supply and storage, and protecting low-lying
settlements from rising seas. But how much adaptation should we plan for? It will be very expensive to
protect against warming at the upper end of the uncertainty range. We therefore will need to make a
judgement about what damage is worth avoiding completely and what we will have to bear. Looking
at the median projected warming for different peak emissions dates, with ranges of uncertainty of
climate response (shown by horizontal bars in Fig. 2), one can predict that damages to the right of the
median should probably be avoided by mitigation, while those to the left would probably need to be
borne or be adapted to. If we make some simple assumptions about the amount of risk we wish to
cover, we can identify how much we need to adapt. For example, we might assume that small amounts
of adaptation would cover at least 10% of the risk of harm; moderate amounts might cover half; and
much larger amounts could cover 90%. The timing and stringency of emissions reduction will also
influence the scale of potential damage, which would affect how much adaptation is needed: slower and
lower reductions would lead to larger effects. Thus, if we wished to adapt to 90% of the risk implied by
delaying mitigative action until 2035, we should be planning to adapt to at least 4 C of warming. Given
the severity of the mitigation challenge that we have described, this seems at present to be a wise
precaution
Negative Feedback Loops
Arctic Melting Solves Warming
No sea ice melt, Antarctic melt refreezes and is exacerbated by wind currents
negative feedback loop
Gardner 13 (Scientists solve the mystery of why global warming and melting has INCREASED ice
around Antarctica Melted ice re-freezes faster than sea water in winter-study Antarctica's expanding ice
at odds with melting Arctic By DAVID GARDNER PUBLISHED: 11:22 EST, 1 April 2013 | UPDATED: 01:32
EST, 2 April 2013 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2302401/Global-warming-
INCREASED-ice-Antarctica.html#ixzz37pRwiq9x)
Climate change experts have been trying for years to explain why the sea ice in Antarctica is expanding.
Now scientists claim to have found the answer global warming. They believe the paradoxical shift is
caused by water melting from beneath the Antarctic ice shelves and re-freezing back on the surface. The
frozen sea around the South Pole has been steadily growing, reaching a record extent in the winter of
2010, while the Arctic ice at the north of the planet shrank to a record low last year. Now a team from
the respected Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute says that the fresh water melting from the
Antarctic ice sheets has a relatively low density compared to the denser salty seawater, so it
accumulates in the top layer of the ocean during the summer months. The surface waters re-freeze
during autumn and winter to spread across a greater area. The Dutch study, published yesterday in the
journal Nature Geoscience, says: Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing despite the warming global
climate. This is caused by melting of the ice sheets from below. This powerful negative feedback
counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. The researchers predict the phenomenon
will continue. The Earths poles have very different geography. Surrounded by North America, Greenland
and Eurasia, the Arctic ice cap floats on the ocean, not land. It has lost a large amount of its older,
thicker sea ice over the last 30 years, making it more vulnerable to the warming trend. The Antarctic,
however, is a continent circled by open waters that lets sea ice expand during the winter but also offers
less shelter during the melt season. The Dutch report notes that despite the increase in surface ice
expansion each winter, the total mass of ice around Antarctica is continuing to shrink because of the
underwater ice melt. The study is not the first to put forward a reason for the Antarctica effect.
However, there is some scepticism about the findings. Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey stuck
to his findings in a report last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing a layer of
meltwater further out to sea and adding to winter ice. The possibility remains that the real increase is
the sum of wind-driven and meltwater-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with
the meltwater effect being the smaller of the two, he said.

Arctic ice melting acts as a natural counter to carbon dioxide levels by exposing new
waters that function as carbon sinks.
Peck et al. 09 (Negative feedback in the cold: ice retreat produces new carbon sinks in Antarctica- Global Change Biology, L.S. Peck -
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, 29 August 2009, pdf, G.V.)
Feedbacks on climate change so far identified are predominantly positive, enhancing the rate of change. Loss of sea-ice, increase in desert areas, water vapour
increase, loss of tropical rain forest and the restriction of significant areas of marine productivity to higher latitude (thus smaller geographical zones) all lead to an
enhancement of the rate of change. The other major feedback identified, changes in cloud radiation, will produce either a positive feedback, if high level clouds are
produced, or a negative feedback if low level clouds are produced. Few significant negative feedbacks have been identified, let alone quantified. Here, we show that
the loss of ice shelves and retreat of coastal glaciers around the Antarctic Peninsula in the last 50 years has
exposed at least 2.4 104 km2 of new open water. We estimate that these new areas of open water have
allowed new phytoplankton blooms containing a total standing stock of 5.0 105 tonnes of carbon
to be produced. New marine zooplankton and seabed communities have also been produced, which we estimate contain 4.1 105 tonnes of carbon.
This previously unquantified carbon sink acts as a negative feedback to climate change. New annual productivity, as opposed
to standing stock, amounts to 3.5 106 tonnes yr1 of carbon, of which 6.9 105 tonnes yr1 deposits to the seabed. By comparison the total aboveground
biomasses of lowland American tropical rainforest is 160435 tonnes ha1. Around 50% of this is carbon. On this basis the carbon held in new biomass described
here is roughly equivalent to 600017 000 ha of tropical rainforest. As ice loss increases in polar regions this feedback will
become stronger, and eventually, over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, over 50 Mtonnes of new carbon could be fixed annually in new
coastal phytoplankton blooms and over 10 Mtonnes yr1 locked in biological standing stock around Antarctica.

SO2 Screw
1NC
SO2 mitigates warming in the status quo aff cuts off fossil fuels which also reverses
SO2 emissions leads to runaway warming and turns the aff
-assumes your claims about overstated effects because SO2 accumulates at a rapid rate multiple
conclusive sources
Biello 11 (David, Associate Environmental and Energy Editor at Scientific American, Stratospheric
Pollution Helps Slow Global Warming, Scientific American, July 22, 2011,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stratospheric-pollution-helps-slow-global-warming/)//rh
Despite significant pyrotechnics and air travel disruption last year, the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull
simply didn't put that many aerosols into the stratosphere. In contrast, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo
in 1991, put 10 cubic kilometers of ash, gas and other materials into the sky, and cooled the planet for a
year. Now, research suggests that for the past decade, such stratospheric aerosolsinjected into the
atmosphere by either recent volcanic eruptions or human activities such as coal burningare slowing
down global warming . "Aerosols acted to keep warming from being as big as it would have been,"
says atmospheric scientist John Daniel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory, who helped lead the research published online in Science
on July 21. "It's still warming, it's just not warming as much as it would have been." Essentially, sulfur
dioxide gets emitted near the surface, either by a coal-fired power plant's smokestack or a volcano. If
that SO2 makes it to the stratospherethe middle layer of the atmosphere 10 kilometers upit forms
droplets of diluted sulfuric acid, known as aerosols. These aerosols reflect sunlight away from the
planet, shading the surface and cooling temperatures. And some can persist for a few years,
prolonging that cooling. By analyzing satellite data and other measures, Daniel and his colleagues found
that such aerosols have been on the rise in Earth's atmosphere in the past decade, nearly doubling in
concentration. That concentration has reflected roughly 0.1 watts per meter squared of sunlight
away from the planet, enough to offset roughly one-third of the 0.28 watts per meter squared of extra
heat trapped by rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The
researchers calculate that the aerosols prevented 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming in average
temperatures since 2000. The question is: why the increase in such aerosols? There have been plenty of
smaller volcanic eruptions in recent years, such as the continuously erupting Soufriere Hills on
Montserrat and Tavurvur on Papua New Guinea, which may have exploded enough SO2 into the
atmosphere. And there has been plenty of coal burning in countries such as China, which now burns
some 3 billion metric tons of the fuel rock per year, largely without the pollution controls that would
scrub out the SO2, as is sometimes done in the U.S. In fact, a computer model study published July 5 in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that such SO2 pollution in China has
cancelled out the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations globally since 1998.
Determining whether humans or volcanoes explain more of the increase in stratospheric aerosols is the
focus of ongoing research, says PhD candidate Ryan Neely of the University of Colorado, who
contributed to the NOAA research. Combined with a decrease in atmospheric water vapor and a weaker
sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been
accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s. The effect also illustrates one proposal for so-called
geoengineeringthe deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environmentthat would
use various means to create such sulfuric acid aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and
thereby hopefully forestall catastrophic climate change. But that points up another potential problem: if
aerosol levels, whether natural or human-made, decline in the future, climate change could
accelerateand China is adding scrubbing technology to its coal-fired power plants to reduce SO2
emissions and thereby minimize acid rain. In effect, fixing acid rain could end up exacerbating global
warming . China "could cause some decreases [in stratospheric aerosols] if that is the source," Neely
says, adding that growing SO2 emissions from India could also increase cooling if humans are the
dominant cause of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. On the other hand, "if some volcanoes that
are large enough go off and if they are the dominant cause [of increasing aerosols], then we will
probably see some increases" in cooling.
SO2 Mitigates Warming
SO2 aerosols combat climate change
Watts 8 (Anthony, meteorologist, president of IntelliWeather Inc, Thanks to Nature, a Large
Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide Experiment is Now Underway in the Pacific, Watts Up With That?, August
18, 2008, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/18/large-atmospheric-sulfur-dioxide-experiment-now-
underway-in-the-pacific/)//rh
Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change? The question arose from research from research at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco, by Lowell Wood, a protg of the brilliant and controversial hydrogen bomb
inventor Edward Teller. The idea was simple: Inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect a portion of the
suns rays back into space, thus cooling the planet. It also seemed to be within the realm of possibility
to some. Here is how it works: Graphic and text below adapted from Wired magazine article 1. Make sulfur dioxide A million tons of sulfur
dioxide would be needed to begin the cooling process. Luckily SO2, a byproduct of coal-burning power plants, is a
common industrial chemical. 2. Inject it into the stratosphere Load the sulfur dioxide into aircraft
converted 747s, military fighters, or even large balloons and carry it up to the stratosphere. This
will cost about $1 billion a year. 3. Wait for the chemical reaction In a series of reactions, sulfur dioxide combines with
other molecules in the atmosphere, ultimately forming sulfuric acid. This H2SO4 binds to water to
form aerosol droplets that absorb and reflect back into space 1 to 3 percent of the suns rays. (The particles also
contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, but scientists are researching alternate chemicals.) 4. Let the planet cool Results
will be quick, especially over the Arctic. And just a few days ago, over a million tons of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) was in fact injected into the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean, here is a satellite sounder derived image of
the cloud that has been released: Source: AVO The Terra/MODIS satellite snapped a nice image of the release, notice the obvious brown trail as
the plume becomes airborne over the Pacific ocean: Source: NASA Here is a photo of where the experiment took place: The Kasatochi volcano
as seen from space, and location map below: Thanks to a posting on another wordpress blog called eruptions we have this insight from Dr.
Simon Carn from the University of Maryland in Baltimore: The August 7-8 eruption of Kasatochi volcano (Aleutian
Islands)produced a very large stratospheric SO2 cloud possibly the largest since the August 1991 eruption of Hudson
(Chile). Preliminary SO2 mass calculations using Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) data suggest a total SO2 burden of ~1.5 Tg. This figure will
be revised in the coming weeks but is more likely to go up than down. The SO2 cloud has drifted over a large area of North
America and is now (August 14) reaching Europe. With the released SO2 at ~ 1.5 Tg (Teragrams, a unit of mass approximately equal to one
megaton) this is actually 50% more than mass in the experiment proposed by Wood and Teller. For those wishing to follow the plume, NOAA
offers a website that tracks SO2 in the atmosphere here. You can also keep tabs on the eruption and plume at the Alaska Volcano Observatory.
With this eruption coming on the heels of a short term global cooling trend that weve seen in the last 18 months, it will be interesting to see if
this real-world experiment being performed by nature will add to the trend weve already seen. Click for a larger image Reference: UAH lower
troposphere data This type of experiment has already been seen before in recent times, as the Wired article mentions: Pinatubos eruption
didnt just unleash huge mud slides and lava flows; it also fired an ash stream 22 miles into the air, injecting 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into
the stratosphere. Over the following months, a massive haze gradually dispersed across the globe. Meanwhile, the
sulfur dioxide component underwent chemical reactions to form a particulate known as sulfate
aerosol (in essence, droplets of water and sulfuric acid), which absorbs sunlight and reflects some of it back into
space. The climatic effect of this volcanic eruption was rapid, dramatic, and planetary in scale. In a
year, the global average temperature declined by half a degree Celsius, and researchers observed
less summer melt atop the Greenland ice sheet.
New NOAA study shows stratospheric SO2 is counteracting rising CO2 levels
PhysOrg 11(News and Articles on Science and Technology, NOAA study suggests aerosols might be
inhibiting global warming, July 22, 2011)//rh
(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study led by the U.S, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) shows that tiny particles that make their way all the way up into the stratosphere may be
offsetting a global rise in temperatures due to carbon emissions. And while scientists cannot yet say
with any certainty where exactly the particles are coming from, they are saying that they have
confidence that such particles have likely muted global temperature gains by as much as a third of
what they would have been. They team, led by John Daniel, a physicist at the NOAA Earth System
Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, CO, has published their results in Science. "NOAA study suggests
aerosols might be inhibiting global warming." Phys.org. 22 Jul 2011. http://phys.org/news/2011-07-
noaa-aerosols-inhibiting-global.html Page 1/2 Lidar instruments - pointing up from the ground or down
from satellites - use reflected light to measure the amounts of particles and their locations, which can
influence climate. (Credit: CIRES/NOAA) The new research has focused on aerosols, the tiny solid or
liquid particles that exist in the atmosphere that can affect global temperatures, such as when Mt.
Pinatubo in the Philippines, erupted in 1991 causing a worldwide average decrease in temperature of
1 degree Celsius for more than a year. The cooling is not the result of the ash, notes co-author Susan
Soloman, but from the sulfur dioxide that is thrust all the way up into the stratosphere, where it
oxidizes and adds to the sun reflecting properties of other already existing particles. The team focused
on the most recent decade because of the relative absence of massive volcanic eruptions , giving them a
more clear environmental view of how much impact minor volcanic eruptions and human activities have
on the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere and thus global temperatures. To find out what was going
on, they used both ground based data and information from satellites such as Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and
Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (Calipso), to measure the amount of aerosols in the
atmosphere and at what altitudes. NOAA has released a statement outlining the results of the study,
and in it Daniel, says, "stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost
doubling during the decade," which forms the basis of the teams conclusions that such aerosols are
responsible for the slowdown in increased temperatures that scientist around the world have been
expecting due to greenhouse gas emissions . The surprising aspect of the study is the large amount of
aerosols found during a period when there weren't any giant volcanoes going off, which leads
researches to wonder if the aerosols are from the combined effects of multiple small eruptions, or
human activity, such as the particles emitted from coal fired power plants, particularly in Asia, where
such plants have multiplied in recent years. One thing the research is not able to tell us is what impact
aerosols will likely have in the future, because of the uncertainty of their origin, which means there is no
way to tell at this point if there will be more, or less of them, which means scientists can only guess if
the temperature muting will continue to offset global warming from current and future carbon
emissions.
Link Fossil Fuels
Cutting fossil fuel consumption also cuts sulfate aerosol emissions key to combat
warming
Miller and Koch 6 (Ron Miller and Dorothy Koch, NASA scientists, NASA GISS Atmospheric Study
Group, An Aerosol Tour de Forcing, February 8, 2006,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/)//rh
Scientists have confidence in a result to the extent that it can be derived by different investigators. Their confidence is increased if different
techniques lead to the same conclusion. Concurrence provides evidence that the conclusion does not depend upon assumptions that
occasionally are insufficiently supported. In contrast, two articles published last December on the same day arrive at very different and
incompatible estimates of the effect of human-made aerosols on the radiative budget of the planet (Bellouin et al., 2005; Chung et al., 2005).
They follow an earlier estimate published last year, (which included Dorothy as a co-author) that was in the middle (Yu et al., 2005).
Aerosols are important to climate partly because their concentration is increased by the same
industrial processes that increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases; yet aerosols
generally oppose greenhouse warming. Because aerosols cause respiratory and other health problems and acid rain, they have
been regulated more aggressively than greenhouse gases. Concentrations of some aerosols have decreased over the United States and Europe
in recent decades as a result of environmental laws, although an increase has been observed in many thrid world regions, where economic
development is a priority. In the twenty-first century, aerosol levels are anticipated to drop faster than
greenhouse gases in response to future emission reductions, which will leave greenhouse warming
unopposed and unmoderated. Each published calculation of aerosol radiative forcing was a tour de
force for integrating a wide variety of measurements ranging from absorption of radiation by
individual particles to satellite estimates of aerosol amount. The disparate results emphasize the complexity and
difficulty of the calculation. But lets start at the beginning. Aerosols are solid particles or liquid droplets that are
temporarily suspended within the atmosphere. Naturally occurring examples are sea spray or sulfate
droplets, along with soil particles (dust) eroded by the wind. During the twentieth century, natural sources of
sulfate aerosols were overwhelmed by the contribution from pollution, in particular from the burning
of fossil fuels. The number of soot particles in the atmosphere was increased by industry and the
burning of forests to clear land for agriculture. Sulfate aerosols are reflective and act to cool the
planet. Soot particles are also reflective, but can absorb sunlight and cause warming. Soot production
is greater if combustion occurs at low temperatures, as with cooking fires or inefficient power
generation. Aerosols also scatter longwave radiation, although this is significant only for larger
aerosols like soil dust, and is neglected by all three of the studies discussed here. In addition to their ability to scatter radiation and
change the net energy gain at the top of the atmosphere (the direct effect), aerosols modify the reflectance and lifetime of
clouds (the indirect radiative effects). Aerosols act as nuclei for the condensation of water vapor, resulting in
the distribution of water over a larger number of cloud droplets compared to condensation in clean
air. This increases the clouds ability to reflect sunlight, while increasing the number of droplet
collisions required to form a raindrop large enough to fall out of the cloud, effectively increasing the
cloud lifetime. Observations and models provide a weaker constraint upon the size of the indirect effects, so the studies discussed here
confine themselves to calculating only the direct radiative effect of anthropogenic aerosols. According to the latest (2001)
IPCC report, direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols cools the planet, but the forcing
magnitude is highly uncertain, with a global, annual average between -0.35 and -1.35 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The
uncertainty of the total indirect effect is even larger. Aerosols eventually fall out of the atmosphere or are washed out by rainfall. The smaller
particles having the largest radiative effect typically reside in the atmosphere for only a few days to a few weeks. This time is too short for them
to be mixed uniformly throughout the globe (unlike CO2), so there are large regional variations in aerosol radiative forcing, with the largest
effects predictably downwind of industrial centers like the east coast of North America, Europe, and East Asia. Consequently, aerosol effects
upon climate are larger in particular regions, where they are key to understanding twentieth century climate change.

Reduction of coal use cuts sulfur dioxide emissions and causes rapid warming
Chalmers 12 (N., E. J. Highwood, R. Sutton, L. J. Wilcox1, All at the Department of Meteorology,
University of Reading, Reading, U.K. August 21 2012, Aerosol contribution to the rapid warming of 2
near-term climate under RCP 2.6, Geophysical Research Letters
www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/chalmers_etal_2012_accepted.pdf)//rh
The period during which global mean surface temperature in RCP2.6 is higher than in RCP4.5,
discussed in the previous section, is directly related to a rapid increase in global mean surface
temperature in RCP2.6, between around 2010 and around 2025 (Figure 1a). In this section we investigate the causes
of this rapid warming, and relate this event to the comparison with RCP4.5. Figure 3 shows maps of the differences between the 10 year means
before and after the rapid warming. In this case a positive value indicates a larger value after the sudden warming identified in
Figure 1. [17] As expected, there is a large reduction in sulphate load, and corresponding decrease in CDNC
over most of the northern hemisphere, consistent with a change in the indirect aerosol effect. An increase
in the effective radius is also seen (not shown). This reduces the optical depth of the clouds when they are present,
meaning more downward shortwave flux is transmitted to the surface. There is also a prominent
decrease in cloud fraction over the subtropical northeastern Pacific Ocean which could be a
consequence of the impact of reduced sulphate aerosol on cloud lifetime. Lu et al. [2009] show that drizzle rate
from clouds in this region is indeed inversely related to aerosol concentration. Kloster et al. [2010] also suggested that a change in cloud water
path in their simulations with aggressive aerosol reductions resulted from enhanced drizzle formation. We hypothesise that the localised nature
of this feature by comparison with the sulphate and CDNC change is due to the cloud in this region being particularly sensitive to a change in
aerosol. Climatologically, this region is a transition zone between open and closed mesoscale cellular convection [Rosenfeld et al., 2011],
aerosol concentrations being lower in the open celled regions [Wood et al., 2011]. Although the details of these processes are unlikely to be
represented explicitly in global models, the localised strong decrease in cloud fraction in the northeastern Pacific ocean would be consistent
with a change in cloud regime driven by decreased aerosol. Other regions show increases in cloud fraction, which cannot readily be explained
as a direct response to the decrease in sulphate load. It is likely that instead these reflect non-local adjustments of the coupled ocean-
atmosphere system in response to the change in forcing. [18] Figure 3 also shows the difference in surface shortwave flux (Figure 3d), surface
air temperature (Figure 3e), and global energy balance (Figure 3f). The predicted increase in surface downward shortwave radiation is seen in
the global mean and particularly in the regions of decreased cloud fraction and sulphate load. A negative anomaly in surface SW is co-located
with the positive cloud fraction changes. The pattern of surface air temperature change shows large warming over the northern continents and
the Arctic, and also a local maximum over the subtropical northeastern Pacific coincident with the region of reduced cloud fraction. The same
localised pattern appears in all the simulations of Kloster et al. [2010] that include aerosol reductions, but is absent from their simulations
considering only future changes in greenhouse gases. [19] The surface energy budget shows the expected increases in downward shortwave
radiation. In addition there is an increase in downward longwave radiation in response to the increase in GHG concentrations between the two
periods, and also reflecting changes in clouds. The warming due to increases in net surface downward radiation is balanced by increases in
latent and (over land) sensible heat fluxes. 4. Discussion and Conclusions [20] In this study we have compared projections of near term climate
in the HadGEM2-ES model under RCP4.5 and RCP2.6. GHG forcing under these scenarios is almost identical until 2020, and then declines in
RCP2.6 relative to RCP4.5. However, between 2018 and 2037 global annual mean surface air temperature is warmer under RCP2.6. The start of
this period is characterised by a period of particularly rapid warming. [21] Our results provide compelling evidence that the
warming in RCP2.6 is a result of a rapid decrease in sulphate aerosol load. This decrease is caused by a
decrease in sulphur emissions in RCP2.6, as a result of the rapid decrease in coal use needed to reduce
GHG emissions. Thus our results highlight the difficulty of reducing the rate of global warming in the
near term in this model, even under extreme scenarios for reducing GHG emissions , and is consistent
with previous simulations by Wigley [1991] and Johns et al. [2011]. [22] HadGEM2-ES includes a representation of
both the direct and first and second indirect effects of aerosol. Our analyses indicate that indirect effects play an important role
in the rapid warming projected under RCP2.6; in particular, changes in sulphate aerosols over the
North Pacific and North Atlantic lead to changes cloud properties which contribute to a large anomaly
in downwelling surface shortwave radiation over the subtropical northeastern Pacific Ocean. The pattern
of surface temperature change is consistent with the expected response to this surface radiation anomaly, whilst also exhibiting features - such
as amplification at high northern latitudes - that reflect redistribution of energy, and feedbacks, within the climate system. The substantial but
inhomogeneous temperature response demonstrates the importance of aerosol emissions as a key source of uncertainty in near term
projections of regional, as well as global, climate.

Human Caused
Human emissions of SO2 slow warming
Robin 11 (The Carbon Brief, Sulfur emissions may have slowed temperature rise, July 5, 2011,
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/07/sulphur-emissions-slow-warming/)//rh
A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is attracting attention in the
media and across the blogosphere today. Despite the clear long-term trend in global temperatures
showing the planet is warming, a slowing in the long term warming trend over the past decade has led
some to conclude that "global warming has stopped". While Met Office data shows that this claim can't
be stood up, with temperature rise from 1995 to 2010 statistically significant, it may be that this new
work offers an explanation for why warming has slowed in recent years. Entitled "Reconciling
anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008", the new research uses
computer modelling to assess the reasons for the slow-down, and concludes that rapid growth in
sulfur emissions from Chinese coal-fired power stations may be offsetting some of the warming effect
of rising greenhouse gases. Here's the short summary of the paper (the abstract), with our emphasis:
"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it
has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that
this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and
natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change
from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in
short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find
that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the
relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which
includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects." Richard Black explains
the context of this diccussion for the BBC: "Mainstream climate scientists have traditionally answered
the "no warming since 1998" claim in two ways. One is by pointing out that 1998 saw the strongest El
Nino conditions on record, which transfer heat from the oceans to the atmosphere, warming the planet.
So while you may not see a temperature rise if you start the series in 1998, you do see one if you begin
with 1997 or 1999. The second answer is to point out that temperatures will naturally vary from year to
year, and to point to the consistent upward trend seen when long-term average temperaturesare used
rather than annual figures." Although the new paper acknowledges the that the slow-down could be a
result of natural variability in the climate system, the authors also explored other factors which might
affect temperature. They used data on both man-made and natural drivers of global surface
temperature to simulate global surface temperature between 1999 and 2008 with a computer model.
Their conclusion: "Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades
because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse
gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to
La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998" So when their
computer model factored in greenhouse gas emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions and natural climate
cycles, it simulated what temperatures have done over the past 15 years. This work suggests that rising
sulfur emissions have been offsetting the impact of rising greenhouse gases. Sulfur dioxide is an
aerosol which cools the planet by reflecting some of the sun's energy back into space. Burning coal is a
prime cause of sulfur emissions, and as Richard Black outlines, figures from the US Energy Information
Administration (EIA) show that the rate at which coal is used has sharply accelerated since 2003,
particularly in China, where electricity-generating capacity rose from just over 10 gigawatts (GW) in
2002 to over 80GW in 2006. (A large coal plant has about 1GW capacity). The Guardian also suggests
that "The effect also explains the lack of global temperature rise seen between 1940 and 1970: the
effect of the sulfur emissions from increased coal burning outpaced that of carbon emissions, until
acid rain controls were introduced, after which temperature rose quickly." So what does this mean for
climate policy? The researchers were fairly clear that it doesn't suggest cutting CO2 emissions is any less
important to limit climate change, with lead author Professor Robert Kaufman telling the Guardian: "If
anything the paper suggests that reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs
scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulfur emissions. This, and solar insolation
increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster."


SO2 Key to Cooling
Cooling from sulfur emissions can offset greenhouse gas driven warming empirics
from 1998 to 2008 prove.

Kaufmann et al, 11 (Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stock, Department of Geography and
Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;
bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and cDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge
Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, 6/2/2011, Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 19982008,
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full, AS)
Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore,
global surface temperature declines 0.2C between 2005 and 2008. Although temperature increases in 2009 and
2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the
relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the
public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change (4). Recent analyses address this source of scepticism by focusing on
internal variability or expanding the list of forcings. Model simulations are used to suggest that internal variability can generate extended
periods of stable temperature similar to 19992008 (5). Alternatively, expanding the list of forcings to include recent changes in stratospheric
water vapor (6) may account for the recent lack of warming. But neither approach evaluates whether the current understanding of the
relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature can account for the timing and magnitude of the
19992008 hiatus in warming. Here we use a previously published statistical model (7) to evaluate whether anthropogenic emissions of
radiatively active gases, along with natural variables, can account for the 19992008 hiatus in warming. To do so, we compile information on
anthropogenic and natural drivers of global surface temperature, use these data to estimate the statistical model through 1998, and use the
model to simulate global surface temperature between 1999 and 2008. Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than
previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This
slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of
warming after 1998. These findings are not sensitive to a wide range of assumptions, including the time series used to measure temperature,
the omission of black carbon and stratospheric water vapor, and uncertainty about anthropogenic sulfur emissions and its effect on radiative
forcing (SI Appendix: Sections 2.47). Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive
considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important change in another pathway for
anthropogenic climate changea rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large
increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular. Chinese coal consumption more than
doubles in the 4 y from 2003 to 2007 (the previous doubling takes 22 y, 19802002). In this four year period, Chinese coal
consumption accounts for 77% of the 26% rise in global coal consumption (8). These increases are large relative to previous growth rates. For
example, global coal consumption increases only 27% in the twenty two years between 1980 and 2002 (8). Because of the resultant
increase in anthropogenic sulfur emissions, there is a 0.06 W/m2 (absolute) increase in their cooling
effect since 2002 (Fig. 1). This increase partly reverses a period of declining sulfur emissions that had a
warming effect of 0.19 W/m2 between 1990 and 2002. The increase in sulfur emissions slows the increase in radiative
forcing due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 1). Net anthropogenic forcing rises 0.13 W/m2 between 2002 and 2007,
which is smaller than the 0.24 W/m2 rise between 1997 and 2002. The smaller net increase in anthropogenic forcing is accompanied by a 0.18
W/m2 decline in solar insolation caused by the declining phase of the eleven year solar cycle, such that the sum of modeled forcings increases
little after 1998 and declines after 2002 (Fig. 1). This cooling effect is amplified by a net increase in the Southern
Oscillation Index (SOI) (9).


CO2 Ag
1NC CO2 Ag Turn
Co2 is the ONLY solution to stop the impending food crisis that will kill millions.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6/15/11, Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change, Estimates of Global Food Production in the
Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World? AS)

As indicated in the material above, a very real and devastating food crisis is looming on the horizon,
and continuing advancements in agricultural technology and expertise will most likely not be able to
bridge the gap between global food supply and global food demand just a few short years from now.
However, the positive impact of Earths rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yields will
considerably lessen the severity of the coming food shortage. In some regions and countries it will
mean the difference between being food secure or food insecure; and it will aid in lifting untold
hundreds of millions out of a state of hunger and malnutrition, preventing starvation and premature
death. For those regions of the globe where neither enhancements in the techno-intel effect nor the
rise in CO2 are projected to foster food security, an Apollo moon-mission-like commitment is needed
by governments and researchers to further increase crop yields per unit of land area planted, nutrients
applied, and water used. And about the only truly viable option for doing so (without taking enormous
amounts of land and water from nature and driving untold numbers of plant and animal species to
extinction) is to have researchers and governments invest the time, effort and capital needed to
identify and to prepare for production the plant genotypes that are most capable of maximizing CO2
benefits for important food crops. Rice, for example, is the third most important global food crop,
accounting for 9.4% of global food production. Based upon data presented in the CO2 Science Plant
Growth Database, the average growth response of rice to a 300-ppm increase in the airs CO2
concentration is 35.7%. However, data obtained from De Costa et al. (2007), who studied the growth
responses of 16 different rice genotypes, revealed CO2-induced productivity increases ranging from -7%
to +263%. Therefore, if countries learned to identify which genotypes provided the largest yield
increases per unit of CO2 rise, and then grew those genotypes, it is quite possible that the world could
collectively produce enough food to supply the needs of all its inhabitants. But since rising Co2
concentrations are considered by many people to be the primary cause of global warming, we are faced
with a dilemma of major proportions. If proposed regulations restricting anthropogenic CO2
emissions (which are designed to remedy the potential global warming problem) are enacted, they
will greatly exacerbate future food problems by reducing the CO2-induced yield enhancements that
are needed to supplement increases provided by advances in agricultural technology and expertise.
And as a result of such CO2 emissions regulations, hundreds of millions of the worlds population will be
subjected to hunger and malnutrition. Even more troubling is the fact that thousands would die daily as
a result of health problems they likely would have survived had they received adequate food and
nutrition. About the only option for avoiding the food crisis, and its negative ramifications for humanity
and nature alike, is to allow the atmospheric CO2 concentration to continue to rise as predicted (no
CO2 emission restrictions), and then to learn to maximize those benefits through the growing of CO2-
loving cultivars.

The food crisis outweighs any impact of climate change.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6/15/11, Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change, Estimates of Global Food Production in the
Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In light of the host of real-world research findings discussed in the body of this report, it should be
evident to all that the looming food shortage facing humanity mere years to decades from now is far
more significant than the theoretical and largely unproven catastrophic climate- and weather-related
projections of the worlds climate alarmists. And it should also be clear that the factor that figures most
prominently in both scenarios is the airs CO2 content. The theorists proclaim that we must drastically
reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by whatever means possible, including drastic government
interventions in free-market enterprise systems. The realists suggest that letting economic progress
take its natural unimpeded course is the only way to enable the airs CO2 content to reach a level that
will provide the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment that will be needed to
provide the extra food production that will be required to forestall massive human starvation and all
the social unrest and warfare that will unavoidably accompany it, as well as humanitys decimation of
what little yet remains of pristine nature, which will include the driving to extinction of untold
numbers of both plant and animal species. Climate alarmists totally misuse the precautionary
principle when they ignore the reality of the approaching lack-of-food-induced crisis that would
decimate the entire biosphere, and when they claim instead that the catastrophic projections of their
climate models are so horrendous that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be reduced at all costs. Such
actions should not even be contemplated without first acknowledging the fact that none of the
catastrophic consequences of rising global temperatures have yet been conclusively documented, as
well as the much greater likelihood of the horrendous global food crisis that would follow such actions.
The two potential futures must be weighed in the balance, and very carefully, before any such actions
are taken.

2NC - CO2 Ag Turn
Food shortages will kill a billion people in a decade and are killing thousands per day
CO2 is key to solve.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

Global food security is one of the most pressing societal issues of our time. It is presently estimated
that more than one billion persons, or one out of every seven people on the planet, is hungry
and/or malnourished. Even more troubling is the fact that thousands die daily as a result of diseases
from which they likely would have survived had they received adequate food and nutrition. Yet the
problem of feeding the planets population is not one of insufficient food production; for the
agriculturalists of the world currently produce more than enough food to feed the globes entire
population. Rather, the problem is one of inadequate distribution, with food insecurity arising simply
because the worlds supply of food is not evenly dispensed among the human population, due to what
Conway and Toenniessen (1999) have called notoriously ineffective world markets. In the near future,
however, global food insecurity is expected to develop as a result of the more basic increasing global
demand from an expanding and more-highly-developed world populace, which demand will far
outstrip global food supply. And if left unchecked, this situation is destined to wreak havoc on
humanity and nature alike in the years and decades to come. An early perspective on the looming food
shortage was presented more than a decade ago by Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution
and 1970 Nobel Laureate for Peace (Borlaug, 2000). In an article on world hunger, he wrote that it took
some 10,000 years to expand food production to the current level of about 5 billion tons per year,
and that to meet the needs of the planets growing population by 2025, we will have to nearly double
current production again. Given this enormous challenge, Dr. Borlaug wrote that agricultural scientists
have a moral obligation to warn political, educational, and religious leaders about the magnitude and
seriousness of the arable land, food, and population problems that lie ahead. In fact, if we fail to do
so, he said, we will be negligent in our duty and inadvertently may be contributing to the pending
chaos of incalculable millions of deaths by starvation. Other researchers have followed in Dr. Borlaugs
footsteps, echoing concerns about the coming global food crisis. According to those scientists, global
food production must increase by 70 to 100 percent by the year 2050, if we are to adequately feed a
global population of nine billion people at that time (Bruinsma, 2009; Parry and Hawkesford, 2010; Zhu
et al., 2010). So how is it to be done? Or, even more basically, can it be done? Many of the scientists
and organizations addressing this problem have concluded that unless there are significant
advancements in basic farming techniques and/or reductions in world population, serious food
shortages will occur. And they conclude they will develop within a decade. Other groups are more
optimistic; but in nearly all of the analyses of the subject that have been conducted to date, there is
one important factor that has typically been overlooked: the ongoing rise in the airs CO2
concentration and its well-known aerial fertilization and water conservation or anti- transpiration
effects.

At a fundamental level, carbon dioxide is the basis of nearly all life on Earth, as it is the primary raw
material or food that is utilized by plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct
their tissues, which subsequently become the ultimate source of food for all animals, including
humans. Consequently, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow, as has been
demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments (Idso and Singer, 2009). And
the better plants grow, the more food there is available to sustain the entire biosphere.
2NC Energy/Biofuels
Ag expansion and efficiency with CO2 is vital to biofuels solves the energy crisis
without a food trade off.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In an article published in the Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Rattan Lal (2010) of the Carbon
Management and Sequestration Center of Ohio State University (USA) commented on this concern by
writing that (1) there still are more than one billion food-insecure people in the world (FAO, 2009a,b),
(2) the world food supply will have to be doubled between 2005 and 2050 (Borlaug, 2009) because of
the increase in population and change in dietary preferences, and (3) the world energy demand is
also increasing rapidly and is projected to increase by 84% by 2050 compared with 2005. And what
makes the problem even worse is the fact that in an attempt to meet the anticipated increase in the
global demand for energy, the emphasis on biofuels is strongly impacting the availability of grains for
food and soil resources for grain production. As many people have begun to realize the significance of
this latter problem, Lal indicates that crop residues are being widely considered as a source of
lignocellulosic biomass. However, he says that removal of crop residues for this purpose is not an
option (Lal, 2007) because of the negative impacts of removal on soil quality, and increase in soil
erosion (Lal, 1995), as well as the loss of the residues positive impacts on numerous ecosystem
services. Therefore, in yet another shift in tactics, Lal reports that degraded soils are being
considered as possible sites for establishing energy plantations. However, Lal (2010)
notes that with their extremely low capacity for biomass production, the amount of biofuel produced
on globally-abandoned agricultural land cannot even meet 10% of the energy needs of North America,
Europe and Asia, citing the work of Campbell et al. (2009) in this regard. Yet even these considerations
are only half the problem. In addition to the need for considerable land, Lal writes that the successful
establishment of energy plantations also needs plant nutrients, as well as an adequate supply of
water. And since an adequate supply of water is something on the order of 1000-3500 liters per liter of
biofuel produced, it is, as he puts it, an important factor. And he notes that this strategy will also
increase competition for limited land and water resources thereby increasing food crop and livestock
prices (Wise et al., 2009). Lal closes his review by writing that society should not take its precious
resource base for granted, stating that if soils are not restored, crops will fail even if rains do not;
hunger will perpetuate even with emphasis on biotechnology and genetically modified crops; civil
strife and political instability will plague the developing world even with sermons on human rights
and democratic ideals; and humanity will suffer even with great scientific strides.

EXT: CO2 Solves Ag
A massive conglomeration of data proves Co2 is key to maintaining civilization C3
and C4 plants all experienced increased productivity, adaptability, and efficiency with
higher concentrations of atmospheric Co2.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

The idea that an increase in the airs CO2 content may be of benefit to the biosphere can be traced
back in time over 200 years. As early as 1804, for example, de Saussure showed that peas exposed to
high CO2 concentrations grew better than control plants in ambient air; and work conducted in the
early 1900s significantly increased the number of species in which this growth-enhancing effect of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment was observed to occur (Demoussy, 1902-1904; Cummings and Jones,
1918). In fact, by the time a group of scientists convened at Duke University in 1977 for a workshop on
Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment, an annotated bibliography of 590
scientific studies dealing with CO2 effects on vegetation had been prepared (Strain, 1978). This body
of research demonstrated that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 generally produce increases in
plant photosynthesis, decreases in plant water loss by transpiration, increases in leaf area, and
increases in plant branch and fruit numbers, to name but a few of the most commonly reported
benefits. And five years later, at the International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide and Plant Productivity, it was concluded that a doubling of the airs CO2 concentration would
likely lead to a 50% increase in photosynthesis in C3 plants, a doubling of water use efficiency in both
C3 and C4 plants, significant increases in biological nitrogen fixation in almost all biological systems,
and an increase in the ability of plants to adapt to a variety of environmental stresses (Lemon, 1983).
Fast forwarding to the present, studies conducted on hundreds of different plant species testify to the
very real and measurable growth-enhancing and water-saving advantages that elevated atmospheric
CO2 concentrations bestow upon Earths plants (Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011). And in
commenting on these and many other CO2-related benefits, Wittwer (1982) wrote that the green
revolution has coincided with the period of recorded rapid increase in concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, and it seems likely that some credit for the improved [crop] yields should be laid
at the door of the CO2 buildup. Similarly, Allen et al. (1987) concluded that yields of soybeans may
have been rising since at least 1800 due to global carbon dioxide increases, while more recently,
Cunniff et al. (2008) hypothesized that the rise in atmospheric CO2 following deglaciation of the most
recent planetary ice age, was the trigger that launched the global agricultural enterprise. In a test of
this hypothesis, Cunniff et al. designed a controlled environment experiment using five modern-day
representatives of wild C4 crop progenitors, all founder crops from a variety of independent centers,
which were grown individually in growth chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of
180, 280 and 380 ppm, characteristic of glacial, post-glacial and modern times, respectively. The results
revealed that the 100-ppm increase in CO2 from glacial to postglacial levels (180 to 280 ppm) caused a
significant gain in vegetative biomass of up to 40%, together with a reduction in the transpiration
rate via decreases in stomatal conductance of ~35%, which led to a 70% increase in water use
efficiency, and a much greater productivity potential in water-limited conditions. In discussing their
results, the five researchers concluded that these key physiological changes could have greatly
enhanced the productivity of wild crop progenitors after deglaciation ... improving the productivity and
survival of these wild C4 crop progenitors in early agricultural systems. And in this regard, they note
that the lowered water requirements of C4 crop progenitors under increased CO2 would have been
particularly beneficial in the arid climatic regions where these plants were domesticated. For
comparative purposes, they 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 and other
similar findings (Mayeux et al., 1997), 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 airs 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. But what about the future, will such benefits continue to accrue? Because thousands of
laboratory and field experiments have demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 enrichment significantly
enhances plant growth and water use efficiency, and because those benefits have positively impacted
crop yields in the past, there is ample reason to believe that future increases in atmospheric CO2
concentration will produce increases in crop yields in addition to those
expected to result from future advancements in agricultural technology and expertise

CO2 is key to solving food insecurity it linearly increases all aspects of plant
productivity and efficiency.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In our efforts to meet the three tasks set forth by Tilman et al. (2002) to (1) increase crop yield per unit
of land area, (2) increase crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increase crop yield per unit of
water used, humanity is fortunate to have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content.
Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic food of nearly all plants, the more of it there is in the air, the
better they function and the more productive they become. For a 300-ppm increase in the
atmospheres CO2 concentration above the planets current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for
example, the productivity of Earths herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30 to 50%
(Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on
the order of 50 to 80% (Saxe et al., 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Thus, as the airs CO2 content
continues to rise, so too will the productive capacity or land-use efficiency of the planet continue to
rise, as the aerial fertilization effect of the upward-trending atmospheric CO2 concentration boosts the
growth rates and biomass production of nearly all plants in nearly all places. In addition, elevated
atmospheric CO2 concentrations typically increase plant nutrient-use efficiency in general and
nitrogen-use efficiency in particular as well as plant water-use efficiency. Consequently, with respect
to fostering all three of the plant physiological phenomena Tilman et al. (2002) contend are needed to
prevent the catastrophic consequences they foresee for the planet just a few short decades from now, a
continuation of the current upward trend in the atmospheres CO2 concentration as projected by the
IPCC would appear to be essential.

Co2 is key to food security and solves every restraint on plant growth turns their bioD scenarios
because the alternative is the destruction of habitats to grow food.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

The same situation exists with respect to excessive heat, ozone pollution, light stress, soil toxicity
and most any other environmental constraint. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment generally tends to
enhance growth and improve plant functions to minimize or overcome such challenges (Idso and
Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011). As researchers continue to explore these benefits and farmers
select cultivars to maximize them, the chances of the world becoming food secure by 2050 increase.
Without these benefits, however, there is little chance we will be able to adequately feed the
global population a few short decades from now. What is more, without these CO2-induced benefits
of (1) increasing plant land-use efficiency, (2) increasing plant water-use efficiency, and (3) increasing
plant nutrient-use efficiency, more and more land and freshwater resources would need to be taken
from wild nature in order to sustain humanitys growing population, which unprecedented land and
water usurpation would likely lead to the extinction of numerous plant and animal species. Clearly,
therefore, humanity and nature alike are dependent upon rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations to
continue to improve all three of the yield-enhancing requirements set forth by Tillman et al. (2002).

CO2 Solves Earth Worms
Co2 is key to earthworms independently helps plant productivity.

Arnone et al, 13 (John A. Arnone III Johann G. Zaller Gabriela Hofer ernhard Schmid
hristian Ko rner ivision of arth and cosystem Sciences Oecologia Loss of plant
biodiversity eliminates stimulatory effect of elevated O on earthworm activity in grasslands AS)

Earthworms are nearly ubiquitous globally, but are most abundant in grasslands (Lee 1985) and forests (Phillipson et al. 1976; Satchell 1983; Zicsi 1983) where precipitation is sufficient to keep soils moist and where pH
and calcium availability are suitable (Lee 1985). As primary and secondary consumers/decomposers of above- and below-
ground plant litter and soil organic matter (Edwards and Lofty 1977), earthworms ultimately depend on plants to
meet their carbon needs (Edwards and Bohlen 1997). Earthworms in turn stimulate soil nutrient mineralization
mainly through soil bioturbation and egestion of nutrient- rich caststhat can enhance nutrient bioavailability and plant growth (e.g., Coleman and
Crossley 1996; Scheu 2003). Thus, any environmental change that affects the activity of either plants or earthworms will likely alter the behavior of the other. In grasslands, earthworm biomass can exceed 250 g m-2
(Edwards and Bohlen 1997; Zaller and Arnone 1997), and earthworms can produce between 1,500 and 4,500 g of casts (dry mass) per square meter annually (Zaller and Arnone 1997; Glasstetter 1991). These casts can
contain as much as 40300 % more nitrogen and up to 400 % more phosphorous than equivalent amounts of adjacent soil (e.g., Aldag and Graff 1975; Lee 1985), and a large fraction of these nutrients are present in
plant-avail- able form (Syers et al. 1979). In calcareous grassland ecosystems typical of those covering large areas of Europe, our earlier work has shown that exposure of native
undisturbed plant communities to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2a global experiment currently playing out due to human
combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., Keeling et al. 2005; IPCC 2007)stimulated earthworm surface casting by 35 % (1,633 vs. 2,206 g dry mass m-2 year-1) and
ecosystem N cycling occurring via surface casts by 30 % (69 vs. 89 kg N ha-1 year-1; Zaller and Arnone 1997). This effect resulted
from both increased net ecosystem CO2 uptake (e.g., Stocker et al. 1997) and carbon supply to earthworms, as well as
from improved soil water status (Niklaus and Ko rner ) deriving from reduced plant transpiration Lauber and Ko rner ) under elevated
CO2. Within these same grasslands in northwestern Switzer- land (Leadley et al. 1997), we also found that some plant species (Anthoxanthum odoratum, Dactylis glomerata, Carex
caryophyllea, and C. flacca) were spatially more highly associated with earthworm surface casts than were other plant species (Zaller and Arnone 1999b),
and that these plant species responded more strongly (more and larger tillers or ramets) to elevated CO2 than plant species that were less highly associated with casts
(Fig. 1). Some of these same graminoid species also showed reductions in leaf stomatal conductance under
elevated CO2 Lauber and Ko rner ). Thus, plant water savings by individuals of these species appear to have
allowed local topsoil micro- sites to remain moister than microsites near other plant species and thus promote
earthworm casting activity. Indeed, greater growth of individual plants located near larger casts, relative to individuals located near smaller casts, in these undisturbed native grassland
communities regardless of atmospheric CO2 level pointed to a strong nutrient effect of surface casts in these communities. Cer- tainly, all earthworms living in these grasslands, as is true for all plant
communities, ultimately depend on carbon supplied by plants. So, results from our earlier studies strongly suggested (1) some level of dependency of major
surface-casting earthworm species on the presence and abundance of particular graminoid species, and (2) that interactions between earthworms and various plant species can help structure plant communities and
likely co-deter- mine net primary productivity (NPP).
CO2 Solves Disease
Co2 turns disease increases production of plant nutrients with medicinal value.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change limate hange Reconsidered: Interim Report of the
NIP http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising
temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer
deaths. The result is a large net decrease in human mortality. Climate plays a relatively small role in the spread of viral and
vector-borne diseases, which suggests continued warming would not increase the incidence of diseases. Much bigger players include
population growth (of both humans and domestic animals), armed conflicts, displaced populations, urbanization, and
lack of reliable water systems. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations tend to increase the
production of plant nutrients with direct medicinal value, such as antioxidants that protect cells from the damaging effects
of oxidation. This effect has been found in wheat, Chinese broccoli, spinach, grapes, and thyme.

CO2 Solves Sea Level
Co2 turns sea level rise marsh growth.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change limate hange Reconsidered: Interim Report of the
NIP http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

The continent-wide snow and ice melting trend in Antarctica since 1979, when routine measurement of the
phenomenon via space-borne passive microwave radiometers first began, has been negligible. New research also
shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is more stable than previously thought.
2000s, annual ice discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet slowed dramatically beginning in 2006, the result of
negative feedback that mitigates against fast loss of ice in a warming climate. Scientists have concluded present-day melting
rates are not exceptional within the last years and are not necessarily the result of anthropogenic-
related warming (Wake et al., 2009). have been retreating since the end
of the Little Ice Age and there is little evidence the rate of their retreat increased in the twentieth century. Scientists have ruled out
any role for rising local air temperature in the loss of ice from the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro, identifying changes in atmospheric
moisture due to logging and agriculture at the foot of the mountain as the cause.
the past years even though the airs O concentration rose about 3.8 times faster over the second half of that period as during
the first half. The aerial fertilization effect of CO2 stimulates biogenic contributions to marsh
elevation, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Other studies find no evidence of large-scale reductions in island area
and reef islands are geomorphically resilient landforms that thus far have predominantly remained stable or grown
in area over the last 20 60 years Webb and Kench ). changes to the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), despite predictions by the IPCC that warming would disrupt this important system
of heat transportation through ocean basins. No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or
river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed
that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.
CO2 Solves Ocean Acidification
Co2 turns ocean acidification and doesnt lower carbonate saturation aquatic
photosynthesis.

Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change limate hange Reconsidered: Interim Report of the
NIP http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

Another reason to doubt Pelejero et al.s forecast of falling pH levels is that high rates of aquatic
photosynthesis by marine micro- and macro-algae, which have been shown to be stimulated and
maintained by high levels of atmospheric CO2see, for example, Wu et al. (2008), Fu et al. (2008), and Egge et al. (2009)can
dramatically increase the pH of marine bays, lagoons, and tidal pools (Gnaiger et al., 1978; Santhanam et al., 1994; Macedo et al., 2001; Hansen, 2002;
Middelboe and Hansen, 2007) and significantly increase the surface-water pH of areas as large as the North Sea (Brussaard et al.,
1996). Thus it is logical to presume anything else that enhances marine photosynthesis, such as nutrient delivery to the waters
of the worlds coastal zones i.e. eutrophication) may increase pH as well. Thinking along these lines, Borges and Gypens (2010) employed
an idealized biogeochemical model of a river system (Billen et al., 2001) and a complex biogeochemical model describing carbon and nutrient cycles in the
marine domain Gypens et al. ) to investigate the decadal changes of seawater carbonate chemistry variables related to the increase of atmospheric
CO2 and of nutrient delivery in the highly eutrophied Belgian coastal zone over the period 1951. The findings of the two researchers indicate, as
they describe it that the increase of primary production due to eutrophication could counter the effects of
ocean acidification on surface water carbonate chemistry in coastal environments and changes in river nutrient delivery
due to management regulation policies can lead to stronger changes in carbonate chemistry than ocean acidification as well as changes that are faster
than those related solely to ocean acidification. And to make these facts perfectly clear they add the response of carbonate
chemistry to changes of nutrient delivery to the coastal zone is stronger than ocean acidification. As more and
more pertinent studies have been conducted, the extreme view of ocean acidification has been greatly tempered. In a
review of the subject by Doney et al. (2008), for example, it was reported many calcifying species exhibit reduced
calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions but they also report some photosynthetic
organisms (both calcifying and non- calcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high O.

CO2 Solves Warming
Turn - Co2 emissions lead to cooling because of the negative feedback
vegetation causes.
Bounoua et al. 10, Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach -
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L. Bounoua - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 7 December 2010, pdf, G.V.)
Several climate models indicate that in a 2 CO2 environment, temperature and precipitation would increase and
runoff would increase faster than precipitation. These models, however, did not allow the vegetation to increase its leaf density
as a response to the physiological effects of increased CO2 and consequent changes in climate. Other assessments included these
interactions but did not account for the vegetation down-regulation to reduce plant's photosynthetic activity and as such resulted in a weak vegetation negative response. When
we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes
primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not
fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2. By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does
not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C. Compared to previous studies, these results imply that long term negative
feedback from CO2-induced increases in vegetation density could reduce temperature following a
stabilization of CO2 concentration.

Co2 offsets warming down regulation creates net more cooling.
Berwyn, 10 ob Summit Voice Increased plant growth could slow rate of global
warming http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/12/08/increased-plant-growth-could-slow-rate-
of-global-warming/, AS)

More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will undoubtedly speed up plant growth and that could help slow the
rate of global warming slightly, according to a new NASAcomputer model thats helping refine climate change predictions. After crunching the numbers,
the NASA study concluded that the cooling effect would be about .5 degrees globally enough to slow, but not stop global warming. The study
was published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled a standard
basis for many global warming modeling simulations temperature would increase by about .5 to . The uncertainty in that range is mostly due to uncertainty about feedbacks how different aspects of the Earth
system will react to a warming world, and then how those changes will either amplify (positive feedback) or dampen (negative feedback) the overall warming. While the models results showed a negative feedback it is
not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the
uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate, according to Lahouari Bounoua, of the Goddard Space Flight Center. This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected
warming ounoua said. The new NASA effort differs in that it incorporates a specific response in plants to
higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. When there is more carbon dioxide available, plants are able to use less water yet
maintain previous levels of photosynthesis. The process is called down-regulation. This more efficient use of
water and nutrients has been observed in experimental studies and can ultimately lead to increased leaf growth. The ability to increase leaf growth due to changes in
photosynthetic activity was also included in the model. The authors postulate that the greater leaf growth would increase evapotranspiration on
a global scale and create an additional cooling effect. This is what is completely new said ounoua referring to the incorporation of down-regulation and
changed leaf growth into the model. What we did is improve plants physiological response in the model by including down-regulation. The end result is a stronger feedback than previously thought. The modeling
approach also investigated how stimulation of plant growth in a world with doubled carbon dioxide levels would be fueled by warmer temperatures, increased precipitation in some regions and plants more efficient use
of water due to carbon dioxide being more readily available in the atmosphere. Previous climate models have included these aspects but not
down-regulation. The models without down-regulation projected little to no cooling from vegetative growth.


CO2 Solves Rice
Co2 is k2 higher yield rice.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In commenting on their findings, the five Sri Lanka researchers say their results demonstrate the
significant genotypic variation that exists within the rice germplasm, in the response to increased
atmospheric CO2 of yield and its correlated physiological parameters, and they go on to suggest that
the significant genotypic variation in this response means that genotypes that are highly responsive
to elevated CO2 may be selected and incorporated into breeding programs to produce new rice
varieties which would be higher yielding in a future high CO2 climate.
CO2 Solves Soil Infertility
Co2 offsets soil infertility.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important
nutrients are present in the soil in less than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts
crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their genetic and agro- ecological
technologies have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of a severe lack of
phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen. Yet even in such adverse situations, atmospheric CO2
enrichment has been reported to enhance plant growth (Barrett et al., 1998; Niklaus et al., 1998; Kim
et al., 2003; Rogers et al., 2006). And if supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway
and Toenniessen, even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra
nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil would likely be realized.

CO2 Solves Ag Blights
Co2 solves parasitic weeds that thwart plant growth.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In the case of weeds, Conway and Toenniessen speak of one of Africas staple crops, maize, being
attacked by the parasitic weed Striga (Striga hermonthica), which sucks nutrients from roots. This
weed also infects many other C4 crops of the semi-arid tropics, such as sorghum, sugar cane and
millet, as well as the C3 crop rice, particularly throughout much of Africa, where it is currently one of
the regions most economically important parasitic weeds. Here, too, studies have shown that
atmospheric CO2 enrichment greatly reduces the damage done by this devastating weed (Watling and
Press, 1997; Watling and Press, 2000).

Co2 counteracts yield-reducing diseases and insects without hurting insect populations.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
6/15/11, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change,
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050: Will We Produce Enough to
Adequately Feed the World? AS)

In the case of insects and plant diseases, atmospheric CO2 enrichment also helps prevent crop losses.
In a study of diseased tomato plants infected with the fungal pathogen Phytophthora parasitica, which
attacks plant roots inducing water stress that decreases yields, for example, the growth-promoting
effect of a doubling of the airs CO2 content completely counterbalanced the yield-reducing effect of
the pathogen (Jwa and Walling, 2001). Likewise, in a review of impacts and responses of herbivorous
insects maintained for relatively long periods of time in CO2-enriched environments, as described in
some 30- plus different studies, Whittaker (1999) noted that insect populations, on average, have been
unaffected by the extra CO2. And since plant growth is nearly universally stimulated in air of elevated
CO2 concentration, Earths crops should therefore gain a relative advantage over herbivorous insects
in a high-CO2 world of the future.
AT: Droughts Outweigh
Co2 solves drought plants double their water use efficiency turns their
warming water availability scenarios.

Idso, 11 (Craig D., PhD Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6/15/11,
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change stimates of Global Food
Production in the Year 5: Will We Produce nough to Adequately Feed the World? AS)

Lastly, in the case of drought, we again have the nearly universal bettering of plant water use efficiency
that is induced by atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Fleisher et al. (2008), for example, grew potato plants (Solanum tuberosum cv.
Kennebec) from seed tubers in soil- plant-atmosphere research chambers maintained at daytime atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 370 or 740
ppm under well-watered and progressively water-stressed conditions. And in doing so they found that total biomass, yield and water
use efficiency increased under elevated CO2, with the largest percent increases occurring at
irrigations that induced the most water stress. In addition they report that water use efficiency was nearly
doubled under enriched
CO2 when expressed on a tuber fresh weight basis. These results indicate in the words of the three researchers that increases in potato gas
exchange, dry matter production and yield with elevated CO2 are consistent at various levels of water stress as
compared with ambient O providing what we so desperately need in todays world and what we will need
even more as the worlds population continues to grow: significantly enhanced food production per
unit of water used. And there are many other studies that have produced similar results (De Luis et al., 1999; Kyei-Boahen et al., 2003; Kim et al.,
2006).


AT: CO2 Bad/Warming Impacts
The earth can respond to warming and Co2 increases productivity prefer
empirical testing to speculative models.

Idso, 12 (Sherwood B, former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture, 2012, Journal
of Coastal Research O and Sea Level AS)

The last several years have witnessed a major effort by a dedicated group of highly visible and in-
fluential scientists to convince the governments of the world that mankind faces a serious threat of
significant sea level rise as a result of the steadily increasing carbon dioxide (C02) concentration of Earth's
atmosphere. Even the prestigious U.S. Na- tional Academy of Sciences has lent its stature to the undertaking by publishing three official reports on the
subject (N.A. S., 1979, 1982, 1983), wherein it is suggested that a 300- to 600-part-per-million doubling of the
atmospheric CO2 content-which is predicted by them to occur sometime in the latter half of the next century-will raise the mean
surface air temperature of the globe by approximately 3 C, with a several-fold amplification of that figure in the ice- bound regions of the
poles. This warming, together with an equivalent warm- ing which is predicted to result from concurrent increases in other radiatively- active trace
gases (RAMANATHAN et al., 1985), could create severe problems for coastal areas, if sea level rises in res- ponse
to the melting of large volumes of polar ice. But just how reliable are the computerized climate models which predict such dire
consequences? As FAIRBRIDGE (1985) asked in an earlier editorial in these pages, "do we have the necessary data, and have we carried out the appropriate
experiments, for testing these worrisome deductions? And, if not, why not?" Recently, I conducted just such a test of the CO2/ trace
gas" greenhouse effect" theory (Inso, 1987 a), using the Real Earth as the experimental subject and the best
available records of surface air tem- perature and atmospheric CO2 content for the 100- year time span stretching
from 1880 to 1980. For this period of elapsed time, the consensus predic- tion of the most advanced general circulation mod- els of the
atmosphere was a mean surface air temp- erature increase of 1.9 C for the Earth as a whole and an increase of 5.7 C for the
northern third of the planet. Yet the observed warming of the Earth over this period was only aboutO.4 C for the
planet as a whole and only about 0.5 C for its northern third, which is fully an order of magnitude less than what the climate models predict for that cru- cial
region of the globe. What is more, in another recent study (IDSO, 1987b), I have pointed out that even this slight warming is but the
natural recovery of the Earth from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, which was clearly initiated
by some mech- anism other than CO2 variability and which conse- quently does not require CO cause of its demise. variability as the
There would seem to be little doubt, then, that something is seriously wrong with our current under- standing of the
Earth's climate system,. particularly as expressed by state-of-the-art general circulation models of the atmosphere. This deficiency
could be something major, such as a totally inaccurate re- presentation of real-world cloud feedback effects-
which most climate modellers are careful to ac- knowledge as a very real possibility-or, it could be the result of anumber of more minor errors or omissions.
Indeed, I have previously pointed out that several recent improvements of this nature do in fact reduce the sensitivity of the
climate models by the order of magnitude required to successfully mesh their predictions with reality (ID80, 1986 b).
In spite of these developments, however, there has been no reduction in the frequency or severity
of warnings of impending climate catastrophy from the climate modelling community, as evidenced in testimony given this past
year before committees of the U. S. Senate; and one must puzzle overthe ques- tion asked by FAIRBRIDGE (1985): "why not?" In- deed, I too have posed this
same question (ID80, 1986b) and received the same lack of response. As the empirical evidence continues to mount, how- ever, it is my belief that the
untenable position of the climate modelling community with respect to the CO2/trace gas"
greenhouse effect" will have to be relaxed. There is just no evidence that it op- erates as they
suggest in the real world. In fact, when FAIRBRIDGE (1985) asks" are we certain that an atmospheric warming is its direct consequence," I
would have to answer" no," for it is just as easy to develop a scenario where CO2 acts as an inverse
greenhouse gas. Although we should always be wary of potential threats to the global
environment, there would seem to be little reason to worry about the rising CO2 con- tent of
Earth's atmosphere. In fact, there is over- whelming direct experimental evidence that this
phenomenon will greatly increase the biological productivity of the globe (KIMBALL, 1983a, b; STRAIN and CURE,
1985; ENOCH and KIMBALL, 1986a, b); and there is almost irrefutable evidence that the biosphere is already
responding globally to the CO increase of the past century (IDSO, 1985, 1986a; ENTING, 1987; WOODWARD, 1987).
Consequently, in response to the title- question of my book of a few years ago (lDso, 1982)-Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?- I would have to conclude that
not only is the current upswing in atmospheric Co2 not a problem, it is a blessing in disguise.
CO2 doesnt cause catastrophic warming. Marginal increases at best.
Hoskins, 13 d Hoskins MA cantab) Ph Royal Institute of ritish Architects London) The
Influence of arbon ioxide on Temperature October 10,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/ed-hoskins-the-influence-of-carbon-dioxide-on-
temperature/)
Thus there can only ever be a minor temperature reduction impact of any de-carbonization policy, controlling
CO2 emissions. Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize free world economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to
be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect
at most ~7% of the future warming effect of CO2. The rapid diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global
Warming advocates, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community but it is
certainly not much discussed. More CO2 in the atmosphere cannot inevitably lead directly to much more
warming. And increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot give rise to any dangerous temperature
increase. Thus de-carbonization policies could never have useful impact to realistically control any rising world temperatures and the
future world climate. As the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions is now so minor, therefore there is no
possibility of ever reaching the political target of less than +2.0C.
AT: Idso Indicts
Idsos not paid off by ExxonMobil.

Popular Technology, 11 (Popular Technology, 5/10/11, Are Skeptical scientists funded by
ExxonMobil? http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html, AS)

Idso: "I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that
appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service;
and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my
position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not
written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying
new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific
journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my
scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth.
Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I
write."
Conclusion: The scientists unjustly attacked in the Carbon Brief article are not "linked to" [funded by]
ExxonMobil. The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear should issue a retraction.

Even if they are right, it is not enough to dismiss our argument oil companies CAN
and DID fund the truth they dont have an interest in disproving warming.

Reisman, 6 (George, 6/29/2006, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, CO2 Sciences Finding on Global
Warming: A Marxist-Type Response, http://archive.mises.org/5248/co2-sciences-finding-on-global-
warming-a-marxist-type-response/, AS)

One of the very first replies to my posting of CO2 Sciences journal review A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast of
Greenland was this: CO2 Science is funded by Exxon. Come on, you guys are usually such independent thinkersyou can do
better than rehash this stuff. The author of this statement believes that it is sufficient to name the economic
affiliation of an individual or organization to be able to dismiss and ignore anything that comes from them.
This was a tactic employed for generations by the Marxists. Instead of refuting the criticisms leveled against their
doctrines by economists and others, they were content to identify critics as a member of the capitalist class or as
having received financial support from capitalists. The Nazis had their own variant of the practice. They were content
to identify their critics as Jewish or as somehow supported by Jews or otherwise affiliated with Jews. The devastating criticisms of
socialism made by Mises were dismissed on both grounds. Now, today, here is Exxon. I dont even know that it is the source of funds for CO2
Science, or is the major or only source. But Im willing to assume that it is. How does it follow from that, that whatever comes from CO2
Science, or from Exxon, on the subject of global warming and CO2 emissions is automatically false? Yes, it is true that Exxon-Mobil is the
largest American oil company and wants to be able to remain in that branch of business, while the environmental movement would like to
destroy it, and the whole rest of the oil industry, along with the coal and atomic power industries, and is using the alleged connection between
global warming and CO2 emissions as its main weapon in its attempt to do so. (This weapon, of course, does not apply in the case of atomic
power. But atomic power is regarded by the environmental movement as a terrifying death ray, even more frightening than global warming.)
So, yes, Exxon may have a financial self-interest at stake, which depends on whether or not there is a real connection between the CO2 emitted
by the consumption of its fuels and global warming. Its financial self-interest may very well lie with the establishment of lack of any
connection. As a minor digression, I need to point out that this is not necessarily the case. To the extent that the environmental
movement succeeds in making petroleum scarcer and more expensive, the revenues and profits earned by
the owners of existing petroleum reserves rise. Major oil companies like Exxon-Mobil have actually gained in this way and
have been severely criticized for these gains. In fact, some of their critics seem to imply that oil companies are, or at least should be,
actual supporters of the environmental movement, precisely because it makes oil scarcer and more expensive and thus
increases their profits to the extent that they already have reserves. I have to say that I believe that the norm of competition within the oil
industry, as well as its pride in the products it produces, prevents any such monopolistic, pro-environmentalist mindset. The individual oil
company knows that its self-interest lies with an increase in its reserves, because whatever the effect on the overall supply and price of
petroleum, its own situation would be worse if others added those reserves instead of it. Because then, it would be faced with the same lower
price, but have less to sell. So, granted, the individual oil companies, like Exxon Mobil, have a financial self-interest
in the continued and growing production of petroleum and are glad to find any evidence they can that diminishes the threat of the
environmentalist agenda. The relevant question is, which better serves their self-interest in accomplishing this? Is it to
fabricate the facts or to find the actual facts and present them if they support its case? Or, to say the same thing in different words, which is the
better defense of their self-interest: The actual truth if it supports their case? Or simply lies? In the United States, we are fortunate to
have both a long-standing tradition and clear Constitutional protection of a defendants right in a criminal trial not to testify. What the Marxists
and Nazis and those who are following in their path today are seeking is the equivalent of a prohibition of a defendants right to testify.
Individuals, corporations, industries, are to be subject to attack by those who seek to injure or destroy them, and they are to be prohibited from
defending themselves by virtue of people being unwilling listen to what they have to say. They are not to be listened to for no other reason
than that their avoidance of injury and their survival matters to them. They have an interest in the outcome. Yes, they do. And they have a
right to be heardfor that very reason! Because their best defense is truth.
Sherwood Idso is qualified an expert in many scientific disciplines and a respected
peer reviewer
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 14 (Copyright 2014. Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the
world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science
magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published
peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials.
http://www.co2science.org/about/president.php)
SHERWOOD B. IDSO assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change on 4 October 2001. Prior to that time he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix,
Arizona, where he worked since June of 1967. He was also closely associated with Arizona State
University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology,
Geography, and Botany and Microbiology. His Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of
Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of
over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the
international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has
served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his
career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17
different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. As a result of his early
work in the field of remote sensing, Dr. Idso was honored with an Arthur S. Flemming Award, given in
recognition of "his innovative research into fundamental aspects of agricultural-climatological
interrelationships affecting food production and the identification of achievable research goals whose
attainment could significantly aid in assessment and improvement of world food supplies." This citation
continues to express the spirit that animates his current research into the biospheric consequences of
the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
Ice Age DA/Mike Jones
1NC
Latest climate proves ice age is coming - risks millions of lives.
Sircus, 14 (Mark Sircus, Director @ International Medical Veritas Association, Ac., OMD, Polar Vortex Introduces Us to the Coming Ice
Age, 1/12/14, http://drsircus.com/world-news/polar-vortex-introduces-us-to-the-coming-ice-age)
The truth is the atmosphere is in a rapid cooling phase as the sun cools (200 year low) and the volcanic activity continues to
increase. Just this last week another big volcano again put atmospheric dimming gasses high into the atmosphere complicating the fact that the sun is in a
long term downtrend which means cooling for us. Astrophysicists have been aware for years of what is
going on in the sun and their predictions are for cooling not warming. We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial
minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 204211 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years in 205511. After the
maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 205511.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 1 February 2012A volcano on Indonesias Sumatra Island erupted at least 77 times over the weekend,
sending clouds of potentially deadly superheated gas barreling down the mountain and forcing the evacuation of more villages in the highly populated area. The
disaster agency said that Sinabung had sent fine particles of ash up to 4,000 meters into the air. That marks a major increase in the frequency of eruptions and is
mirroring an intensification of volcanic activity being seen in many areas of the world. Scientists and meteorologists have been struggling to explain saying one
possible reason for such a sharp temperature drop was that the kink in the winds came later in the winter this year than in some previous years. Doesnt that make
so much sense? That the best the New York Times could do, not sparing the ink to speak about the sun or volcanoes as possible contributors to the extreme cold.
The ignorance of the media and the government is overwhelming in its stupidity but we know its really deliberate manipulation and holding back of vital
information. They blind the public to the truth and create a sea of suffering as they lie, cheat and steal. Sometimes the government and the press come to their
senses, as we are presently witnessing with the marijuana issue, and sanity dawns, but only after a sea of human wreckage. There is no doubt, no matter what
anyone says, that we as a race and as individuals will be severely challenged in the years ahead. Huge forces are at work and are
moving. We are moving toward a collective destiny and most interestingly our present times have been prophesized by more than one source. Happy times are not
here again yet people with spiritual anchors know that no matter what it is time to be bright, intelligent and full of passion for life and service. Are you planning on
moving south? These Snow-white owls with luminous yellow eyes are it seems as they set up winter residence at airports, fields and beaches far south of their
normal Arctic range. The Florida Times-Union reports that one of the Arctic birds has been spotted last week in Little Talbot Island State Park. Its only the third
sighting of a snowy owl ever confirmed in Florida. If one thinks carefully one can see that cold is more of an immediate threat than low
levels of radiation, which can kill over long periods of time, but cold can kill in minutes. Have no doubt that the kind of cold
hundreds of millions of people just experienced can continue not only this winter but can get even worse through
the coming years. Millions of people have just been given a hard lesson on how harsh life can get and how little they are prepared for it. According to a
2007 study on the issue, cold weather kills more people than leukemia, homicide, and liver disease. Its especially dangerous
among people living in poverty, like homeless individuals and low-income families who may lack access to well-heated homes. Public health officials are warning
that low temperatures also increase the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, as Americans rely on space heaters, fireplaces, and wood stoves which all emit the
potentially deadly fumes. For me the present cold snap in America comes as no surprise and it should come as no surprise to
anyone except to those who do not believe in science or make it up as they go along. I have been writing and warning about global
cooling for quite a few years. Our earth is losing heat even as its core bubbles its heat to the surface with more intensity. Of course when we have
extreme cold somewhere else is experiencing extreme heat but the trend is clearly down to a cooler climate and longer
harsher winters.
CO2 emissions prevent the coming Ice Age
Watts 12 (New paper suggests that CO2 could prove to be our salvation from the next ice age, Anthony University of Gothenburg,
November 8, 2012, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/08/co2-could-prove-to-be-our-salvation-from-the-next-ice-age/, G.V.)
Mankinds emissions of fossil carbon and the resulting increase in temperature could prove to be our
salvation from the next ice age. According to new research from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, the current increase in the extent of
peatland is having the opposite effect. We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, were not noticing it
due to the effects of carbon dioxide , says researcher Professor Lars Franzn. Looking back over the past three million years, the earth has
experienced at least 30 periods of ice age, known as ice age pulses. The periods in between are called interglacials. The researchers believe that the Little Ice
Age of the 16th to 18th centuries may have been halted as a result of human activity. Increased felling of woodlands and growing
areas of agricultural land, combined with the early stages of industrialisation, resulted in increased emissions of carbon dioxide which probably slowed down, or
even reversed, the cooling trend. It is certainly possible that mankinds various activities contributed towards
extending our ice age interval by keeping carbon dioxide levels high enough, explains Lars Franzn, Professor of
Physical Geography at the University of Gothenburg. Without the human impact, the inevitable progression towards an
ice age would have continued. The spread of peatlands is an important factor.
Ice age causes extinctionit comparatively outweighs warming
Chapman 8 (Phil, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, bachelor of science degree in Physics and
Mathematics from Sydney University, a master of science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh, 4/23/08, The
Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-age-cometh/story-
e6frg73o-1111116134873)
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average
temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's
temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the
University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest
temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will
have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad
for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest
on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a
single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in.
The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent
minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual
build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only
two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be
many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot
cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that
lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from
Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle
No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at
least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to
1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and
much more harmful than anything warming may do . There are many more people now and we have become dependent
on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output,
but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning
changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another
possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million
years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions,
most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted
occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout
recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know
that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can
happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it
must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be
14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice,
and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total
annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an
incomprehensible stretch of time. If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the
transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the
world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.
We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on
the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at
least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a
real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. All those urging action to curb global warming need
to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling
instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government
grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Cooling Now/Ice Age Coming
Climate is cooling - not warming.
Hurd, 14 (Dale Hurd, senior reporter @ CBN News, Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming? CBN News,
1/8/14, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/January/Cover-Up-Mounting-Evidence-
Belies-Global-Warming/)
It wasn't supposed to happen: a ship full of scientists and environmentalists sent to the Antarctic to find melting ice from global warming got
stuck in frozen ice from fearsome cold. Then, the rescue ship got stuck in the ice, too. Critics liken the incident to the climate change movement
itself: stuck in denial over the fact that the climate is not getting warmer but seems to be getting much colder. The
climate is changing, but it's not changing the way climate change crowd predicted it would. Nature has made a mockery of
global warming, so who are the real climate deniers? Ice is not only growing in the South Pole, but in parts of the North
Pole, too. And the coldest arctic temperatures in decades have descended upon North America. But that didn't stop
Greenpeace from trying to scare children last month with a video of a sweaty, beleaguered Santa Claus threatening to call off Christmas
because the North Pole is melting. Global Cooling The fact that Arctic ice is growing may not be the good news that it seems to
be. There are signs that the Earth is entering a very unpleasant cooling period. Sunspot activity remains very
low. "The sun has been very unusual for almost 15 years now," Jens Pedersen, senior scientist at the Denmark's Technical
University, said. Pedersen said the sun recently reached solar maximum and that there should be a lot of sunspot activity, but there isn't. "We
have to go back 100 years to find a solar maximum that was as weak as the one we are in right now," he told CBN
News. "And the recent solar minimumone has to go back 200 years to find one that was as weak." The last time the sun was this
quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as "Little Ice
Age," when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.

Solar data proves an ice age is coming.
Prigg, 14 (Mark, US science and technology editor @ MailOnline, Is a mini ace age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has gone to sleep
and say it could cause temperatures to plunge, 1/17/14, Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-
way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html)
The Sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned. They say the conditions are eerily similar to
those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London's River Thames. Researcher
believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to 'major changes' in
temperatures. 'Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,' Richard Harrison of the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC. 'I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything
like this .' He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum. 'There
were cold winters, almost a mini ice age. 'You had a period when the River Thames froze.' Lucie Green of UCL believes that things could
be different this time due to human activity. 'We have 400 years of observations, and it is in a very similar to phase as it was
in the runup to the Maunder Minimum. 'The world we live in today is very different, human activity may counteract this - it is
difficult to say what the consequences are.' Mike Lockwood University of Reading says that the lower temperatures could affect
the global jetstream, causing weather systems to collapse. 'We estimate within 40 years there a 10-20% probability we
will be back in Maunder Minimum territory,' he said. Last year Nasa warned 'something unexpected' is happening on
the Sun' This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. But as this
image reveals, solar activity is relatively low. 'Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have
been infrequent,' the space agency says. The image above shows the Earth-facing surface of the Sun on February 28, 2013, as observed by the
Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. It observed just a few small sunspots on an otherwise clean
face, which is usually riddled with many spots during peak solar activity.


Solar data and atmospheric content prove Ice Age in 2055.
Abdussamatov, 12 (Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, astrophysicist and head of the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Bicentennial
Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age, Applied Physics Research, Vol.
4., No. 1, February, http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140)
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the
power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy
budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the
thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess
accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict
well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial
decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will
henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in
approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric
concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will
additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to
additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of
TSI is expected in 204211, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years in 205511.
*TSI = total solar irradiance

Drops in total solar irradiance collapse the greenhouse effect causes an ice age.
Abdussamatov, 12 (Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, astrophysicist and head of the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Bicentennial
Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age, Applied Physics Research, Vol.
4., No. 1, February, http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140)

Bicentennial Decrease of the TSI Leads to the Little Ice Age From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and
bicentennial components of TSI variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate (Fig. 2), and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the
Earth is declining at practically the same rate (e.g., Frhlich, 2011; Abdussamatov, 2007b, 2009a, b). Average value of TSI in the 23rd cycle was
by 0.17 W/m2 less than in the 22nd cycle. Smoothed value of TSI in the minimum between the cycles 23/24 (1365.24 0.02 W/m2 ) was by
0.26 W/m2 and by 0.33 W/m2 less than in the minima between cycles 22/23 and 21/22, respectively. However, forming from early 1990s long-
term deficit of TSI (see Fig. 2) was not compensated by decrease in the emission of the Earth intrinsic thermal energy into space which
practically remains on the same high level during 146 years due to thermal inertia of the World Ocean. Since the Sun is now entering
a bicentennial long-term phase of low luminosity (e.g., Abdussamatov, 2004, 2005, 2007b; Penn and Livingston, 2010;
American-astronomical-society, 2011) such energy imbalance of the system (E<0) will continue further for the next few
11-year cycles. As a result, the Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance (E<0) in the energy budget. This gradual
consumption of solar energy accumulated by the World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after
146 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to the rise of Earth albedo,
the drop of atmospheric concentration of the most important greenhouse gas water vapor, as well as of
carbon dioxide and other gases. Let us note that water vapor absorbs ~68% of the integral power of the intrinsic long-wave emission of the
Earth, while carbon dioxide only ~12%. As a consequence, a portion of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth will
gradually go down together with manifestations of the greenhouse effect caused by the secondary feedback
effects. The influence of the growing consecutive chain of such changes will cause additional decrease of
the global temperature exceeding the effect of a bicentennial TSI decrease.
Space agencies all agree Ice Age is imminent.
Aym, 11 (Terrence Aym, author of Mysteries of the Multiverse: 25 True Stories of Time and Space,
contributor to Science 360, and writer, Scientists Suns Approaching Grand Cooling Assures New Ice
Age, 2/18/11, Science 360, http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/scientists-suns-approaching-grand-
cooling-assures-new-ice-age-6259/)
NASA and the ESA agree, and so does the Russian space agency, Roscosmosthe sun is headed for a
Grand Solar Minimum and a Grand Cooling will commence. The aptly named Grand Cooling is exactly
what it implies: the sun is going to cool. That cooling will also cool off the Earth. It will last from 30 to
50 years. What exactly does global cooling mean? Well for one, Al Gore was sure wrong! The Earth isn't
going to warm, it's going to get colder. Much colder. So cold a little or full-blown Ice Age will ensue .
As a matter of fact, some scientists claim we're already in the early stages of an Ice Age. Maybe the
Nobel Committee and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should ask Mr. Gore to return
his awards. Dutch Professor Cees de Jager, a prominent astronomer and solar expert, forcefully asserts
that we the world is indeed entering for a long period of very low solar activity. The professor and his
colleagues are certain Earth is heading for a "long Grand Minimum"defined as either a Solar Wolf-
Gleissberg or a Maunder Minimum"not shorter than a century." His 2010 paper, "The forthcoming
Grand Minimum of solar activity," outlined the extended period of time that the diminished solar
radiation would affect the Earth. The Maunder minimum lasted from 1645 to 1715. It was marked by a
period of general cooling over the entire planet. The Minimum coincided with the coldest year of the
Little Ice Age. The astronomer, formerly the head of the Utrecht University Observatory in the
Netherlands, has laid out the basis for the upcoming Ice Age. Another very respected scientist, the late
Dr. Theodor Landscheid, founder of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in
Waldmuenchen, Germany, was considered a giant in the field of climate research. A prodigious author
of many research papers, leader of studies, and the author of several books, Landscheidt investigated
the Gleissberg Minimum. He rejected the now proven flawed science of anthropogenic global warming
and even the concept of long-term global warming itself. "Contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-
made global warming as high as 5.8 C within the next hundred years," he said, "a long period of cool
climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected." Referring to the sun's cycles, he pointed
to their correlation with other periods of prehistory when ice spread across the northern hemisphere.
"It can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the
Maunder Minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth ." A few of the doctor's many papers
on the sun's relation to Earth's climate include "Solar activity: A dominant factor in climate dynamics,"
and "New confirmation of strong solar forcing of climate." Both show the sun's relationship to Earth's
climate and abrupt changes in that climate during periods of transition from warming to cooling and
back to warming. It is unfortunate that Al Gore's inconvenient truth turned out to be a fallacy. Global
warming is much preferable to the climate the Earth actually seems on the verge of slipping into
within a few short years. Depending on the severity of the Ice Age, agriculture could be severely
affected and millions could perish.
Were on the brink of an ice age.
Fegel, 9 (Gregory, writer for Pravda, Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age, Pravda, 11/1/9, http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-
2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/)
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of
evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate
change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and
then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record,
and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about
100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years. Most of the long-term climate data
collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together
known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of
the earths orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earths wobble, which
gradually rotates the direction of the earths axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation,
these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to
produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Coming grand minimum in the sun is about to trigger another Ice Age
Felix, 13 (Robert W., author of two internationally acclaimed science books - Not by Fire, but by Ice and Magnetic Reversals and
Evolutionary Leaps, host and creator of Ice Age Now, and has done more than 300 interviews in the US and Canada on the subject, quotes
Scientists at Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, and Lewis Page scientist at The Register newspaper. YES, solar minimums like
the one now looming CAN cause ICE AGES, say Swiss scientists, 10/3/13, http://iceagenow.info/2013/10/yes-solar-minimums-looming-ice-
ages-swiss-scientists/)//WL
It may well be that actually humanity will find itself battling cold rather than heat in the generations to come.
Could it be an ice age now? Solar physicists think that the Sun is about to enter a grand minimum, a
prolonged period of low activity, says this article by Lewis Page. The current 11-year peak in solar action is
the weakest seen for a long time, and it may presage a lengthy quiet period. Previously, historical records
suggest that such periods have been accompanied by chilly conditions on Earth. The Little Ice Age seen from
the 15th to the 19th centuries is often mentioned in this context. IPCC-leaning scientists, however, say that the Little Ice Age couldnt have been caused by solar
variability not even solar variability combined with sky-darkening volcanic eruptions as the effects would have been too weak. That school of science would
often suggest that the Little Ice Age was actually caused by a sequence of unusually powerful North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) atmospheric phenomena or, in
other words, that it was just a blip: rather like the current 15-year hiatus in global warming. A Berne university statement issued just last
week says that in fact the Little Ice Age most certainly could have been triggered by variations in the
Sun. The Berne group has shown that the comparatively minor effects of changes in the Sun are actually amplified
seriously by feedbacks on Earth. Little Ice Age driven purely by strong and frequent volcanic eruptions and reduced solar
radiation Climate researchers at the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research Flavio Lehner, Andreas Born, Christoph Raible and Thomas Stocker -
show that the Little Ice Age was driven purely by strong and frequent volcanic eruptions and reduced solar radiation, or both together. According to the Berne
statement, volcanic eruptions and reduced solar radiation caused global cooling between the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries. The resulting
accelerated formation of sea ice in the Northern Seas triggered a positive feedback process that
shaped the Little Ice Age. Solid proof that the Little Ice Age was primarily governed by external triggers The Berne statement continues, For the
scientists, the fact that all the slightly altered, realistic simulations and the synthetic ice simulation yielded consistent results is solid proof that the Little Ice Age was
primarily governed by external triggers. Volcanic activity and less solar radiation initially caused an increase in sea-ice formation independently of atmospheric
circulation. How much clearer can it be? In fact the coming solar minimum and/or volcanic eruptions that may occur in
coming centuriescould actually be quite capable of trigger ing another small Ice Age , writes Page. It may well be that actually
humanity will find itself battling cold rather than heat in the generations to come. The Berne researchers paper is published in
the American Meteorological Societys ournal of Climate.
AT: Warming NOT Cooling
Warming proves that an ice age is imminent.
Fegel, 9 (Gregory, writer for Pravda,How an Ice Age Begins, 10/7/9, http://climaterealists.com/?id=4138)
The idea that global warming will produce global cooling is counterintuitive to many people, but that process of heating leading to
cooling is a basic part of the 'orbital theory' of an insolation-driven (sunlight-driven) Ice Age cycle. The 'orbital theory', which is based on
the fact that cyclic changes in the earth's orbit of the sun alter the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth, is the leading theory of
Ice Age causation. It is likely that the next Ice Age will be preceded and precipitated (literally) by an upward
spike in global temperatures and warming of the oceans, which will increase oceanic evaporation and cause an increase in global
precipitation, some of which will fall as snow, that will feed the growth of glaciers at high latitudes and high elevations. An Ice Age is
characterized by the formation of vast glaciers on top of large continental land masses. Since there are much larger continental land masses
located in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, it is in the Northern Hemisphere that the Ice Age
cycle is most obviously manifested. At the peak of the last Ice Age glacial maximum, about 17,000 years ago, glaciers up to two miles thick
covered all of Canada, Scandinavia, and most of Britain. The astronomical phenomenon known as the Precession of the Equinoxes causes a
gradual rotation of the earth's axial tilt, which changes the season during which the Northern and Southern Hemispheres make their nearest (at
perigee) and farthest (at apogee) approaches to the sun. For the past 11,000 years, winter in the Northern Hemisphere has occurred when
the sun was at perigee, its nearest approach to the earth, and summer in the Northern Hemisphere has occurred when the sun was at apogee,
its farthest distance from the earth. Winters at solar perigee and summers at solar apogee have the effect of reducing the temperature
extremes of the seasons. The winter perigee and summer apogee also shortened the duration of winters and lengthened the duration of
summers in the Northern Hemisphere. But now the short, mild winters and long, mild summers which the Northern
Hemisphere has enjoyed for the past 11,000 years have come to an end; henceforward the winters will become longer and colder, and
the summers will become shorter and hotter. During the next 11,000 years the Northern Hemisphere will experience long,
cold winters and short, hot summers. The blazing hot summers will warm the oceans and cause increased precipitation, much of
which will be deposited as snow at high latitudes and high elevations. The long, cold winters will further facilitate the growth and maintenance
of glaciers in the high latitudes and high elevations of the Northern Hemisphere. Research has shown that during the previous Ice
Age glacial maximum, the first 5,000 years of the glacial advance was characterized by the conditions
described by the above paragraph. After 5,000 years, the continental glaciers were well established at their full extent and the Northern
Hemisphere remained in full Ice Age conditions for another 5,000 years before the ice began to retreat about 11,000 years ago. In recent
years we have seen record-breaking high summer temperatures recorded in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere,
and we have also seen record-breaking low winter temperatures recorded in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The
winters of 2007-8 and 2008-9 broke many records for low temperatures and the depth of snowfall, and in early October of 2009 we are already
seeing an early onset of wintry-cold conditions in the Northern Hemisphere. The increasing extremes of summer and winter
temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that we have seen in recent years is consistent with what we should expect from the earth's
present movement into an 11,000 year period of extreme summers and winters. That is how an Ice Age begins.

Their models are snapshots prefer our long-term data.
Fegel, 9 (Gregory, writer for Pravda, Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age, Pravda, 11/1/9, http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-
2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/)
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous hockey stick graph which was
presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. The hockey stick graph shows an acute upward spike in global
temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend
was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere
since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably
equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures. The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its
proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the
evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of
climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation
for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
Their data is flawed distracts from the real threat.
Fegel, 9 (Gregory, writer for Pravda, Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age, Pravda, 11/1/9, http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-
2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/)

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates
a wanton disregard for the big picture of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice
cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering
another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over
the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people
throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the
Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.


CO2 Stops Ice Age
CO2 prevents the ice age.
Le Page, 8 (Michael Le Page, features editor @ New Scientist, Humans may have prevented super ice age, New Scientist, 11/12/08,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html#.U8mMKYBdU00)
Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have
proposed. Had we not radically altered the atmosphere, say Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and William Hyde of the
University of Toronto in Canada, the current cycle of ice ages and interglacials would have given way in the not-too-distant future to
an ice age lasting millions of years . "It's not proven but it's more than just an interesting idea," says Crowley. For much of the 500 million years
or so since complex life evolved, Earth's climate has been much hotter than it is now, with no ice at the poles. During the last of these "hothouse Earth" phases,
from around 100 to 50 million years ago, the Antarctic was covered by lush forests and shallow seas submerged vast areas of America, Europe and Africa. Since that
time, though, CO2 levels have slowly fallen, possibly due to the rise of the Himalayas. As a result Earth has gradually cooled, with permanent ice sheets starting to
form in Antarctica around 30 million years ago and later in the Arctic. Then, 2.5 million years ago, the climate entered a curious new phase: it started oscillating
wildly, see-sawing between interglacial periods with conditions similar to today's and ice ages during which the amount of permanent ice in the northern
hemisphere expanded hugely. At the peaks of these transient ice ages, much of northern Europe, northern Asia and North America
were covered in ice sheets up to 4 kilometres thick, and sea levels were 120 metres lower than today. From a "deep time" perspective, this ice age-
interglacial cycle may be just another brief transitional phase. It has been becoming ever more variable, Crowley says. When the cycle began, the climate went from
ice age to interglacial and back roughly every 41,000 years. More recently, it has been happening every 100,000 years. The temperature swings have also become
greater: the interglacials have been no warmer but the ice ages have become much colder. So the overall cooling trend was continuing - until the arrival of the
Anthropocene, the period in which humans have started to have a major affect on Earth's climate and ecosystems. According to a simple climate model developed
by Crowley and Hyde, this increasing variability was a sign that the climate was about to flip into a new stable state - a semi-permanent ice age. This ice age
might well have lasted for tens of millions of years or more, Crowley says. In the model runs best resembling actual climate history,
the switch to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can be placed
on the results of single runs out of many. The idea of the world becoming locked in an ice age is certainly plausible ,
says James Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies past climate. It's not that rare for the climate to switch from
one state into another, he says. And there were extensive and long-lived ice ages during the Carboniferous period, around 300 million years, points
out climate modeller Andy Ridgwell of the University of Bristol, UK. Further back, around 700 million years ago, there was an even colder period known as "Snowball
Earth", when the planet froze over nearly completely. However, Crowley and Hyde are going to have to do a lot more work to convince their peers. Because of the
vast lengths of time involved, they used a very basic model to simplify calculations. "It is not as complex as everyone wants it to be, but you can run it for a very long
time," says Crowley. None of the researchers contacted by New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking seriously. It appears to have a bias to
forming large and stable ice sheets, says Ridgwell. "So it does not come as a shock that they find a transition point to an even greater ice mass state." Still, everyone
agrees that it is an intriguing idea. "It is worth delving into deeper," says Ridgwell. The idea that humans have averted an ice age may
ring a bell with regular New Scientist readers. Climatologist Bill Ruddiman has suggested that Stone Age farmers prevented
an ice age by releasing greenhouse gases. However, the two ideas are quite distinct: Ruddiman thinks that without human intervention we
would now be entering another transient ice age like all the previous ones, while Crowley thinks that at some time in the future the whole ice age-interglacial cycle
would have ended.
Ice Age O/Ws
Ice Age outweighs all conceivable impacts.
Felix, 5 (Robert W., author of two internationally acclaimed science books - Not by Fire, but by Ice and
Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, host and creator of Ice Age Now, and has done more than
300 interviews in the US and Canada on the subject, Not by Fire, but by Ice, p. 23)
It was mass extinction, global and sudden. Seventy-five percent of all species on the planet went extinct,
never again to appear in the geological record. The sheer number of deaths, says scientists, make the
dinosaurs disappearance look like an afterthought . When 75% of all living species disappear from the
face of the earth, weve got a disaster on our hands, a disaster greater than any nuclear holocaust
weve ever tried to imagine . If we simultaneously exploded every nuclear weapon in existence in
every country on earth , say scientists, we would not begin to match the devastation . Not even
close . There must be an answer, and wed better find it quick before it happens again.
Ice age is the equivalent of all the worlds nuclear weapons going off.
Felix, 5 (Robert W., author of two internationally acclaimed science books - Not by Fire, but by Ice and
Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, host and creator of Ice Age Now, and has done more than
300 interviews in the US and Canada on the subject, Not by Fire, but by Ice, p. 31)
Were talking about the kind of damage youd expect from a nuclear explosion. Not one of your
piddling everyday nuclear explosions, either. Anything that would spread a half-inch layer or iridium-
laced clay or more (its a food deep in places) over the entire globe had to have been caused by
something catastrophic. Were talking about 10,000 times more damage , scientists calculate than if
we were to detonate ever existing nuclear bomb in the world .
Impact Laundry List
Empirically even a Little Ice Age causes famine, disease, economic collapse, and war.
Cohen, 12 (ennie Cohen, writer, editor, multimedia journalist, Masters degree in new media
journalism from Columbia University, former writer @ the New York Sun, Little Ice Age, Big
Consequences, 1/31/12, http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences)
Between the early 14th and late 19th centuries, a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age chilled the
planet. Europe bore the brunt of its ill effects, experiencing harsh and fickle weather for several centuries and especially from 1560 to 1660.
Scientists continue to debate the cause and timeline of the cold spell, which has been blamed for catastrophes ranging from
droughts and famines to wars and epidemics. According to the latest study, described by an international team in this weeks
Geophysical Research Letters, volcanic eruptions just before the year 1300 triggered the expansion of Arctic sea ice, setting off a chain reaction
that lowered temperatures worldwide. Find out about some of the numerous trends and events climatologists and historians have chalked up
to the Little Ice Ageeither rightly or wronglyover the years. Great Famine Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential
rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly
prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports,
some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s. Black Death
Typically considered an outbreak of the bubonic plague, which is transmitted by rats and fleas, the Black Death wreaked havoc on
Europe, North Africa and Central Asia in the mid-14th century. It killed an estimated 75 million people, including 30 to 60 percent of
Europes population. Some experts have tied the outbreak to the food shortages of the Little Ice Age, which purportedly weakened
human immune systems while allowing rats to flourish. Manchu Conquest of China In the first half of the 17th century, famines and
floods caused by unusually cold, dry weather enfeebled Chinas ruling Ming Dynasty. Unable to pay their taxes, peasants rose up in revolt and
by 1644 had overthrown the imperial authorities. Manchurian invaders from the north capitalized on the power vacuum by crossing the Great
Wall, allying with the rebels and establishing the Qing Dynasty. Witch Hunts In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII recognized the existence of witches and
echoed popular sentiment by blaming them for the cold temperatures and resulting misfortunes plaguing Europe. His declaration ushered in an
era of hysteria, accusations and executions on both sides of the Atlantic. Historians have shown that surges in European witch trials coincided
with some of the Little Ice Ages most bitter phases during the 16th and 17th centuries. Thirty Years War Among other military conflicts,
the brutal Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics across central Europe has been linked to the Little Ice Age.
Chilly conditions curbed agricultural production and inflated grain prices, fueling civil discontent and weakening the
economies of European powers. These factors indirectly plunged much of the continent into war from 1618 to 1648,
according to this model. Rise of the Potato When Spanish conquistadors first introduced the potato in the late 16th century, Europeans scoffed
at the unfamiliar starch. In the mid-1700s, however, some countries began promoting the hardy tuber as an alternative to crops indigenous to
the region, which often failed to withstand the Little Ice Ages colder seasons. It soon caught on with farmers throughout Europe, particularly in
Ireland. French Revolution As the 18th century drew to a close, two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing
bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor in France. Many expressed their desperation and resentment toward a
regime that imposed heavy taxes yet failed to provide relief by rioting, looting and striking. Tensions erupted into the French Revolution of
1789, which some historians have connected to the Little Ice Age.



AT: Warming => Disasters
No warming disasters ice age comparatively worse.
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer, 2011, Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf, AS)

Researchers have found extreme and destructive rainfall events were more common in many parts
of the world during the Little Ice Age than they have been subsequently, contradicting the forecasts
of the IPCC. Regional climate models of North America generate predictions that vary considerably
Flood frequency and severity in
many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than
during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes
and levee construction Droughts are not becoming more frequent, more
severe, or longer-lasting. For example, droughts in the central U.S. since 1895 have not been as
severe or as long as earlier droughts, with three of the top ten most severe droughts occurring in the
la Hurricane frequency does not fluctuate linearly with global
temperatures. Researchers find no significant *tropical cyclone+ trend remains using either an
1878 or a 1900 starting point (Landsea et al., 2009). Hurricane frequency during the Medieval
wildfire
frequency and intensity does not increase linearly with global temperatures. The incidence of large
forest fires has decreased during the past 150 years in Canada and Russia. Human adaptation during
the industrial age appears to have overpowered any natural tendency toward increased wildfires.

Warming Representations Bad

Apocalyptic Warming Discourse Bad
Apocalyptic warming discourse causes complacent reactions and halts any real
progress
Foust and Murphy 9 (Christina R. Foust Assistant Professor, Department of Human Communication
Studies, University of Denver, & William O Shannon Murphy, Department of Human Communication
Studies, University of Denver. Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming
Discourse, Environmental Communication Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2009, pp. 151-167,
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8235b521-b72a-4c47-960f-
ccd0bbecabf6%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4212)
A number of discursive features constitute global warming tragically: verbs which express the certainty of
catastrophic effects, a lack of perspective or shortening of time from beginning to telos, and analogies
which equate global warming with foretold apocalyptic outcomes. Each feature forecloses human
agency or frames climate change as a matter of Fate. Within the tragic variation of apocalypse, global warming (not other
natural or divinely ordained events or processes, such as a steady decline to extinction which inevitably befalls all earthly species) is viewed as
the demise of humanity. A close reading of the discourse reveals important differences in the verbs, is, will,
and could, which call attention to variations in human agency. Predicting global warming through the word
could frees space for human action, including adaptation and mitigation. Asserting that the
catastrophic telos of climate change is happening or will occur, however, may reduce the potential for
human intervention. As Revkin (2006a) quotes British chemist James E. Lovelock, a 14-degree temperature rise means roughly that
most of life on the planet will have to move up to the Arctic basin, to the few islands that are still habitable and to oases on the continent. It will
be a much-diminished world (p. F2). Declaring with certainty that these negative impacts of global warming will
happen suggests that a cosmic, extra-human force determines the outcome of events. Tragic
discourse may even describe predicted events through present-tense verbs, heightening the
deterministic effect: As the Arctic ice melts and ice shelves collapse in the Southern Ocean, vast areas of open water are exposed. The
water absorbs heat from the sun that until now was reflected by the ice (Struck, 2007, p. A10). Struck (2007) qualifies that a warmer ocean is
expected to reduce ocean circulation; but he concludes with a tragic analogy: The previous time the oceanic conveyor-belt current stopped
15,000 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was plunged into a brief but brutal ice age, apparently within decades (p. A10). Importantly,
many fragments exhibit a sense of uncertainty about whether the telos is fated comically or tragically, through the mix of is, will, and could.
One of the more complex constructions we discovered is an if-will/would, which pairs the hope for human agency (if) with the preordained
tragic outcome (will/would): Several climatologists believe that it is likely that the ice sheet will begin melting uncontrollably if global
temperatures climb more than 3.6 [degrees Fahrenheit]. A rapid meltdown in Greenland would quickly raise sea levels around the world and
flood coastal cities and farms. As well as sending large icebergs down the coast, the infusion of cold, fresh water could disrupt ocean currents
such as the Gulf Stream, which help to keep weather in the Northern Hemisphere regulated. If that feedback kicks in, says *climatologist
Konrad+ Steffen, then the average person will worry. (Clynes, 2007, p. 52) The end-points of human-animal displacements and migrations
could set in, following an ice sheet melt that will begin if a 3.6-degree rise in temperatures occurs. The if/would and if/could
constructions imply hope for human intervention. However, this hope is quickly diminished, as tragic texts conclude that humans
are unlikely to, or are incapable of, acting. The climatologist above suggests that the average person
does not begin to worry until after a self-reinforcing feedback loop kicks in, suggesting that human
involvement in a potentially comic narrative will not come until it is too late rendering the narrative
tragic. The shorter the time frame is from beginning to telos, the less likely humans are to have agency over
the effects of global warming. Tragic apocalyptic discourse posits a quickened pace for global warming: Global warming has the
feel of breaking news these days. Polar bears are drowning; an American city is underwater; ice sheets are crumbling (Revkin 2006b, p. 1). To
promote a feeling of immediacy for global warming may not, by itself, hinder human agency. Warning readers that we currently
feel some effects of global warming may promote a sense of urgency while retaining the potential for
human action. To suggest that the fastest warming in the history of civilization *is+ already under
way (Herbert, 2000, p. A23), however, may thoroughly discourage readers from active participation by
minimizing human agency. Moreover, it is possible to read signs of climate change as a catastrophic telos
which is already in process: the oceans are rising, mountain glaciers are shrinking, low-lying coastal areas are eroding, and the very
timing of the seasons is changing (Herbert, 2000, p. A23). Global warming thus appears impervious to human
intervention in the current moment. The tragic acceleration of time may also occur when reporters or
scientists give no perspective for readers concerning temporality. Following early estimates that if no action is taken, the average
surface temperature of the globe will rise by two to six degrees Fahrenheit by *2100+, Stevens (1997) concludes, It would mean more
warming, coming more rapidly than the planet has experienced in the last 10,000 years (p. F1). With no sense of time scale,
readers are left to experience the global warming narrative as though happening overnight or over a
season, in the same way they may have witnessed floods or droughts. The accelerated time places the catastrophic telos outside human
influence: Since the warming would be unusually rapid, many natural ecosystems might be unable to adjust, and whole forest types could
disappear (p. F1). The combination of tragic telos, deterministic linear temporality, and an extra-human
force guiding history appear most dramatically in discussions of feedback loops, self-perpetuating cycles that
exacerbate warming and its effects. Homer-Dixon (2007b) describes feedback loops as a vicious circle . . . in our global climate *that+ could
determine humankinds future prosperity and even survival (p. A29). Here, the end-point of global climate change is cast
completely outside of human agency, for nature takes over. Though Herbert (2002) mixes a variety of caveats and
verbs (for example, in the above excerpt he uses could, rather than would or will) in his discussion of feedback loops, the tragic
implication is clear: It is likely that surface temperature will rise between 3 and 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a level of warming that could
initiate the disintegration of the ice sheet. And stopping that disintegration, once the planet gets that warm, may be impossible (p. A25). With
the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Tremendous amounts of housing, wetlands and farming areas around the world would vanish. Large
portions of a country like Bangladesh . . . would disappear (p. A25). Once a feedback loop becomes instantiated, there is little (if anything)
humans can do but witness the (apparently rapid) disappearance of entire nations. The argumentative force of the tragic
apocalypse also appears through analogies, especially those between current climate change and
ancient climate catastrophes, or fictional weather apocalypses, as in The Day After Tomorrow (Bowles, 2004; Scott,
2004). For instance, Gugliotta (2005) lures readers with the headline, Extinction Tied to Global Warming; Greenhouse Effect Cited in Mass
Decline 250 Million Years Ago (p. A3). Volcanoes releasing Huge amounts of carbon dioxide . . . trigger*ed+ a greenhouse effect that warmed
the earth and depleted oxygen from the atmosphere, causing environmental deterioration and finally collapse (p. A3). Stories about
analogous events function as enthymemes where global warmings worst effects are fated, outside of
human capacity to mitigate or adapt to them. Through the harrowing images of fictitious or ancient catastrophes, audiences
may draw their own conclusions concerning the fate of humanity, and life itself.
Other Options
SO2 CP
SO2 Geoengineering CP Solves
Loading SO2 onto planes and then injecting it into the atmosphere would solve
warming its feasible this CP also assumes your generic SO2 answers.
Rotman 13 (David, Editor of MIT Technology Review, A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming,
MIT Technology Review, February 8, 2013, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-
cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/)//rh
According to Keiths calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would take 25,000 metric tons
of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year . Once under way, the injection of sulfuric
acid would proceed continuously. By 2040, 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of it
each year, at an annual cost of $700 million, would be required to compensate for the increased
warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide. By 2070, he estimates, the program would need to
be injecting a bit more than a million tons per year using a fleet of a hundred aircraft. One of the
startling things about Keiths proposal is just how little sulfur would be required . A few grams of it in
the stratosphere will offset the warming caused by a ton of carbon dioxide, according to his estimate.
And even the amount that would be needed by 2070 is dwarfed by the roughly 50 million metric tons
of sulfur emitted by the burning of fossil fuels every year. Most of that pollution stays in the lower
atmosphere, and the sulfur molecules are washed out in a matter of days. In contrast, sulfate
particles remain in the stratosphere for a few years, making them more effective at reflecting
sunlight. The idea of using sulfate aerosols to offset climate warming is not new. Crude versions of the
concept have been around at least since a Russian climate scientist named Mikhail Budkyo proposed the
idea in the mid-1970s, and more refined descriptions of how it might work have been discussed for
decades. These days the idea of using sulfur particles to counteract warmingoften known as solar
radiation management, or SRMis the subject of hundreds of papers in academic journals by
scientists who use computer models to try to predict its consequences. But Keith, who has published on
geoengineering since the early 1990s, has emerged as a leading figure in the field because of his
aggressive public advocacy for more research on the technologyand his willingness to talk
unflinchingly about how it might work. Add to that his impeccable academic credentialslast year
Harvard lured him away from the University of Calgary with a joint appointment in the school of
engineering and the Kennedy School of Governmentand Keith is one of the worlds most influential
voices on solar geoengineering . He is one of the few who have done detailed engineering studies and
logistical calculations on just how SRM might be carried out . And if he and his collaborator James -
Anderson, a prominent atmospheric chemist at Harvard, gain public funding, they plan to conduct some
of the first field experiments to assess the risks of the technique. Leaning forward from the edge of his
chair in a small, sparse Harvard office on an unusually warm day this winter, he explains his urgency.
Whether or not greenhouse-gas emissions are cut sharplyand there is little evidence that such
reductions are comingthere is a realistic chance that *solar geoengineering] technologies could
actually reduce climate risk significantly, and we would be negligent if we didnt look at that, he says.
Im not saying it will work, and Im not saying we should do it. But it would be reckless not to begin
serious research on it, he adds. The sooner we find out whether it works or not, the better. The
overriding reason why Keith and other scientists are exploring solar geoengineering is simple and well
documented, though often overlooked: the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup is
for all practical purposes irreversible, because the climate change is directly related to the total
cumulative emissions. Even if we halt carbon dioxide emissions entirely, the elevated concentrations
of the gas in the atmosphere will persist for decades. And according to recent studies, the warming
itself will continue largely unabated for at least 1,000 years. If we find in, say, 2030 or 2040 that
climate change has become intolerable, cutting emissions alone wont solve the problem. Thats the
key insight, says Keith. While he strongly supports cutting carbon dioxide emissions as rapidly as
possible, he says that if the climate dice roll against us, that wont be enough: The only thing that
we think might actually help [reverse the warming] in our lifetime is in fact geoengineering.
Solvency
SO2 injection reverses warming and solves precipitation displacement and sea ice
melt
Jones et al. 10 (A. Jones1, J. Haywood1, O. Boucher1, B. Kravitz2, and A. Robock2 1Met Office Hadley
Centre, Exeter, UK 2Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Geoengineering by
stratospheric SO2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with
the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
Published July 5, 2010)//rh

Figure 3 shows the evolution of global annual-mean near- surface air temperature anomaly in HadGEM2 (Fig. 3a) and ModelE (Fig. 3b). The
full impact of stratospheric SO2 injection on temperature appears to be realized in both models after
about ten years of geoengineering, with mean cooling rates of 0.74 and 0.47 K/decade in HadGEM2
and ModelE, respectively, over the first decade. This is quite a dramatic rate of temperature change, although it should be borne in
mind that this is due to our idealized experimental design where geoengineering is not phased-in but is instead instantaneously fully activated.
When geoengineering is terminated the sulphate aerosol burden returns to its unperturbed state after
about 5 years in HadGEM2 and global mean temperature increases at an average rate of 0.77 K/decade, returning
to the A1B value after about 15 years. This rate of warming is more than twice that in AIB (0.34 Kdecaet over years 2060). The behaviour of
ModelE is somewhat different, warming strongly at 1.01 K decadet for the first 7 years or so, after which the rate of warming reduces to
approximately 0.27 K/decade as it slowly approaches Al B temperatures. These rates com pare with a mean warming of 0.16 K decade in A lB
over the whole period. The results from HadGEM2 shown in Fig. 3a suggest that a given amount of warming under the A IB scenario
may be delayed by some 3035 years by the SO2 injection rates considered here. Figure 4a and b shows the
distribution of near-surface temperature change averaged over the second decade in IIadGEM2 and
ModelE, respectively. This shows cooling more or less globally in both models, with the strongest cooling at
higher northern latitudes. The cooling is generally stronger over land than over ocean in both models, but HadGEM2 also shows
cooling over the Arctic which is much stronger than that in ModelE. However, a problem has since been identified with the sea-ice scheme in
the ModelE simulations of Robock et al. (2008) analysed here, which resulted in sea-ice being less responsive to temperature changes than it
should be. This explains the differences between HadGEM2 and ModelE at high latitudes, and also contributes to the lower climate sensitivity
of ModelE com pared with IIadGEM2. This also suggests that the similarity of global-mean temperature change in the two models (0.74 K in
HadGEM2 and 0.69 K in ModelE in the sec ond decade) is coincidental. However, the important point is that, with the exception of extreme
northern latitudes, the distribution of temperature response in the two models is in reasonable agreement. with HadGEM2 showing a more
detailed geographic pattern due to the higher resolution of the model and the fact that it is a single model experiment rather than a small
ensemble. One definition of the goal of geoengineering could be to avoid any further global warming due
to continuing increases in GHG concentrations. Figure 3a shows that after about 30 years of the
geoengineering simulation the global-mean near- surface air temperature in HadGEM2 is about the same as at
the start of the simulation, i.e. the same as the mean 1990 1999 period. It is therefore instructive to examine the mean changes
for the 10-year period over which the mean temperature anomaly is approximately zero (mean of years 29 38 inclusive), which period one
could consider as being an analogue for geoengineering counterbalancing global warming. The changes in temperature are shown in Fig. 4e for
HadGEM2. Although the global-mean temperature change may be near zero (+0.0 1 K), regionally this is far from the case. Some land areas
such as central Africa and Australia are cooler than the 19901999 mean by up to 1 K, whereas the Amazon region is warmer by a similar
amount. Polar amplification due to lee-albedo feedbacks are also apparent in the warming at high
latitudes, indicating that the cooling effect of geoengineering at these latitudes (Fig. 4a) has by this
time been overwhelmed by the warming due to GHGs. 3.4 Precipitation The mean change in JuneAugust precipitation
rate is shown in Fig. 4d and e for HadGEM2 and ModelE, respectively. While the distributions clearly differ in some areas (e.g. ModelE shows a
reduction of precipitation in the eastern USA, whereas HadGEM2 suggests an increase), nevertheless the results from both models again share
certain broad features. Tropical precipitation maxima over the Atlantic and much of the Pacific oceans are displaced southwards in both
models, resulting in precipitation reductions in sub-Saharan Africa and the land areas around the Bay of Bengal. This is in response to the
hemispheric asymmetry in the temperature change (Fig. 4a), such that the precipitation maximum associated with the inter-tropical
convergence zone (ITCZ) moves southwards towards the warmer hemisphere (e.g., Williams et al., 2001; Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002). It must
be remembered that the changes in precipitation described above are with respect to the corresponding period (years 1120) of the A1B
simulations, not with respect to ap proximately current conditions. Further, the geoengineering simulations during this period are considerably
cooler than current conditions due to the idealised manner in which SO, injection is applied. The change in mean June-August pre cipitation in
HadGEM2 between the 19901999 mean and the years 2938, the decade when global-mean temperature is about the same as the 1990
1999 period, is shown in Fig. 4f As well as a reduction in global-mean precipitation, consistent with the results of Bala et al. (2008) and Robock
et al. (2008), there are also significant changes in regional precipitation, despite the fact that employing geoengineering has meant virtually no
change in global-mean temperature. The precipitation maximum associated with the ITCZ has generally moved northwards in response to the
asymmetric warm ing, and although geoengineering has somewhat ameliorated this change (as shown in Fig. 4d, indicating the tendency of the
geoengineering to move the ITCZ southwards), the changes induced by increasing GHG concentrations clearly dominate. 3.5 Sea-ice We only
show the sea-ice changes from HadGEM2 due to the problems with the sea-ice scheme in the ModelE results noted above. Comparing
the second decade from the geo engineering simulation with the corresponding A1B simulation, Arctic
sea-ice area increased by 2.71 x 106 km2, and Antarctic sea-ice area by 0.92x 106 km2, as shown in
Fig. 5. This compares with decreases of 1.61 and 0.27x 10 km for Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice area, respectively, when comparing the second
decade of A1B with the mean of 19901999 in the historical simulation. The larger change in Fig. 5a and b compared with 5c and d is directly
related to the temperature differences between the two simulations in their second decade compared with that in the 19901999 control (Fig.
3a). 4. Discussion and Conclusion We have compared the impact of geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection in two fully coupled climate
models, HadGEM2 and ModelE. These models differ in numerous ways, having different resolutions, using different SO2 injection methods, and
producing different magnitudes of geoengineered sulphate aerosol burdens. Despite these differences, however, injecting the same
amount of SO2 into the lower stratosphere induces climate responses which show considerable
agreement between the two models. Both suggest a reduction in near-surface air temperature which
is global in extent and distributed in a similar fashion to the warming caused by GHGs (e.g. Fig. 6a in Jones et
al., 2009). Both models also indicate that this form of geoengineering causes a southward displacement
of the tropical precipitation maximum. This may counteract to some degree the northward shift caused by
increases in GHG concentrations, but the latter still dominate. The HadGEM2 simulations suggest that the SO2 injection
rates considered here could defer a given amount of global mean warming under the A1B scenario by
3035 years. However, both models also indicate a rapid warming if geoengineering is not maintained, which raises serious issues when
considering the amount of time over which geoengineering would need to be sustained
AT: SO2 CP
CP Fails
There are environmental side-effects and government regulations means the CP wont
happen
Rotman 13 (David, Editor of MIT Technology Review, A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming,
MIT Technology Review, February 8, 2013, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-
cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/)//rh
The author of this so-called geoengineering scheme, David Keith, doesnt want to implement it anytime
soon, if ever. Much more research is needed to determine whether injecting sulfur into the
stratosphere would have dangerous consequences such as disrupting precipitation patterns or further
eating away the ozone layer that protects us from damaging ultraviolet radiation. Even thornier, in
some ways, are the ethical and governance issues that surround geoengineeringquestions about
who should be allowed to do what and when. Still, Keith, a professor of applied physics at Harvard
University and a leading expert on energy technology, has done enough analysis to suspect it could be a
cheap and easy way to head off some of the worst effects of climate change.
CP = Extinction
SO2 injection = extinction
Anderson 12 (Cassandra, writer for MORPHcity, Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions of
People, MORPHcity, October 2, 2012, http://www.morphcity.com/home/121-scientists-warn-geo-
engineering-can-kill-billions-of-people)//rh
Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky
with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the
environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming. There is evidence
that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols,
known as chemtrails. A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur
particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year
by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has
also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for
their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money. Geo-engineering is touted as a last-
ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering
can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths! Therefore,
Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling
weather and/or depopulation. Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death
The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a
model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the
scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an
increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted. Based on the SO2
volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic
regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and
water supply for billions of people ! Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion,
reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river flow and soil moisture. While the
scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the experiments appear to believe in man-made global
warming, they do have stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR9inPress.pdf 2012 Geo-Engineering Study The
Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering models based on volcanoes, but the study
was unrealistic because it used climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial
era. However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a strong decrease in rainfall (a
15% loss in North America and Eurasia and a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall
would be reduced by 5%. Unless one considers the financial benefits (government and private grants),
it is bewildering why the academia would support geo-engineering.
http://www.egu.eu/home/geoengineering-could-disrupt-rainfall-patterns.html Geo-Engineering Can
Cause Warming atmosphere2 Geo-engineering can actually cause global warming when tampering
with clouds in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists propose
spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico experiment proposes spraying 15
miles above surface- both of these fall within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.
The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth's atmosphere, extending an average of 4 to 12 miles
above surface. Clouds that are in the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate
of albedo or reflectivity of the sun's rays away from Earth that produce a cooling effect. However, the
experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. The upper
atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high as 31 miles above the Earth's surface. The
clouds in the higher stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and act like a
blanket that traps heat. Both experiments propose dumping SO2 in the upper
atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would theoretically increase
warming . This is the opposite of Gates' stated goal to cool the planet. (Note: most long-distance planes
fly at 6 miles above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)



Perm
Perm do both SO2 injection cant solve alone also has unconsidered environmental
side effects
Jones et al. 10 (A. Jones1, J. Haywood1, O. Boucher1, B. Kravitz2, and A. Robock2 1Met Office Hadley
Centre, Exeter, UK 2Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, Geoengineering by
stratospheric SO2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with
the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
Published July 5, 2010)//rh

The patterns of temperature and precipitation responses to geoengineering via stratospheric SO2
injection differ from those via modification of marine stratocumulus cloud sheets in HadGEM2 (Jones et
al., 2009). The stratospheric SO2 injection geoengineering simulations produce geographic responses
which, being more homogeneous, more closely counteract the responses due to increasing
concentrations of GHGs than do the responses from stratocumulus modification. However, the results
from HadGEM2 suggest that increases in GHG concentrations can still have a profound impact on
regional climate even if geoengineering is successful in counteracting any change in global-mean
temperature. Maintaining global-mean temperature near its current level might be considered a
necessary goal for any geoengineering proposals, but it is by no means sufficient. It should also be
borne in mind that, in common with other geoengineering proposals to modify the Earths radiation
balance, stratospheric SO2 injection does nothing to offset other impacts of increasing GHG
concentrations, such as ocean acidification. Furthermore, neither model addresses the potential
damage to the ozone layer caused by deliberate introduction of stratospheric aerosols (e.g. Crutzen,
2006). The similarity of the temperature and precipitation responses in the two models hardly
constitutes a consensus on the impacts of geoengineering via stratospheric SO2 injection across the
scientific community. It is therefore important for many different climate models to assess the impact
of such geoengineering, ideally using a common experimental design as suggested for GeoMIP (Kravitz
et al., 2010). This should be done before any consideration is given to practical implementation of
such proposals.