8 Generic Green Stein Warming

DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING FILE
***AFF climate science***............................................................................................................................5

warming now [general]..................................................................................................................................6
Warming Now [Percipitation].......................................................................................................................7
Warming now [10 degrees]............................................................................................................................8
Warming Now [average temperature]..........................................................................................................9
Warming Now [sea level].............................................................................................................................10
runaway warming now.................................................................................................................................11
runaway warming bad.................................................................................................................................14
prefer models ...............................................................................................................................................15
At: Models Fail [chaos theory]....................................................................................................................16
balloons and satellites reliable.....................................................................................................................17
At: Urban Heat island effect........................................................................................................................18
positive feedbacks outweigh negative ones.................................................................................................19
positive feedback [moc]................................................................................................................................20
Positive Feedback [Vapor]...........................................................................................................................21
Positive Feedback [ALbedo]........................................................................................................................22
Positive Feedback [permafrost]...................................................................................................................23
Positive Feedback [At: Clouds]...................................................................................................................24
warming is anthropogenic...........................................................................................................................25
Warming is Anthropogenic.........................................................................................................................27
c02 causes warming......................................................................................................................................30
IPCC QUALS................................................................................................................................................31
***warming bad impacts***.......................................................................................................................32
warming causes Extinction..........................................................................................................................33
warming causes Extinction..........................................................................................................................34
Warming causes WAR [general].................................................................................................................35
ext – warming causes war [general]............................................................................................................36
ext – warming causes WAR [general].........................................................................................................37
ext – warming causes war [general]............................................................................................................38
warming causes war [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]....................................................................................39
ext -- warming causes war [african instability].........................................................................................40
Warming causes water wars........................................................................................................................41
ext – warming causes water wars................................................................................................................42
Warming causes China/India Conflict.......................................................................................................43
Warming causes Spratly conflicts...............................................................................................................44
Warming causes Arctic conflict..................................................................................................................45
warming causes terrorism...........................................................................................................................46
ext – warming causes TERRORISM..........................................................................................................47
warming causes MIGRATION/REFUGEES.............................................................................................48
Warming hurts Biodiversity........................................................................................................................49
Warming hurts Biodiversity........................................................................................................................50
ext – warming hurts biodiversity ...............................................................................................................51
ext – Warming hurts biodiversity...............................................................................................................52
co2 bad [oceans]............................................................................................................................................55
co2 bad [coral]...............................................................................................................................................56
warming hurts coral ....................................................................................................................................57
ext -- warming hurts coral...........................................................................................................................58
1
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC

caco3 internal link .......................................................................................................................................63
ext – caco3 internal link...............................................................................................................................64
ext – CORAL impact....................................................................................................................................65
At: INCREASED SEA LEVELS HELP REEFS.......................................................................................66
environment impact......................................................................................................................................67
Warming hurts oceans.................................................................................................................................68
warming causes FLOODING......................................................................................................................69
ext -- warming causes flooding ..................................................................................................................70
Warming causes sea level rise ....................................................................................................................71
Warming causes Monsoons ........................................................................................................................72
warming causes draughts.............................................................................................................................73
warming causes hurricanes.........................................................................................................................74
warming causes diseases [general]..............................................................................................................75
warming causes Diseases [malaria].............................................................................................................78
warming bad laundry list.............................................................................................................................79
warming hurts trade.....................................................................................................................................80
warming hurts economy...............................................................................................................................81
ext – warming hurts economy.....................................................................................................................82
ext – warming hurts economy.....................................................................................................................83
warming causes blackouts...........................................................................................................................84
warming causes wildfires.............................................................................................................................85
warming hurts plants...................................................................................................................................86
ext – warming hurts plants..........................................................................................................................87
ext – warming hurts plants..........................................................................................................................88
warming causes food shortages...................................................................................................................89
warming hurts the barents sea ...................................................................................................................90
warminng bad for asia.................................................................................................................................91
***aff impact calculus***............................................................................................................................92
Slight climate change has big impacts........................................................................................................93
warming impact calculus [time frame].......................................................................................................94
prefer warming impacts ..............................................................................................................................95
warming o/ws war.........................................................................................................................................96
***neg climate science***............................................................................................................................97
warming is slow.............................................................................................................................................98
warming inevitable.......................................................................................................................................99
no warming..................................................................................................................................................100
balloon/satelites prove no warming..........................................................................................................101
Models not reliable.....................................................................................................................................102
IPCC models bad- urban heat...................................................................................................................103
negative feedbacks [clouds].......................................................................................................................104
Not anthropogenic......................................................................................................................................105
CO2 does not lead to warming..................................................................................................................106
negative feedbacks [mysteries forces].......................................................................................................107
no consensus................................................................................................................................................108
no consensus................................................................................................................................................109
ipcc inaccurate............................................................................................................................................110
Indict – RANDALL SCWATZ .................................................................................................................111
skeptics Qualified........................................................................................................................................112
AT: resource wars .....................................................................................................................................113
At: RESOURCE WARS............................................................................................................................114
2
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
At: WARS....................................................................................................................................................115
At: WARS....................................................................................................................................................116
AT: MARINE BIODIVERSITY...............................................................................................................117
at: economy ................................................................................................................................................118
AT: storms...................................................................................................................................................119
at: flooding..................................................................................................................................................120
at: hurricanes..............................................................................................................................................121
AT: Coral ..................................................................................................................................................122
AT: Coral ..................................................................................................................................................123
at: warming hurts oceans...........................................................................................................................124
1nc can’t solve warming.............................................................................................................................125
1nc can’t solve warming.............................................................................................................................126
***ICE AGE***.........................................................................................................................................127
1nc ice age da..............................................................................................................................................128
1nc ice age da..............................................................................................................................................129
ice age now...................................................................................................................................................130
ice age now...................................................................................................................................................131
Warming solves Ice Age.............................................................................................................................132
Warming solves Ice Age.............................................................................................................................133
warming solves Ice age...............................................................................................................................134
Warming solves Ice age..............................................................................................................................135
Warming stops ice age................................................................................................................................136
Ice age causes extinction............................................................................................................................137
Ice age causes extinction............................................................................................................................138
AT: warming causes cooling .....................................................................................................................139
***aff AT: ICe age da***..........................................................................................................................144
Ice age not coming......................................................................................................................................145
Ice melting won’t lead to ice age...............................................................................................................146
warming causes cooling..............................................................................................................................147
ext -- warming shuts down thc..................................................................................................................148
ext -- Thc shutdown CAUSES ICEAGE..................................................................................................151
ext -- thc on brink.......................................................................................................................................154
ext -- THC key to ocean..............................................................................................................................155
thc impact [fisheries]..................................................................................................................................156
thc impact [biodiversity]............................................................................................................................157
Thc impact [STARVATION]....................................................................................................................158
THC impact [CORAL]...............................................................................................................................159
North Atlantic Current Key......................................................................................................................160
north atlantic current collapse causes extinction....................................................................................161
***S02***....................................................................................................................................................162
1nc s02 da....................................................................................................................................................163
ext – SO2 causes cooling.............................................................................................................................164
AT: sO2 hurts plants..................................................................................................................................170
***AFF AT: sO2 da***..............................................................................................................................171
3
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
At: SO2 solves warming.............................................................................................................................172

sO2 hurts ozone...........................................................................................................................................175
SO2 causes acid rain...................................................................................................................................176
impact Acid Rain [forests].........................................................................................................................177
***c02***....................................................................................................................................................178
1nc c02 ag da...............................................................................................................................................179
1nc c02 ag da...............................................................................................................................................180
ext – CO2 key to plants [general]..............................................................................................................181
ext – CO2 key to plants [peer reviewed]...................................................................................................187
ext – CO2 key to plants [water efficiency] ...............................................................................................188
ext – CO2 key to plants [solves Drought resistancy] ..............................................................................189
ext – CO2 key to plants [photosynthesis] ................................................................................................190
ext – co2 key to plants [pollution resistance]............................................................................................191
ext – co2 key to plants [adaptation]..........................................................................................................192
ext – CO2 solves species extintion ............................................................................................................193
2nc ag outweighs warming.........................................................................................................................194
ext – impact [billions die starvation].........................................................................................................195
ext –sinks.....................................................................................................................................................196
ext –sinks.....................................................................................................................................................197
ext –sinks.....................................................................................................................................................198
AT: weeds....................................................................................................................................................199
AT: weeds....................................................................................................................................................200
AT: soil errosion.........................................................................................................................................201
***aff AT: co2 ag da***.............................................................................................................................202
co2 causes weeds.........................................................................................................................................203
ext – co2 causes Weeds ..............................................................................................................................204
c02 causes cheatgrass.................................................................................................................................205
ext – co2 causes cheatgrass........................................................................................................................206
c02 hurts plant protein...............................................................................................................................207
4
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***AFF CLIMATE SCIENCE***
5
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING NOW [GENERAL]
Warming exists now and will continue with current GHG (green house gas) levels
Gerald A. Meehl et al., senior scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research –
Boulder, 2008, “Climate Change Projections for the Twenty-First Century and Climate
Change Commitment in the CCSM3”, Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington,
Benjamin D. Santer, William D. Collins, Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, David
M. Lawrence, Haiyan Teng, Lawrence E. Buja, and Warren G. Strand
The T85 version of the CCSM3 is run for a 1990 control run, and an 1870 control run, which serves as the
starting point for eight ensemble member simulations of twentieth-century climate, three SRES scenario
experiments for twenty-first-century climate [A2 (five members), A1B, and B1], and three stabilization
simulations, one with concentrations held constant at year 2000 values, and two with concentrations held
constant at year 2100 values for A1B and B1. The response of the CCSM3 to increasing GHGs(green
house gases) depends in part on the equilibrium climate sensitivity of the model, and oceanic heat uptake.
Together, these determine the TCR, and the mean value and percent change of the meridional overturning
circulation in the Atlantic influence the ocean heat uptake. The global average and geographical plots show
we are already committed to significant warming and sea level rise even with no further increases in GHG
concentrations. However, any realistic scenario has increases in GHG concentrations, which then further
increase the future warming and sea level rise. These results confirm and quantify earlier studies with
simple and global models in that the temperature change commitment is considerably less than the sea level
rise commitment by 2100, percentage-wise. That is, temperature increase shows signs of leveling off 100 yr
after stabilization, while the sea level continues to rise unabated with proportionately much greater
increases compared to temperature, with these committed increases over the twenty-first century roughly an
order of magnitude greater for sea level rise than temperature change. The percent increases of committed
sea level rise here are roughly 220%, with the changes calculated relative to the respective sea level rise
during the twentieth century. Though this is a result that has been acknowledged in other contexts, it is not
widely appreciated and is quantified here with multiple CCSM3 simulations. Midlatitude summer drying
noted in previous model simulations in a future warmer climate is simulated in the CCSM3, though the
relatively small drying does not result in greater soil moisture stress on vegetation in the model.
GHG and warming are increasing in the Status Quo

IPCC, a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and
by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report,
Summary for Policymakers
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related
sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades.
{3.1} The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) projects an increase of global GHG
emissions by 25 to 90% (CO2-eq) between 2000 and 2030 (Figure SPM.5), with fossil fuels maintaining
their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond. More recent scenarios without
additional emissions mitigation are comparable in range.8,9 {3.1} Continued GHG emissions at or above
current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during
the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century (Table SPM.1,
Figure SPM.5). {3.2.1}
6
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING NOW [PERCIPITATION]
Warming is occurring- Precipitation models prove

Sir. John Houghton, 4/5/05, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) ,
professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and
founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics , Global warming, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-
4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1376
So far, we have been presenting results solely for atmospheric surface temperature
change. An even more important indicator of climate change is precipitation. With
warming at the Earth’s surface, increased evaporation from the oceans and from
many land areas will lead, on average, to increased atmospheric water vapour
content and therefore also, on average, to increased precipitation. The nature of the
atmosphere’s hydrological cycle dominated by the condensation of water vapour
leads to an expectation that the atmosphere’s average relative humidity should
remain about the same irrespective of changes in the average surface temperature
[72]. The atmosphere’s water vapour content, therefore, should increase as its water
holding capacity increases by about 6.5% per °C 10. Model projections indicate
increases in precipitation broadly related to surface temperature increases of about
3% per °C [73]—but also see section 7.5.
7
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING NOW [10 DEGREES]
Fossil Fuel use enables 10 degree temperature rises

7.6. Longer-term climate change From the beginning of the industrial revolution until
2000 the burning of fossil fuels released approximately 600 Gt of carbon in the form
of CO2 into the atmosphere. Under the SRES A1B scenario (figure 18) a further 1500
Gt will be released by the year 2100. The reserves of fossil fuels in total are sufficient
to enable their rate of use to continue to grow well beyond the year 2100. If that
were to happen the global average temperaturewould continue to rise and could, in
the 22nd century, reach very high levels, perhaps up to 10°C higher than today. The
associated changes in climate would be correspondingly large and could well be
irreversible [82].
8
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING NOW [AVERAGE TEMPERATURE]
Warming is unequivocal- global average temperature

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
(Figure SPM.1). {1.1} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in
the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)
of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in
the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the
globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures
SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}
9
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING NOW [SEA LEVEL]
Warming Now- Sea level rise and melting ice

Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961
at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions
from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1} Observed
decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since
1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger
decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. {1.1
10
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
RUNAWAY WARMING NOW
Climate Change will occur fast; Mass droughts, environmental destruction, and mass
extinctions will occur after the transition
William A. Calvin, affiliate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the
University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, 2002,
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/092011.html
One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's
climate does great flip-flops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the
lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much
less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already
doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and
likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding
large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Niõ because of the unusual
winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering
climate. Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population
bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who
survived—and later thrived. There was very little food after the fires. Once the grasses got started on
the burnt landscape, however, the surviving grazing animals had a boom time, fueled by the vast
expanses of grass that grew in the next few decades. Had the cooling taken a few centuries to happen,
so that the forests could have gradually shifted, our ancestors would not have been treated so badly. The
higher-elevation species would have slowly marched down the hillsides to occupy the valley floors, all
without the succession that follows a fire. Each hominid generation could have made their living in the
way their parents taught them, culturally adapting to the shifting milieu. But when the cooling and
drought were abrupt, surviving the transition was a serious problem. It was one unlucky generation that
suddenly had to improvise amidst crashing populations and burning ecosystems.
Warming rates are increasing; action is key

T. M. L. Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and S. C. B. Raper,
Climatic Research Unit, 7-20-01, Science Vol. 293. no. 5529, pp. 451 – 454, “Interpretation of High
Projections for Global-Mean Warming” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5529/451
In summary, we have shown that the very high upper-limit warming rate of about 0.5°C/decade given in the
IPCC TAR (4) is much less likely than warmings in the center of the distribution, which are about
0.3°C/decade. Even warming at this rate, however, is very large compared with the observed warming over
the past century, and considerably larger than the rate of warming suggested in the IPCC SAR (8). In many
of the scenarios considered, the rate of warming is still high at the end of the 21st century; further warming
through the 22nd century would be virtually certain in these cases. Whether or not such rapid warming will
occur and be sustained depends, of course, on actions taken to control climate change. If the near future
were to follow a rapid warming pathway, and the expected impacts were to occur, it is likely that mitigation
efforts would be initiated rapidly in the hope of reducing the rate and magnitude of change. Inertia in the
climate system would, however, lead to only a slow response to such efforts and guarantee that future
warming would still be large (37).
11
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
RUNAWAY WARMING NOW
Global warming rate is accelerating

Joseph Romm, editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the Center for American
Progress29-8-07, “Hurricane Katrina and the myth of global warming adaptation”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/29/94352/7786
If we won't adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances
we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the
same fate as New Orleans -- since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like
Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for
centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don't reverse greenhouse-gas emissions trends soon.
Climate change driven by human-caused GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change
from natural causes -- and it is accelerating.
Warming rates are increasing
Darren Osborne, ABC Science staff writer, 6-19-08, “Ocean review finds warming on
the rise” http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279924.htm?
site=science&topic=latest
A long-standing difference between climate models and observations has been resolved with researchers
finding that the world's oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. The paper, published
today in Nature, shows ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for the past five decades are 50%
larger than earlier previously estimated. The finding also adds weight to a growing scientific chorus of
warnings about the pace and consequences of rising oceans.
12
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
RUNAWAY WARMING NOW
Global warming and CO2 rate is increasing

European Environment Agency, 8-14-08, “Europe needs adaptation strategies to limit
climate change impacts,”
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/climate_report-en
More frequent and more economically costly storms, floods, droughts and other extreme weather. Wetter
conditions in northern Europe but drier weather in the south that could threaten agriculture in some areas.
More frequent and more intense heatwaves, posing a lethal threat to the elderly and frail. Melting glaciers,
with three-quarters of those in the Swiss Alps likely to disappear by 2050. Rising sea levels for centuries to
come. These are among the impacts of global climate change that are already being seen in Europe or are
projected to happen over the coming decades as global temperatures rise, according to a new report from
the European Environment Agency (EEA). Strong evidence exists that most of the global warming over
the past 50 years has been caused by human activities, in particular emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. The concentration of CO2, the main
greenhouse gas, in the lower atmosphere is now at its highest for at least 420,000 years - possibly even 20
million years - and stands 34% above its level before the Industrial Revolution. The rise has been
accelerating since 1950. The summer floods of 2002 and last year's summer heatwave are recent examples
of how destructive extreme weather can be. The serious flooding in 11 countries in August 2002 killed
about 80 people, affected more than 600,000 and caused economic losses of at least 15 billion US$. In the
summer 2003 heatwave western and southern Europe recorded more than 20,000 excess deaths, particularly
among elderly people. Crop harvests in many southern countries were down by as much as 30%. Melting
reduced the mass of the Alpine glaciers by one-tenth in 2003 alone. "This report pulls together a wealth of
evidence that climate change is already happening and having widespread impacts, many of them with
substantial economic costs, on people and ecosystems across Europe," said Prof. Jacqueline McGlade, EEA
Executive Director. She added: "Europe has to continue to lead worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, but this report also underlines that strategies are needed, at European, regional, national and
local level, to adapt to climate change. This is a phenomenon that will considerably affect our societies and
environments for decades and centuries to come." The extent and rate of the climate changes under way
most likely exceed all natural variation in climate over the last thousand years and possibly longer. The
1990s were the warmest decade on record and the three hottest years recorded - 1998, 2002 and 2003 -
have occurred in the last six years. The global warming rate is now almost 0.2 °C per decade.
13
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
RUNAWAY WARMING BAD
Abrupt climate change exacerbates all gradual climate problems

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

The rate of change of global average temperature projected for the 21st century is in
the range of 0.15–0.6°C per decade—much larger than any rates of change the
climate has experienced for at least the past ten thousand years as inferred from
paleoclimate data. As we shall see when considering impacts (section 8), the ability
of both humans and ecosystems to adapt to climate change depends critically on the
rate of change.
Accelerated Warming now- efforts needed to prevent 2 degree warming which result in widespread
environmental and military conflict
Alan Dupont, Michael Hintze Professor of International Security and Director of the Centre for
International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 , pages
29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 30-31
Why has climate change suddenly metamorphosed from a boutique environmental concern to a first-order
foreign-policy and national-security problem that is now being ranked alongside terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? The answer is that sceptics have lost the argument about
the significance and consequences of global warming. Policymakers around the world now accept
there is sufficient scientific data to conclude that the speed and magnitude of climate change in the
twenty-first century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of
adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree
that the world’s glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at accelerating rates and that sea-level rise
will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas. And they regard as virtually certain that there will be a
doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations over pre-industrial levels this century regardless of what
we do to contain or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.7 As a result, sea-levels are projected to rise by
between 0.18 and 0.59 metres this century and the Earth’s surface will almost certainly warm by more
than 2.0oC, which is widely accepted as the threshold above which managing risks becomes
progressively more difficult and the consequences more dangerous. 8 The central problem is the rate
at which temperatures are increasing rather than the absolute size of differential warming. Spread over
several centuries, or a millennium, temperature rises of several degrees could probably be managed
without political instability or major threats to commerce, agriculture and infrastructure.
Compressed within the space of a single century, global warming will present formidable problems of
human and biological adaptation, especially for natural ecosystems which typically evolve over
hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Without effective mitigation and adaptation strategies, a
rapidly warming planet presents palpable geopolitical risks for all countries, increasing national
vulnerabilities, exacerbating inter-state tensions and threatening the very survival of some societies.
14
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
PREFER MODELS
Prefer recent models –modeling capabilities have advanced

6.4. Model evaluation [51] An obvious test of a climate model is to run it for a number
of years of simulated time and compare in detail the model-generated climate to the
current observed climate in both its average and its variability. Models have
improved greatly in recent years against such tests. However, it is also necessary to
demonstrate the model’s ability to accurately simulate changes in climate due to
changing climate forcing. This has been done by testing the model’s ability to
simulate the effects of large perturbations of the climate, for instance such as arise
from El Niño events (see section 7.3) or from volcanic eruptions. For instance,
climate perturbations resulting from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, both in
the global average [52] and regionally [53], were well simulated by models. Models
have also been tested through comparing data from paleoclimate studies with
simulations of past climates when the distribution of incident solar radiation on the
Earth was substantially different from that at present (see section 3.3). The increase
in available computing power in recent years has enabled comparisons to be made of
model runs from different initial conditions (often referred to as ensembles) [54], so
exploring model ‘natural’ variability and prediction uncertainty (see next section).
Through these various studies confidence has been built in the value of models to
simulate changes of climate that occur because of human activities.
Problems with models have been corrected and they are now very reliable
V. Ramaswamy et al (Phd in Geosciences & Program in Atmospheric, executive
summary for the US climate change science program, 2006, “Temperature trends in the
lower atmosphere,” http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-
1-final-execsum.pdf).
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the
atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early
versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and
corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
Although models disagree about details, there are no fundamental inconsistencies

V. Ramaswamy et al (Phd in Geosciences & Program in Atmospheric, executive
summary for the US climate change science program, 2006, “Temperature trends in the
lower atmosphere,” http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-
1-final-execsum.pdf).
The most recent climate model simulations give a range of results for changes in global-average
temperature. Some models show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface, while a slightly
smaller number of simulations show the opposite behavior. There is no fundamental inconsistency among
these model results and observations at the global scale.
15
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: MODELS FAIL [CHAOS THEORY]
Models Are Accurate- chaos theory applies to weather not climate

In the last section, it was stated that confidence in models arises from their ability to
describe current climate and to simulate some of the effect of changes in climate
forcing in the past. But is there evidence apart from that of models to support the
view that climate is predictable? In section 3.3 we pointed out that the correlation
between the Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbital parameters and the cycles of
climate change (see section 3.3) provides strong evidence to substantiate the Earth’s
orbital variations as the main factor responsible for triggering large climate changes,
such as the ice ages, although the nature of some of the feedbacks still needs to be
understood. The existence of this surprising amount of regularity suggests that the
climate system is not strongly chaotic so far as these large changes are concerned,
but responds in a largely predictable way to Milankovitch forcing. Changes in climate
as a result of the increase of greenhouse gases are driven by 1372 changes in the
radiative regime at the top of the atmosphere that are not dissimilar in kind
(although different in distribution) from the changes that provide Milankovitch
forcing. It can be argued, therefore, that the increases in greenhouse gases will also
result in a largely predictable response [56].
16
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
BALLOONS AND SATELLITES RELIABLE
Balloon and satellite models are 95% reliable

University of Alabama (“Comparing satellite & balloon climate data corroborates
slower rate of global warming”, 5/14/2003, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?
pid=11540).
The UAH team's research is published in the May 2003 edition of the American Meteorological Society's
"Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology." "We know the climate is changing," said Christy, a
professor of atmospheric science and director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "Earth's climate has
never been stable. What we don't know is the rate of natural climate change, which makes it really tough to
say how much of the warming that we see might be due to things like adding greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere." The study published in the JAOT describes an updated global temperature dataset using
NOAA satellite measurements of the atmosphere's microwave emissions, which change with the
temperature. In this new version, the UAH team applied a more accurate accounting for temperature
changes caused by the satellites' east-west drift. To test the accuracy of the new dataset, Christy and his
colleagues used independent data from 28 radiosonde weather balloon sites in an area bounded by eastern
Canada, the Caribbean, Alaska and the Marshall Islands in the Western Pacific. They also used American,
British and Russian composite datasets of hundreds of weather balloon sites around the world. They used
balloon data to test the satellite readings because balloon-borne thermometers and satellites both measure
temperatures in deep layers of the atmosphere -- comparing apples to apples. "There is a 94 to 98 percent
correlation between the satellite data and the different balloon datasets," said Christy. "The more difficult
statistic to measure, the overall trend in the lower troposphere, agreed so well it was difficult to estimate the
error bars." Ultimately, the team calculated a 95 percent confidence in the satellite-based temperature trend
within plus or minus 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade. If the satellite data are reliable and accurate over the
wide range of environments and climates represented by the balloon weather stations, Christy said, it is
likely to be reliable over the rest of the globe.
17
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT
The Urban heat island effect is negligible

IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The
Scientific Basis, http://www.grida.no/CLIMATE /IPCC_TAR/wg1/052.htm
Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of
larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up
to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have
assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly
increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.
18
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACKS OUTWEIGH NEGATIVE ONES
Positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks- makes warming 2 times stronger

This increasedCO2 is leading to global warming of the Earth’s surface through its enhanced greenhouse
effect. Let us imagine, for instance, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly doubled,
everything else remaining the same (figure 5). What would happen to the numbers in the radiation budget
presented earlier (figure 2)? The solar radiation budget would not be affected. But the thermal radiation
emitted from CO2 in the atmosphere will originate on average from a higher and colder level than before
(figure 4). The thermal radiation budget will, therefore, be reduced, the amount of reduction being about
4Wm−2 (see section 5) [6]. To restore the radiation balance the surface and lower atmosphere will warm. If
nothing changes apart from their temperature—in other words, clouds, water vapour, ice and snow cover
and so on, are all the same as before—a radiative transfer calculation indicates that the temperature change
would be about 1.2°C. In reality, of course, many of these other factors will change, some of them in ways
that add to the warming (positive feedbacks), others in ways that reduce the warming (negative feedbacks).
The situation is, therefore, much more complicated than this simple calculation; it will be considered in
more detail in section 6. Suffice it to say here, that the best estimate, at the present time, of the
increased average temperature of the Earth’s surface if CO2 levels were to be doubled is about twice
that of the simple calculation: 2.5°C. As the next section will illustrate, for the global average
temperature this is a large change
19
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACK [MOC]
MOC disruption act as a positive warming feedback

Based on current model simulations, the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean
will very likely slow down during the 21st century; nevertheless temperatures over the Atlantic and Europe
are projected to increase. The MOC is very unlikely to undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21st
century. Longer-term MOC changes cannot be assessed with confidence. Impacts of large-scale and
persistent changes in the MOC are likely to include changes in marine ecosystem productivity, fisheries,
ocean CO2 uptake, oceanic oxygen concentrations and terrestrial vegetation. Changes in terrestrial and
ocean CO2 uptake may feed back on the climate system. {3.4
20
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACK [VAPOR]
Positive Feedback- Water vapor traps heat

Water vapour feedback [47]. With a warmer atmosphere more evaporation occurs
from the ocean and from wet land surfaces. On average, therefore, a warmer
atmosphere will possess a higher water vapour content. Since water vapour is a
powerful greenhouse gas, on average a positive feedback results, of a magnitude
that is estimated approximately to double the increase in the global average
temperature that would arise with fixed water vapour [48].
21
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACK [ALBEDO]
Melted ice advances warming 10 fold- bare ground absorbs heat

Ice-albedo feedback. An ice or snow surface is a powerful reflector of solar radiation
(the albedo is a measure of its reflectivity). As some ice melts at thewarmer surface,
solar radiation, previously reflected back to space by the ice or snow, is absorbed
leading to further increased warming. This is another positive feedback that on its
own would increase the global average temperature rise due to doubled carbon
dioxide by about 20%.
22
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACK [PERMAFROST]
Melting ice releases permafrost-contributing 70% to atmospheric carbon

29 – 54, The Strategic Implications of Climate Change, 43
Another risk factor is the stability of high-latitude permafrost. There is clear evidence that ground which
was once frozen all year round is melting at higher and higher latitudes. Although there are no definitive
estimates of the volume of gases trapped under the permafrost, their carbon content is thought to be
considerable – perhaps as much as 500bn tonnes, the equivalent of 70% of all carbon currently present in
the atmosphere.52 Its release could be quite rapid and widespread, as warming progresses, and would
include a significant amount of methane gas, which is one of the most damaging of the main greenhouse
gases. Should this occur, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions
of future global warming would have to be revised upward by a substantial margin, since IPCC calculations
only take account of emissions from fossil-fuel combustion.
23
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
POSITIVE FEEDBACK [AT: CLOUDS]
Clouds have negligible effect on warming- reflexivity and absorption cancel out
Cloud-radiation feedback. This is more complicated as several processes are
involved. Clouds interfere with the transfer of radiation in the atmosphere in two
ways (figure 16). First, they reflect a certain proportion of solar radiation back to
space, so reducing the total energy available to the system. Second, they absorb
thermal radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface so blanketing the surface in a similar
way to greenhouse gases. Which effect dominates for any particular cloud depends
on the cloud temperature (and hence on the cloud height) and on its detailed optical
properties (e.g. its reflectivity to solar radiation and its interaction with thermal
radiation). The latter depends on its thickness, whether the cloud is of water or ice,
its liquid or solid water content and the average size of the cloud particles. In
general, for low clouds the reflectivity effect wins; for high clouds, by contrast, the
blanketing effect is dominant. The overall feedback effect of clouds, therefore, can be
either positive or negative. Climate is very sensitive to possible changes in cloud
amount or structure, as can be seen from the results of models discussed in later
sections. To illustrate this, table 2 shows that the hypothetical effect on the climate,
of changes of a few per cent in cloud cover is comparable with the expected changes
due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration. The largest contribution to the
range of uncertainty quoted in the last entry in the table is that due to lack of
knowledge regarding cloud feedback.
24
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING IS ANTHROPOGENIC
Global warming exists and is man-made.

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

The horizontal distributions of anthropogenic sulphate and black Carbon (BC) column burdens for years
11–50(Fig.1a) are similar to those found in the off-line simulations in Iversen and Seland (2002, 2003),
except for a southward shift in the tropics, discussed in detail by Kristjansson et al. (2005). Large sulphate
and BC column burdens are calculated over SE Asia, Europe, North America and central Africa. The
burdens are much higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere, see Table 2. The large BC-
fraction of emissions from tropical biomass burning relative to NH fossil fuel combustion causes a smaller
inter- hemispheric difference for BC than for sulphate. Table 2 also shows that the direct radiative
‘forcing’ (DRF) due to anthropogenic sulphate and BC (the difference TOT1 – NAT1, i.e. a quasi-
forcing) is about −0.1 Wm −2 in the present response simulations, very close to the DRF in Kirkevag and
Iversen (2002). Due to the considerable computational costs associated with extra calls to the cloud and
radiative transfer code, similar (first and second) indirect radiative forcing values have not been explicitly
extracted. In Kristjansson (2002) (the basis for the climate response simulations in Kristjansson et al.,
2005), the indirect radiative forcing was estimated at −1.3 Wm −2 for the first effect, and −1.8 Wm −2 for
the joint first and second indirect effect. Note that the term forcing is here, as in Kirkevag and Iversen
(2002) and Kristjansson (2002), used slightly differently than by IPCC-conventions: values are calculated
at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface. The DRF at a given vertical level is calculated as the
increment in net radiative flux due to changes in aerosol optical properties relative to an atmosphere that
only contains a prescribed background aerosol consisting of primary particles of natural origins, dominated
by sea-salt and mineral dust. The DRF of natural (from DMS, volcanoes, and wildfires) and anthropogenic
(from fossil fuel and biomass burning) sulphate and BC are thus calculated separately. When CO 2
concentrations are doubled while aerosol and precursor emissions are unchanged (TOT2 – TOT1, Fig.
1b), the simulated sulphate column burdens increase by about 2% in the Northern Hemisphere, but
remain unchanged in the Southern.
25
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Scientific consensus is that warming exists and is man made. The result is destruction of the world.
Serge Galam, professor at the University of Paris, 8/30/2007, “Global Warming: The
Sacrificial Temptation”. Centre de Recherche enEpistemologie Appliquee (CREA), Ecole
Polytechnique and CNRS
The scientific community is extremely active on the issue by setting detailed scenarios on the dramatic
consequences of the current trend and urge governments to act immediately. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) is monitoring a world activity with thousands of climatologists involved. They
are talking with a unique and single voice about the scientific diagnostic. During their last meeting in Paris
in February 2007 they concluded unanimously that it is the increased quantity of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, which produces the global warming, and they designate man as the cause of it. Human greed,
by its exponential appetite of natural resources, is destroying the planet in pure wastes. At present rate of
carbon dioxide production, global warming will lead to a total catastrophe. Artists are getting involved in
this survival cause and Al Gore is leading a new crusade to save the planet. Huge free concerts are taking
places worldwide and demonstrations are organized locally
26
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Anthropogenic warming- cant be explained by models

Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale
on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {2.4} Spatial agreement between regions of
significant warming across the globe and locations of significant observed changes in many systems
consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability. Several modelling studies
have linked some specific responses in physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming. {2.4}
More complete attribution of observed natural system responses to anthropogenic warming is currently
prevented by the short time scales of many impact studies, greater natural climate variability at regional
scales, contributions of nonclimate factors and limited spatial coverage of studies. {2.4
Anthropogenic warming occurring

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due
to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant
anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure
SPM.4). {2.4} During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced
cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include
anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at
smaller than continental scales. {2.4}
27
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Anthropogenic Warming occuring- global models prove

4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1373-4
6.6. Climate of the 20th century More than fifteen centres in the world located in ten
countries are currently running fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation
models. Some of these have been employed to simulate the climate of the last 150
years. An example compared with observed climate is shown in figure 17; similar
results have been obtained from many models. Note from figure 17 that the inclusion
of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of
the observed temperature changes over the last century (especially for the latter
part of the century), but that the best match with observations occurs when both
natural and anthropogenic factors are included. Assumed changes in solar output and
the comparative absence of volcanic activity assist in providing explanations for the
increase in global average temperature during the first part of the century. The
shorter term variability shown in the model of about a tenth of a degree Celsius
arises from internal exchanges in the model between different parts of the climate
system, and is not dissimilar to that which appears in the observed record. It has also
been possible from comparisons of results from regional models with observations to
attribute some of the patterns of regional change to anthropogenic causes [63]. Allen
et al [64] have used the constraints provided by the observed climate on the
simulations of models to quantify the uncertainty in forecasts for the first part of the
21st century. Due to the slowing effect of the oceans on climate change, the warming
observed or modelled so far is less than would be expected if the climate system
were in equilibrium under the amount of radiative forcing due to the current increase
in greenhouse gases and aerosols. The increase in ocean heat content over the last
50 years has also been simulated by models showing, when both natural and
anthropogenic forcings are included, substantial agreement with observations [65].
Since its formation in 1988 the IPCC has been much involved in the debate as to
whether the observed record provides evidence of the influence on the climate of the
increase in greenhouse gases. The evidence for both the detection and attribution 6
of climate change has grown significantly stronger during this period. From studies of
the global average temperature increase as in figure 17 and also from studies of
patterns of climate change over the globe, the carefully worded conclusion reached
in the IPCC 2001 Report [66] is the following: ‘In the light of new evidence and taking
into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last
50 years is likely 7 to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations.
28
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Models show severe atmospheric effects from human created substances.

ALF KIRKEVÅG, TROND IVERSEN, JON EGILL KRISTJANSSON, ØYVIND SELAND and JENS
BOLDINGH DEBERNARD. Professors at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, 2/11/2008,
“On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO 2 , and the enhancement of future
global warming by carbonaceous aerosols”.
The horizontal distributions of anthropogenic sulphate and black Carbon (BC) column burdens for years
11–50(Fig.1a) are similar to those found in the off-line simulations in Iversen and Seland (2002, 2003),
except for a southward shift in the tropics, discussed in detail by Kristjansson et al. (2005). Large sulphate
and BC column burdens are calculated over SE Asia, Europe, North America and central Africa. The
burdens are much higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere, see Table 2. The large BC-
fraction of emissions from tropical biomass burning relative to NH fossil fuel combustion causes a smaller
inter- hemispheric difference for BC than for sulphate. Table 2 also shows that the direct radiative
‘forcing’ (DRF) due to anthropogenic sulphate and BC (the difference TOT1 – NAT1, i.e. a quasi-
forcing) is about −0.1 Wm −2 in the present response simulations, very close to the DRF in Kirkevag and
Iversen (2002). Due to the considerable computational costs associated with extra calls to the cloud and
radiative transfer code, similar (first and second) indirect radiative forcing values have not been explicitly
extracted. In Kristjansson (2002) (the basis for the climate response simulations in Kristjansson et al.,
2005), the indirect radiative forcing was estimated at −1.3 Wm −2 for the first effect, and −1.8 Wm −2 for
the joint first and second indirect effect. Note that the term forcing is here, as in Kirkevag and Iversen
(2002) and Kristjansson (2002), used slightly differently than by IPCC-conventions: values are calculated
at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface. The DRF at a given vertical level is calculated as the
increment in net radiative flux due to changes in aerosol optical properties relative to an atmosphere that
only contains a prescribed background aerosol consisting of primary particles of natural origins, dominated
by sea-salt and mineral dust. The DRF of natural (from DMS, volcanoes, and wildfires) and anthropogenic
(from fossil fuel and biomass burning) sulphate and BC are thus calculated separately. When CO 2
concentrations are doubled while aerosol and precursor emissions are unchanged (TOT2 – TOT1, Fig.
1b), the simulated sulphate column burdens increase by about 2% in the Northern Hemisphere, but
remain unchanged in the Southern.
29
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
C02 CAUSES WARMING
CO2 has a definite impact on global warming.

When CO 2 concentrations are doubled and aerosol emissions are kept constant at natural levels, we
estimate a global warming of 2.61 K and an increase in precipitation of 4.5%, compared to 2.58 K and
4.8% with present-day aerosol emissions. Even though non-linear interactions between the effects of CO 2
doubling and anthropogenic aerosols are negligible globally, there are positive cloud feedbacks for low
level clouds regionally, especially over the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, where surface air temperatures
are too cold in the simulation with present- day aerosol emissions and CO 2 concentrations. When CO 2 is
doubled, CCM-Oslo yields a small increase in sulphate and BC burdens, globally averaged, despite the
almost 5% increase in precipitation. Most of that increase is in the form of convective precipitation, to
which wet scavenging of aerosols is relatively insensitive in the model. The simulated stratiform
precipitation is almost unchanged in a global mean, but actually decreases in large areas of major aerosol
emissions. Together with regionally reduced precipitation over oceans in the subtropics, this leads to a
slight increase in the lifetime and burden of anthropogenic aerosols
30
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
IPCC QUALS
IPCC’s overwhelmingly qualified—represents a global scientific consensus

John Houghton, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive
at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005 “Global warming” INSTITUTE OF
PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403
Three important factors have contributed to the authority and success of the IPCC’s
reports [118]. The first is the emphasis on delineating between what is known with
reasonable certainty and what is uncertain—differentiating so far as possible
between degrees of uncertainty16 . The second is the involvement in the writing and
reviewing of the reports of as many as possible of the world’s climate scientists,
especially those leading the field. For the third assessment report in 2001, those
taking part had grown to 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors, together
with 21 review editors and 420 expert reviewers involved in the review process. The
thorough debate by scientists during the assessment process ensures that the
scientific community is well informed on a broad front. No previous scientific
assessments on this or any other subject have involved so many scientists so widely
distributed both as regards their countries and their scientific disciplines.
31
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***WARMING BAD IMPACTS***
32
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION
Global warming leads to extinction!

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

David Stein, Science editor for The Guardian, 2006, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about
Antarctic melting,” http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html
Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson , a geologist writing in the Baltimore Sun, is the best and almost only
mainstream media explanation of runaway global warming and how close we are to extinction. "There are
enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold
northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much
methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon
dioxide."
33
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION
Warming forms a high way to extinction, slaughtering billions through starvation, flooding and
disease
Neo Hui Min, Straits Times Europe Bureau staff writer, April 7th 2007 “Billions face dire risk from global
warming, says experts” http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st
BRUSSELS - TOP climate scientists issued their bleakest assessment yet on global warming yesterday,
with a warning that billions of people could go thirsty as water supplies dry up and millions more may
starve as farmlands become deserts. Poor tropical countries that are least to blame for causing the
problem will be worst hit, said the report. Small island states, Asia's big river deltas, the Arctic, and
sub- Saharan Africa are also at risk. Global warming could also rapidly thaw Himalayan glaciers that
feed rivers from India to China, and bring heat waves to Europe and North America. The dire warnings
came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final text of a 21-page
Summary for Policymakers was agreed on after an all-night session marked by serious disputes.
Scientists from more than 100 countries made up the panel. Their report forms the second of a four-part
climate assessment, with the final section to be released early next month in Bangkok. Its findings are
approved unanimously by governments and will guide policy on issues such as extending the United
Nation's Kyoto Protocol, the main plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012. The grim
1,400-page report issued yesterday said change, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse
gases, was already under way in nature. The IPCC noted that damage to the earth's weather systems was
changing rainfall patterns, punching up the power of storms and boosting the risk of drought, flooding
and stress on water supplies. Some scientists even called the degree-by-degree projection a 'highway to
extinction'. Add 1 deg C to the earth's average temperatures and between 400 million and 1.7 billion
more people cannot get enough water. Add another 1.8 deg C and as many as two billion people could
be without water, and about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's species face extinction. More
people will also start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts. This
could happen as early as 2050. 'Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems
on every continent,' said the report. University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, former head of
the United States' IPCC delegation, said: 'It is clear that a number of species are going to be lost.' Mr
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: 'It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this
includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. 'This does become
a global responsibility in my view.' Still, some scientists accused governments of watering down the
forecasts. They said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia had raised most objections overnight, seeking to
tone down some findings. Other participants also said the US, which pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in
2001 saying it was too costly, had toned down some passages. Dr Pramod Kumar Aggarwal, one of the
authors of the report, told The Straits Times that temperature increases could lead to crop failure and
rising prices, with dire consequences for the poor. 'In Asia, you are talking about millions or billions of
people,' he said.
34
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES WAR [GENERAL]
Climate change guarantees war and nuclear proliferation as nations hunt for resources
Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network an international think tank and consulting firm,
and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at GBN with over ten years of scenario planning. October 2003 “An
Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many
countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is
likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries,
struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia,
whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture
Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying
Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and
energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear
weapons – skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish
and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries
including the United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins
touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and
transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs
through seven. In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and Canada
may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower—causing energy
problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to create one technically savvy and nuclear-
armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing immigration problems between European
nations – and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil, and
natural gas may join Europe. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable.
As cooling drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of
energy supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of
power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing
capabilities to ensure their national security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain,
France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North
Korea.
35
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING CAUSES WAR [GENERAL]
Climate induced resource shortages escalate to war

Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a
different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation
may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than
by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would
alter which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security threats. There is
a long-standing academic debate over the extent to which resource constraints and environmental
challenges lead to inter-state conflict. While some believe they alone can lead nations to attack one
another, others argue that their primary effect is to act as a trigger of conflict among countries that face
pre-existing social, economic, and political tension. Regardless, it seems undeniable that severe
environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict. Co-founder and President
of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Peter Gleick outlines
the three most fundamental challenges abrupt climate change poses for national security: 1. Food
shortages due to decreases in agricultural production 2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh
water due to flooding and droughts 3. Disrupted access to strategic minerals due to ice and storms In
the event of abrupt climate change, it’s likely that food, water, and energy resource constraints will first
be managed through economic, political, and diplomatic means such as treaties and trade embargoes.
Over time though, conflicts over land and water use are likely to become more severe – and more
violent. As states become increasingly desperate, the pressure for action will grow.
Global warming causes nuclear conflict
The Guardian February 22, 2004 “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in
wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a
'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt
across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge
of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy
supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its
contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis.
'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush
administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will
also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report
was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held
considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a
sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security
concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal
Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent
scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security
in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread
flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
36
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Global warming causes resource tensions, sparking conflict

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially destabilize the geo-
political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production 2) Decreased availability and
quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods
and droughts 3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess As global
and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two
fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual
fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially
those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean
water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources
for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.
Climate changes guarantees global instability

CNA, a non-profit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for
Public Research. 2007 “National Security and the threat of Climate Change”
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/
One reason human civilizations have grown and flourished over the last five millennia is that the
world’s climate has been relatively stable. However, when climates change significantly or
environmental conditions deteriorate to the point that necessary resources are not available, societies
can become stressed, sometimes to the point of collapse [1]. For those concerned about national
security, stability is a primary goal. Maintaining stability within and among nations is often a means of
avoiding full-scale military conflicts. Conversely, instability in key areas can threaten our security. For
these reasons, a great deal of our national security efforts in the post-World War II era have been
focused on protecting stability where it exists and trying to instill it where it does not. This brings us to
the connection between climate change and national security. As noted, climate change involves much
more than temperature increases. It can bring with it many of the kinds of changes in natural systems
that have introduced instability among nations throughout the centuries. In this chapter, we consider
some of the ways climate change can be expected to introduce the conditions for social destabilization.
The sources of tension and conflict we discuss here are certainly not solely due to climate change;
they have been discussed by the national security community for many years. However, climate
change can exacerbate many of them [2]. For example: • Some nations may have impaired access to
food and water. • Violent weather, and perhaps land loss due to rising sea levels and increased storm
surges, can damage infrastructure and uproot large numbers of people. • These changes, and others,
may create large number of migrants . When people cross borders in search of resources, tensions can
arise. • Many governments, even some that look stable today, may be unable to deal with these new
stresses. When governments are ineffective, extremism can gain a foothold. • While the developed
world will be far better equipped to deal with the effects of climate change, some of the poorest regions
may be affected most. This gap can potentially provide an avenue for extremist ideologies and create
the conditions for terrorism.
37
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Climate change excerbates instability

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

Arthur Bright, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 6-27-08, “New report highlights ties between
global warming and US security,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0628/p99s01-duts.html
The idea that global warming could aggravate immigration and ethnic tensions is not new. Last
December, The Christian Science Monitor reported that experts studying the relationship between
security and climate are watching several hot spots around the globe. Bangladesh, with its high
population and low sea level, is a particularly noteworthy flashpoint according to experts, as global
warming could force its people to migrate into culturally proud neighboring regions. "It is the No. 1
conflict zone for climate change," says Peter Schwartz, chairman of the Monitor Group, a research firm
in San Francisco that recently released a study on the security risks presented by climate change. That
field of study is relatively new, but analysts are beginning to lay the map of forecasted climate change
over the map of political weakness to see where changes in weather could lead to volatility. No one
argues that climate change alone will lead to war. But analysts suggest that it could be a pivotal factor
that tips vulnerable regions toward conflicts. "Climate change is a threat multiplier," says Geoff
Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute
in Washington.
38
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES WAR [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]
Climate change causes African instability—exasperates underlying conditions

Africa is increasingly crucial in the ongoing battle against civil strife, genocide, and terrorism.
Numerous African countries and regions already suffer from varying degrees of famine and civil strife.
Darfur, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Western Sahara—all have been hit
hard by tensions that can be traced in part to environmental causes. Struggles that appear to be tribal,
sectarian, or nationalist in nature are often triggered by reduced water supplies or reductions in
agricultural productivity. The challenges Africa will face as a result of climate change may be
massive, and could present serious threats to even the most stable of governments. Many African
nations can best be described as failed states, and many African regions are largely ungoverned by
civil institutions. When the conditions for failed states increase—as they most likely will over the
coming decades—the chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of
terrorism.
WAR IN AFRICA WILL RESULT IN INTERVENTION AND NUCLEAR WAR

DEUTSCH 2002 (Jeffrey, Political Risk Consultant and Ph.D in Economics, The Rabid Tiger Newsletter,
Vol 2, No 9, Nov 18, http://list.webengr.com/pipermail/picoipo/2002-November/000208.html)
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo
(the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in
Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to
"national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid
tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-
washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very
few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this
respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more
easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or
Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any
"help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy
war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a
much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in
the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an
ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.
39
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- WARMING CAUSES WAR [AFRICAN INSTABILITY]
Warming leads to instability in Africa and threatens national security

Arthur Bright, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 6-27-08, “New report highlights ties between
global warming and US security,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0628/p99s01-duts.html
The Washington Post writes that Thomas Fingar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council,
delivered the report Wednesday to a joint meeting of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence. He warned that global warming
will reduce food supplies in Africa, which he predicted would in turn spark violence in the region.
"Without food aid, the region will likely face higher levels of instability, particularly violent ethnic
clashes over land ownership," probably creating "extensive and novel operational requirements," for the
fledgling U.S. Africa Command, according to a National Intelligence Assessment on the security
implications of climate change by the National Intelligence Council. ... Overall, the assessment found
that while the United States "is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change," the
impact on other countries has the "potential to seriously affect U.S. national security interests."
Humanitarian disasters, economic migration, food and water shortages -- all caused by climate change
-- will pressure other countries to respond. Such demands "may significantly tax U.S. military
transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture," the assessment
found. Fingar said Africa is most vulnerable "because of multiple environmental, economic, political
and social stresses." While no country will avoid climate change, the report said, "most of the struggling
and poor states that will suffer adverse impacts to their potential and economic security," are in the
Middle East, central and southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.
40
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES WATER WARS
Variable Raining causes water scarcity ensuring escalating conflicts

Changes in the variability and distribution of rainfall could also exacerbate fresh-water scarcity in water-
deficient states. In a world where over 2bn people already live in countries suffering moderate to high
water stress, and half the population is without adequate sanitation or drinking water, relatively small shifts
in rainfall patterns could push countries and whole regions into deficit, leading to a series of water crises
with global implications. In Asia, per capita water availability has already declined by between 40% and
65% since 1950.15 By 2025, some 5bn people globally could be suffering from serious water shortages,
half a billion of them due to climate change.16 It is not yet possible to accurately forecast detailed
precipitation changes at the national and sub-national level. However, it is clear that countries which are
already water deficient will be most at risk, as rainfall patterns shift and become more variable
Water conflicts escalate into global nuclear war
WEINER, 1990 Prof at Princeton Department of Molecular Biology
[Johnathan, The Next 100 Years: Shaping the Fate of Our Living Earth, p. 214]
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-Bomb and the H-Bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the
C-Bomb, the change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other.
Already in the Middle East, from Northern Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates,
tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a
flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will
unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
41
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING CAUSES WATER WARS
Global warming causes massive water shortages

John Houghton, cochair of the IPCC, Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of
Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre 4 May 2005
“Global warming” INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS 1343–1403
With global warming, there will be substantial changes in water availability, quality
and flow. On average, some areas will become wetter and others drier. Substantial
changes in variations of flow during the year will also occur as glaciers and snow
cover diminishes leading to less spring melt. Much of these changes will exacerbate
the current vulnerability regarding water availability and use. Especially vulnerable
will be continental areas where decreased summer rainfall and increased
temperature result in a substantial loss in soil moisture and increased likelihood of
drought. Even greater impact is likely to occur because of increased frequency and
intensity of extremes, especially floods and droughts (see section 7.5). Such
disasters are the most damaging disasters the world experiences; on average they
cause more deaths, misery and economic loss (see section 8.8) than other disasters.
They are especially damaging to developing countries where, in general, they are
more likely to occur and where there is inadequate infrastructure to cope with them.
Impacts of climate change on fresh water resources are likely to be exacerbated by
other pressures, e.g. population growth, land-use change, pollution and economic
growth.
42
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES CHINA/INDIA CONFLICT
Warming Causes escalating China-India conflict- metled Tibetan glaciers cause territorial conflicts
The melting of the Tibetan glaciers illustrates the nexus between climate change, water scarcity and
geopolitics. By China’s own estimates, the glaciers on the Tibetan plateau are melting at a rate of about 7%
a year.17 Hundreds of millions of people are dependent on the flow of glacier-fed rivers for most of their
food and water needs, as well as transportation and energy from hydroelectricity. Initially, flows may
increase, as glacial run-off accelerates, causing widespread flooding. Within a few decades, however, water
levels are expected to decline, jeopardising food production and causing widespread water and power
shortages with potentially adverse consequences for India, Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam. With less fresh water available to slake the thirst of its booming population and
economy, China has redoubled its efforts to redirect the southward flow of rivers from the water-rich
Tibetan plateau to water-deficient areas of northern China. The problem is that rivers like the Mekong,
Ganges, Brahmaputra and Salween flow through multiple states. China’s efforts to rectify its own emerging
water and energy problems indirectly threaten the livelihoods of many millions of people in downstream,
riparian states. Chinese dams on the Mekong are already reducing flows to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam. India is concerned about Chinese plans to channel the waters of the Brahmaputra
to the over-used and increasingly desiccated Yellow River. Should China go ahead with this ambitious
plan, tensions with India and Bangladesh are likely to rise, as existing political and territorial disputes18 are
aggravated by concerns over water security.
43
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES SPRATLY CONFLICTS
Rising Oceans result in spratly conflict- territorial conflicts escalate

In Asia, rising oceans could make more difficult the resolution of disputed sovereignty claims in the Spratly
Islands, a group of low-lying atolls in the South China Sea which sit astride potentially rich deposits of oil
and have already been the scene of military tensions between and among China, Vietnam and the
Philippines. Some of these islands are already partially submerged and the highest (Southwest Cay) is only
4m above sea level.24 Beijing has challenged the island status of Okinotorishima, a small offshore islet
claimed by Japan at the southernmost part of the archipelago that is uninhabited and slowly sinking, and is
the basis for Japan’s claim to an extended EEZ. Under Article 121 of the United Nations Law of the Sea
Convention, islands classified as ‘rocks’ are not entitled to a 200 nautical mile EEZ, unless they are capable
of sustaining human habitation and economic life. Japan has already attempted to increase the size and
height of Okinotorishima by planting coral around the islet, while some of the claimants to the Spratlys
have built large concrete structures grafted onto submerged, naturally occurring coral, which house small
military garrisons.25
A conflict over the Spratly Islands goes nuclear and draws in the US
Nikkei Weekly, 6-3-95, Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to
allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands,
says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad
Mahathir strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. The prime
minister hails the ASEAN Regional Forum as a means for civilized nations of achieving
negotiated settlement of disputes. Many members of the forum, including Malaysia,
Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, have problems with their neighbors, but they are
trying to solve them through continued dialogue, he adds.Three scenarios Mahathir sees
Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian
countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their
conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S.,
leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.
44
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES ARCTIC CONFLICT
Warming results in Russian Us conflict- access to resources causes exploitation

Warming seas, as a consequence of climate change, are also making it possible to exploit previously
inaccessible energy resources under the polar ice caps, threatening what has been characterised as a new
‘gold rush’, with claimant states jostling for the rights to exploit potentially rich deposits of oil, gas and
minerals on the seabed. The potential for conflict was dramatically brought home by Russia’s successful
and highly publicised planting of its national flag on the Arctic seabed on 2 August 2007 by two small
submersibles, an act that was lauded as ‘heroic’ by Moscow but condemned by other claimants, notably
Canada, which compared the Russian action to a fifteenth-century land grab.26 Many climate scientists
believe that latesummer Arctic ice could disappear entirely by 2060, which would make the exploitation of
Arctic resources technically feasible and therefore more likely, unless the five claimant states – Russia, the
United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway – can reach an accommodation.27
Artic Conflcit goes nuclear
Prof. Rob Huebert, Department of Political Science/Strategic Studies Program, University of Calgary 1998
http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm
Likewise, there is evidence that the Russians intend to continue developing more advanced nuclear ballistic
missile submarines. The keel of the fourth-generation strategic missile submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruky
(Borei class), was laid on November 2, 1996. (3) This new class of submarines is to replace the Russian
Typhoon and Delta classes and is expected to be operational by 2002-2003. It is estimated that cost of each
of these submarines will exceed $1 billion (US). This clearly illustrates the seriousness of the Russian's
perceived military threat. Given the fact that Murmansk is one of three remaining SSBN ports, the
construction of these vessels guarantees that the Arctic will remain an area of continued military activity
for Russia, and therefore the United States, well into the 21st century. The potential for an accidental
nuclear war remains as a threat to the Arctic regions.
Arctic Conflicts Escalate
Security Innovator, 8/23/07 http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=12387§ionID=43
Huebert explained that he’d “like to be positive that it won’t go that bad,” but noted “all you need is a
couple of bad turns and things can go bad really quickly” in the Arctic, as experienced during the Cold
War. But he noted, “We still have time for a collaborative approach to all things Arctic, we can turn around
and agree that all the disputed borders won’t escalate, and that any of the resource issues will be dealt with
by joint management regimes. Hell, if the Indonesians and the Australians can do it, I don’t see why we
can’t.” But Huebert cautioned that “Arctic issues have a habit of catching people unexpectedly, though
they shouldn’t.” He recalled how the Polar Sea incident “escalated really quickly and could have been
handled quite differently, but it colored relations between Canada and the U.S. for a long time.” And he
added that “little issues like Hans Island can hurt relations between Canada and Denmark.” Even an overly
aggressive resource exploration company might come along and start drilling in a disputed zone, and if so,
things “will get real ugly real fast,” as “these things have a bad habit of getting nasty real fast without
people really anticipating, and at that point, that’s where positions start to harden.” Huebert calls upon the
Arctic rim states to come together and address these issues now: “Let’s get the means of resolving” Arctic
disputes developed, and a “method for handling it. Let’s create an understanding of the border issues,
understand the environmental issues we both know are important, we all know we could do that right now.
There’s no reason why we couldn’t start tomorrow.”
45
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES TERRORISM
Climate change creates instability—failed states, terrorism and massive migrations exaggerate
further
Anthony C Zinni General, Former Commander in Chief of the US Central Command, 2007. “On Climate
Change and the Conditions of Terrorism” published as part of the “National Security and the threat of
Climate Change”
A starting point in understanding this connection might be to “look at how climate change effects
could drive populations to migrate,” Gen. Zinni said. “Where do these people move? And what kinds
of conflicts might result from their migration? You see this in Africa today with the flow of
migrations. It becomes difficult for the neighboring countries. It can be a huge burden for the host
country, and that burden becomes greater if the international community is overwhelmed by these
occurrences. “You may also have a population that is traumatized by an event or a change in condi-
tions triggered by climate change,” Gen. Zinni said. “If the government there is not able to cope with
the effects, and if other institutions are unable to cope, then you can be faced with a collapsing state.
And these end up as breeding grounds for instability, for insurgencies, for warlords. You start to see
real extremism. These places act like Petri dishes for extremism and for terrorist networks.” In
describing the Middle East, the former CENTCOM commander said, “The existing situation makes
this place more susceptible to problems. Even small changes may have a greater impact here than they
may have elsewhere. You already have great tension over water. These are cultures often built around
a single source of water. So any stresses on the rivers and aquifers can be a source of conflict. If you
consider land loss, the Nile Delta region is the most fertile ground in Egypt. Any losses there could
cause a real problem, again because the region is already so fragile. You have mass migrations within
the region, going on for many decades now, and they have been very destabilizing politically.” Gen.
Zinni referenced the inevitability of climate change, with global temperatures sure to increase. But he
also stressed that the intensity of those changes could be reduced if the U.S. helps lead the way to a
global reduction in carbon emissions. He urged action now, even if the costs of action seem high.
“We will pay for this one way or another,” he said. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military
terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll. “There is no way out of this that
does not have real costs attached to it. That has to hit home.”
46
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING CAUSES TERRORISM
Climate change overwhelms governments, fostering terrorism

Many developing countries do not have the government and social infrastructures in place to cope with
the types of stressors that could be brought on by global climate change. When a government can no
longer deliver services to its people, ensure domestic order, and protect the nation’s borders from
invasion, conditions are ripe for turmoil, extremism and terrorism to fill the vacuum. Lebanon’s
experience with the terrorist group Hezbollah and the Brazilian government’s attempts to reign in the
slum gang First Capital Command [12] are both examples of how the central governments’ inability
to provide basic services has led to strengthening of these extra-governmental entities.
Climate changes causes global instability, fueling terrorism

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

Natural disasters linked to climate change may prove an even greater security challenge for developing
states, displacing affected populations, calling into question the legitimacy or competence of national
governments and feeding into existing ethnic or inter-communal conflicts. In extreme cases, the survival of
the nation itself may be in question. For example, the 1998 monsoon season brought with it the worst flood
in living memory to Bangladesh, inundating some 65% of the country, devastating its infrastructure and
agricultural base and raising fears about Bangladesh’s long-term future in a world of higher ocean levels
and more intense cyclones. In the absence of effective mitigation strategies, a 1m rise in sea level would
flood about 17.5% of Bangladesh and much of the Ganges river delta which is the country’s food basket.39
47
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES MIGRATION/REFUGEES
Massive Migration will occur as warming destabilizes nations

With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and economically poor
regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a severe risk to political, economic, and
social stability. In less prosperous regions, where countries lack the resources and capabilities required
to adapt quickly to more severe conditions, the problem is very likely to be exacerbated. For some
countries, climate change could become such a challenge that mass emigration results as the desperate
peoples seek better lives in regions such as the United States that have the resources to adaptation.
Warming causes Short and long term displacement- destabilizing states

Environmental refugees In a grimly ironic scene from the Hollywood blockbuster The Day After
Tomorrow, thousands of starving, dislocated North Americans stream south across the border to sanctuary
in Mexico fleeing from the frigid winter descending on the continent as the great ocean conveyor, or
thermohaline circulation, collapses.40 Although the film is predictably dramatic in its depiction of this
high-impact but low-probability scenario, the possibility that climate change might cause mass migrations
of environmental refugees and displaced persons, with serious consequences for international security, is
certainly plausible and should not be dismissed as a figment of Hollywood’s imagination. We already know
that refugee flows and unregulated population movements can destabilise states internally, aggravate trans-
border conflicts, create political tensions between sending and receiving states and jeopardise human
security.41 One of the defining features of the post-Cold War security environment has been the rapid rise
in unregulated population movements around the globe. The causes of these movements are complex and
intercon nected, but there is growing evidence to suggest that environmental decline is a contributing cause
and that, in future, climate change may play a significant ancillary role. Some contend that climate or
environmental refugees are now the fastest-growing proportion of refugees globally and that by 2050 up to
150m people may be displaced by the impact of global warming.42 Climate-induced migration is set to
play out in three distinct ways. First, people will move in response to a deteriorating environment, creating
new or repetitive patterns of migration, especially in developing states. Secondly, there will be increasing
short-term population dislocations due to particular climate stimuli such as severe cyclones or major
flooding. Thirdly, largerscale population movements that build more slowly but gain momentum as adverse
shifts in climate interact with other migration drivers such as political disturbances, military conflict,
ecological stress and socio-economic change are possible.43 Even the beneficial effects of climate change
could lead to conflict. In China’s Xingiang province, for example, a projected increase in rainfall is likely
to attract an influx of Han migrants into the Muslim Uighur ancestral lands, further inflaming ethnic
tensions between the two communities where a low-level insurgency is already festering.
48
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS BIODIVERSITY
Warming destroys biodiversity- harms biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems

Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new and stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate
change on unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountain communities and ecosystems),
with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing risk of species
extinction and coral reef damage is projected with higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds.
There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are
likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C
over 1980-1999 levels. Confidence has increased that a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperature above
1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above preindustrial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened
systems including many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low
adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more
frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or
acclimatisation by corals. Increasing vulnerability of indigenous communities in the Arctic and small island
communities to warming is projected.
49
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS BIODIVERSITY
Loss of ecosystems and species risks planetary extinction – each species loss could be one to cause
extinction
Diner, 94 (Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143
Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis)
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-
like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of
history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the
wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction
episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and
new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's
survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could
decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one
knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing
certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many
direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that
species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain
species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control,
n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. --
Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without
plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the
direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have
been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To
accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind
may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense.
Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful
species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species
dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the
remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species
preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed,
the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing
the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious
future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist
species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in
which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a
simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing
widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this
trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction
increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings,
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
50
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING HURTS BIODIVERSITY
Fast warming causes widespread specieis loss

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate
and magnitude of the climate change. {3.4} Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of
sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river
deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more
rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. {3.4} Climate change is likely to lead to
some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of species assessed so
far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C
(relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections
suggest significant extinctions (40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe. {3.4}
51
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming devastates ecosystems- extreme heat, cold, drought, and rain

Some systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especially affected by climate change.12 {3.3.3} Systems
and sectors: {3.3.3} _ particular ecosystems: - terrestrial: tundra, boreal forest and mountain regions
because of sensitivity to warming; mediterranean-type ecosystems because of reduction in rainfall; and
tropical rainforests where precipitation declines - coastal: mangroves and salt marshes, due to multiple
stresses - marine: coral reefs due to multiple stresses; the sea ice biome because of sensitivity to warming _
water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes13 and in the dry tropics, due to changes in rainfall and
evapotranspiration, and in areas dependent on snow and ice melt _ agriculture in low latitudes, due to
reduced water availability _ low-lying coastal systems, due to threat of sea level rise and increased risk
from extreme weather events _ human health in populations with low adaptive capacity. Regions: {3.3.3} _
the Arctic, because of the impacts of high rates of projected warming on natural systems and human
communities _ Africa, because of low adaptive capacity and projected climate change impacts _ small
islands, where there is high exposure of population and infrastructure to projected climate change impacts _
Asian and African megadeltas, due to large populations and high exposure to sea level rise, storm surges
and river flooding. Within other areas, even those with high incomes, some people (such as the poor, young
children and the elderly) can be particularly at risk, and also some areas and some activities. {3.3.3}
Warming causes extinction, ecosystem destruction, and huge sea level rising
AP, 6-24-08, “We’re toast if we don’t stop global warming” http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-
warming/last-chance-or-were-toast/2008/06/24/1214073221343.html
James Hansen told US Congress today that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can stay this
loaded with man-made carbon dioxide only for a couple more decades without changes such as mass
extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises. "We're toast if we don't get on a very different
path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, who is sometimes called the godfather
of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."
52
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming hurts species, raises sea levels, and threatens millions of lives
Doug Struck, staff writer for The Boston Globe, 11-17-07, “In key report, firm action
urged on climate change”
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/17/in_key_report_firm_action_urg
ed_on_climate_change/
WASHINGTON - Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels, and threatening millions of
poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say in a report today that UN officials hope will
help mobilize the world to taking tougher actions on climate change. The scientists said only firm action,
including putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, will avoid more catastrophic events. Those actions
will take a small part of the world's economic growth and will be substantially less than the costs of doing
nothing, the report will say. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be
key ammunition as world leaders meet in Bali next month to try to draft a global plan to deal with Earth's
rising temperatures after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. A near-final draft, approved yesterday by
representatives of more than 140 governments meeting in Valencia, Spain, said global warming is
"unequivocal" and said human actions are heading toward "abrupt or irreversible climate changes and
impacts."
Global warming will lead to extinction by exterminating many species
Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming”

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm
The first recorded mass extinction of species took place 440 million years ago, the Ordovician extinction
and the second deadliest of the five great periods of extinction. During that era, fossil records show an
abrupt die-off of two-thirds of the Earth’s species. During the late Devonian period, about 375 million
years ago, another mass extinction occurred that resulted in most of the planet’s fish species dying. About
250 million years ago the third, and most severe mass extinction took place, the Permian-Triassic
extinction or "the Great Dying." This die-off resulted in loss of almost all marine life and most of the land
species.The fourth mass extinction took place about 205 million years ago at the end of the Triassic Period.
The fifth mass extinction took place about 65 million years ago. The majestic era of the dinosaurs ended
when about half of all species died off, having existed 165 million years. And now a sixth mass extinction
is underway. In January, 2003 a study by lead author, biologist Terry Root, and 5 colleagues at
Stanford's Institute for International Studies involved reviewing scientific studies pertaining to 1,400 plant
and animal species. The Stanford researchers determined that about 80% of those species have undergone
range or behavioral changes likely caused by climate change. "If we've had so much change with just 1
degree, think of how much we will have with 10 degrees," Terry Root said, referring to the estimate by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of a 3 to 10 degree Fahrenheit increase by the end of the
century. "In my opinion, we're sitting at the edge of a mass extinction." In a study published in the
journal Nature, January 8, 2004, its authors found that 15 to 37% of all species in the study regions could
become extinct from expected temperature increases by 2050.(126) “If the projections can be extrapolated
globally, and to other groups of land animals and plants, our analyses suggest that well over a million
species could be threatened with extinction as a result of climate change,” said lead author Chris Thomas of
the University of Leeds, England. “This study makes clear that climate change is the biggest new
extinction threat,” says co-author Lee Hannah. “The combination of increasing habitat loss and climate
change together is particularly worrying.
53
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming destroys wetland’s– key to global biodiversity

It is not only in places where there is dense population that there will be adverse effects. The world’s
wetlands and mangrove swamps currently occupy an area of about a million square kilometres (the
figure is not known very precisely), equal approximately to twice the area of France. They contain
much biodiversity and their biological productivity equals or exceeds that of any other natural or
agricultural system. Over two-thirds of the fish caught for human consumption, as well as many birds
and animals, depend on coastal marshes and swamps for part of their life cycles, so they are vital to the
total world ecology. These areas could not adjust to the rapid rate of sea-level rise that is likely and in
many cases would be unable to extend inland. Net loss of wetland area will therefore occur [97]
54
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 BAD [OCEANS]
CO2 increases oceanic acidity which leads to species extermination
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, 6-30-05, “Oceans turning to acid from rise in
CO2”, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/ci-ott063005.php
Stanford, CA. A report issued by the Royal Society in the U.K. sounds the alarm about the world's oceans.
"If CO2 from human activities continues to rise, the oceans will become so acidic by 2100 it could
threaten marine life in ways we can't anticipate," commented Dr. Ken Caldeira, co-author of the report
and a newly appointed staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in
Stanford, California.* The report on ocean acidification was released today by the Royal Society. See
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ Many scientists view the world's oceans as an important sink for capturing
the human-induced greenhouse gas CO2 and slowing global warming. Marine plants soak up CO2 as
they breathe it in and convert it to food during photosynthesis. Organisms also use it to make their
skeletons and shells, which eventually form sediments. With the explosion of fossil-fuel burning over the
past 200 years, it has been estimated that more than a third of the human-originated greenhouse gas has
been absorbed by the oceans. While marine organisms need CO2 to survive, work by Caldeira and
colleagues shows that too much CO2 in the ocean could lead to ecological disruption and extinctions in
the marine environment. When CO2 gas dissolves into the ocean it produces carbonic acid, which is
corrosive to shells of marine organisms and can interfere with the oxygen supply. If current trends
continue, the scientists believe the acidic water could interrupt the process of shell and coral formation and
adversely affect other organisms dependent upon corals and shellfish. The acidity could also negatively
impact other calcifying organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, some of the most important
players at the base of the planet's food chain. "We can predict the magnitude of the acidification based
on the evidence that has been collected from the ocean's surface, the geological and historical record, ocean
circulation models, and what's known about ocean chemistry," continued Caldeira. "What we can't predict
is just what acidic oceans mean to ocean ecology and to Earth's climate. International and governmental
bodies must focus on this area before it's too late."
55
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 BAD [CORAL]
CO2 acidifies oceans, killing coral

Robert W. Buddemeier, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Joan A. Kleypas, NATIONAL CENTER
FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004
“Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global
climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change
• Increases in ocean temperatures associated with global climate change will increase the number of
coral bleaching episodes. High water temperatures stress corals leading to “bleaching” — the expulsion
of colorful, symbiotic algae that corals need for survival, growth, and reproduction. While coral species
have some capacity to recover from bleaching events, this ability is diminished with greater frequency
or severity of bleaching. As a result, climate change is likely to reduce local and regional coral
biodiversity, as sensitive species are eliminated. • Increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion will drive changes in surface ocean chemistry. The higher
the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere, the greater the amount of CO2dissolved in the surface
ocean. Higher dissolved CO2increases ocean acidity and lowers the concentration of carbonate which
corals and other marine organisms use, in the form of calcium carbonate, to build their skeletons. Thus,
continued growth in human emissions of CO2will further limit the ability of corals to grow and recover
from bleaching events or other forms of stress. • The effects of global climate change will combine
with more localized stresses to further degrade coral reef ecosystems. Although climate change itself
will adversely affect coral reefs, it will also increase the susceptibility of reef communities to
degradation and loss resulting from natural climate variability such as El Niño events as well as
disease, over-fishing, disruption of food webs, and pollution from neighboring human communities.
C02 emissions destroy coral causes ocean acidification- harming coral

Ocean acidification The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more
acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to
further acidification. Projections based on SRES scenarios give a reduction in average global surface ocean
pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century. While the effects of observed ocean acidification
on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, the progressive acidification of oceans is expected to
have negative impacts on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent species. {3.3.4}
56
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS CORAL
Warming kills reefs which are key to biodiversity and the economy
Alok Jha, science correspondent for The Guardian, 1-24-08, Hurricanes and global
warming devastate Caribbean coral reefs,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/24/climatechange
Warmer seas and a record hurricane season in 2005 have devastated more than half of the coral reefs in the
Caribbean, according to scientists. In a report published yesterday, the World Conservation Union (IUCN)
warned that this severe damage to reefs would probably become a regular event given current predictions
of rising global temperatures due to climate change. According to the report, 2005 was the hottest year on
average since records began and had the most hurricanes ever recorded in a season. Large hotspots in the
Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico powered strong tropical hurricanes such as Katrina, which developed into
the most devastating storm ever to hit the US. In addition to the well-documented human cost, the storms
damaged coral by increasing the physical strength of waves and covering the coast in muddy run-off water
from the land. The higher sea temperature also caused bleaching, in which the coral lose the symbiotic
algae they need to survive. The reefs then lose their colour and become more susceptible to death from
starvation or disease. Impacts Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the IUCN's global marine programme, said:
"Sadly for coral reefs, it's highly likely extreme warming will happen again. When it does, the impacts will
be even more severe. If we don't do something about climate change, the reefs won't be with us for much
longer." Some of the worst-hit regions of the Caribbean, which contains more than 10% of the world's coral
reefs, included the area from Florida through to the French West Indies and the Cayman Islands. In August
2005 severe bleaching affected between 50% and 95% of coral colonies and killed more than half, mostly
in the Lesser Antilles. The IUCN report highlights pressures on coral reefs in addition to those of
overfishing and pollution identified in recent years. A recent study found that reefs near large human
populations suffered the most damage. Coral reefs are an important part of the marine ecosystem,
supporting an estimated 25% of all marine life including more than 4,000 species of fish. They provide
spawning, nursery, refuge and feeding areas for a wide variety of other creatures such as lobsters, crabs,
starfish and sea turtles. Reefs also play a crucial role as natural breakwaters, protecting coastlines from
storms. "It's quite clear that the structure and their function as they are right now in the Caribbean is quite
severely impeded," said Lundin. "Over the next few decades we will see a large reduction in the number of
reef areas." Reefs also boost the local economy - in the Caribbean coral reefs provide more than $4bn
(£2bn) a year from fisheries, scuba-diving tourism and shoreline protection. According to an analysis by the
World Resources Institute: Reefs at Risk, coral loss in the region could cost the local economy up to $420m
every year.
57
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- WARMING HURTS CORAL
Warming can cause irreversible damage to the critical coral reefs

Union of Concerned Scientists, 8-10-05, “Early Warning Signs: Coral Reef Bleaching”
Coral reefs are one of the most productive ecosystems on Earth, providing many critical services to
fisheries, shoreline protection, tourism, and to medicine. They are also believed to be among the most
sensitive ecosystems to long-term climate change (Nurse et al., 1998). Elevated sea surface temperatures
can cause coral to lose their symbiotic algae, which are essential for the nutrition and color of corals. When
the algae die, corals appear white and are referred to as "bleached." Water temperatures of as little as one
degree Celsius above normal summer maxima, lasting for at least two to three days, can be used as a
predictor of coral bleaching events (Goreau and Hayes, 1994). Studies indicate that most coral are likely to
recover from bleaching if the temperature anomalies persist for less than a month, but the stress from
sustained high temperatures can cause physiological damage that may be irreversible (Wilkinson et al.,
1999).
Coral reefs are vulnerable to warming and they are key to biodiversity and industry
Thomas J Goreau, president of the non-profit Global Coral Reef Alliance, 5-31-05,
“Global Warming and coral reefs” http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
climate_change_debate/2558.jsp
Coral reefs are the most sensitive of all ecosystems to global warming, pollution, and new diseases. They
will be first to go as a result of climate change. As the most important resources for fisheries, tourism,
shore protection, and marine biodiversity for more than a hundred countries, this will be a huge disaster.
Almost all reefs have already been heated above their maximum temperature thresholds. Many have
already lost most of their corals, and temperature rise in most places gives only a few years before most
corals die from heatstroke.
Warming kills coral, hurting biodiversity

Sean Markey, staff writer for National Geographic News, 5-16-06, Global Warming Has
Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html
Eight years after warming seas caused the worst coral die-off on record, coral reefs in the Indian Ocean are
still unable to recover, biologists say. Many reefs have been reduced to rubble, a collapse that has deprived
fish of food and shelter. As a result, fish diversity has tumbled by half in some areas, say authors of the
first long-term study of the effects of warming-caused bleaching on coral reefs and fish. The study focused
on reefs near Africa's Seychelles islands, north of Madagascar (see Seychelles map), which sustained heavy
losses from bleaching in 1998. "The outlook for recovery is quite bleak for the Seychelles," said lead study
author Nicholas Graham, a tropical marine biologist at England's University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. The
study, in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts that isolated reef ecosystems
like that around the Seychelles will suffer the most from global warming-caused bleaching events.
Warming Oceans Small but prolonged rises in sea temperature force coral colonies to expel their
symbiotic, food-producing algae, a process known as bleaching.
58
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Reefs are being destroyed by warming and must be saved for biodiversity, hunger, industry, and
lifesaving medicines
Charles W. Schmidt, science writer specializing in the environment, genomics, and
information technology, Jul 08 “In Hot Water: Global Warming Takes a Toll on Coral
Reefs” http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-7/focus.html
In the summer of 2005, while Atlantic hurricanes battered coastlines from Cuba to Mexico, the Eastern
Caribbean baked under a relentless sun with barely a breeze to cool the air. Tourists and locals alike wilted
in the heat, and below the sea, marine life and corals in particular suffered as well. The windless calm
settled in just as a buildup of unusually warm water began accumulating in the region. Ordinarily, easterly
trade winds would have churned the sea, helping it to cool. But thanks to an unprecedented heat wave
beginning in May—the result of a confluence of factors related to climate change, scientists say—water
temperatures in the Eastern Caribbean climbed and stayed high for months, reaching levels that by
September would be warmer than any recorded in 150 years. The heat disturbed a symbiotic partnership
that coral animals normally maintain with a type of algae called zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae supply corals
with essential nutrients produced by photosynthesis, particularly carbon, in return for the shelter and access
to sunlight provided by the reefs. The algae also impart color to the corals, which themselves are colorless.
But as sea temperatures rose, the zooxanthellae disappeared, leaving their carbon-deprived hosts behind to
starve. The reefs turned snow white, the color of the underlying stonelike structures they had built up over
centuries, in a phenomenon known as coral bleaching. As the heat wave progressed, it left a trail of
bleached reefs the likes of which had never been seen in the Caribbean. By year's end, coral cover ranging
from 90% in the Virgin Islands to 52% in the French West Indies was affected. Coral bleaching isn't
always fatal—if water temperatures cool in time, the zooxanthellae might return, allowing corals to
recover. But in parts of the Eastern Caribbean, the reefs never got a chance. Almost as soon as their
recovery started, they were attacked by diseases affecting a range of coral species down to 60 feet. By
2007, roughly 60% of the coral cover in the Virgin Islands and 53% in Puerto Rico's La Parguera Natural
Reserve was dead—an unprecedented tragedy. The Eastern Caribbean disease outbreak came on the heels
of what's been a rough several decades for coral reefs worldwide. Long suffering from land-based
pollution, habitat destruction, and overfishing, coral reefs now must also contend with climate change,
which has accelerated their global decline. This puts a wealth of biodiversity at risk. Reefs support up to
800 types of coral, 4,000 fish species, and countless invertebrates. Reef-dwelling species numbering in the
hundreds of thousands may not even be catalogued yet, some scientists speculate. The implications of
these declines could be as disastrous for human health as they are for marine life. Globally, reefs provide a
quarter of the annual fish catch and food for about 1 billion people, according to the United Nations
Environment Programme. Reefs protect shorelines from storm surges, which could become more powerful
as sea levels rise with climate change. Tourism—a mainstay of coastal economies in the tropics, worth
billions in annual revenue—could suffer if reefs lose their appeal. Reefs are also a long-standing source of
medicines to treat human disease. Being attached to reefs, corals and other immobilized marine animals
can't escape predators, so they deploy a range of chemical compounds to deter hunters, fight disease, and
thwart competing organisms. Two antiviral drugs (vidarabine and azidothymidine) and the anticancer agent
cytarabine were developed using compounds extracted from Caribbean reef sponges. Another product
called dolastatin 10, isolated from the sea hare (Dolabella auricularia) of the Indian Ocean, has been
investigated as a treatment for breast and liver cancers and leukemia. Many more lifesaving medicines and
useful chemical products could one day be derived from reef dwellers, experts say. Saving these
ecosystems is imperative on a range of levels, says Caroline Rogers, a marine ecologist with the U.S.
Geological Survey in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. "We have to save them for economic, ecological,
aesthetic, and even spiritual reasons," she says. "People need to feel connected with nature and with
systems that are bigger than they are. Coral reefs are awe-inspiring—we're losing something that we barely
understand."
59
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming sea levels and increased acidity caused by warming will decimate coral
Charles W. Schmidt, science writer specializing in the environment, genomics, and
information technology, Jul 08 “In Hot Water: Global Warming Takes a Toll on Coral
Reefs” http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-7/focus.html
Corals live within a few degrees of temperatures that can send them into a tailspin. They've survived on that
precipice for thousands of years because ocean temperatures in the tropics have been stable. But that's no
longer the case. Seawater warmed by a global average of nearly 1°C over the twentieth century, according
to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, episodes of coral
bleaching and disease are occurring with mounting frequency around the world. In 1997–1998, the world's
largest bleaching event ever killed 16% of the world's reefs, with mortality approaching 90% throughout
Bahrain, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and parts of Tanzania. If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
rises from its current level of 380 ppm to 450–500 ppm by mid-century, as the IPCC predicts could happen
if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed, average ocean temperatures will rise an additional 2°C, an
intolerable increase for most coral species. What's more, atmospheric carbon dioxide is being absorbed by
seawater and converted to carbonic acid, which serves to lower the ocean's pH, threatening reef structures
with dissolution, explains Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University
of Queensland in Australia. Scientists now warn that within a few decades, reefs could suffer cataclysmic
changes, as coral populations dwindle past the point of return.
Warming increases bleaching and diseases among coral reefs
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com, 5-7-07, “Global warming is killing coral reefs”

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0507-coral.html
A new study provides further evidence that climate change is adversely affecting coral reefs. While
previous studies have linked higher ocean temperatures to coral bleaching events, the new research,
published in PLoS Biology, found that climate change may increasing the incidence of disease in Great
Barrier Reef corals. Omniously, the research also shows that healthy reefs, with the highest density of
corals, are hit the hardest by disease. Monitoring 48 reefs along more than 900 miles (1,500 kilometers) of
Australia's coastline for six years, a team of researchers led by John Bruno, a marine biologist at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, tracked white syndrome, an infectious disease that kills coral.
They found that "reefs with high coral cover and warm sea surface temperatures had the greatest white
syndrome frequency." "More diseases are infecting more coral species every year, leading to the global loss
of reef-building corals and the decline of other important species dependent on reefs," said Bruno. "We've
long suspected climate change is driving disease outbreaks. Our results suggest that warmer temperatures
are increasing the severity of disease in the ocean."
60
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Coral loss is caused by warming and is fatal

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

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm
Coral bleaching is happening all over the world in many countries. Whenever coral is stressed by higher
water temperatures, even only 2 or 3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, it may expel the algae that nourishes it
and gives the coral its color, thus coral bleaching. Coral usually recovers from bleaching, but it cannot
survive the stress of constant warming waters. Second to rainforests in biodiversity of species, coral reefs
have been called the rainforests of the sea. An example of coral reef biodiversity are the reefs of the Florida
Keys, which sustain 500 species of fish, more than 1700 species of mollusks, five species of sea turtles, and
hundreds of species of sponges. Lose the algae that sustains the coral, we lose the fisheries that depend on
the coral. John Ogden, a marine biologist and director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography says that
coral reefs provide about 10% of global fisheries, “fish going directly into the mouths of the people who
need the protein the most, the coastal populations of Third World countries.” In a report released at the 9th
Int’l Coral Reef Symposium in Bali, Indonesia (October 2000), Indonesian researchers noted that about
27% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed. Most of the remaining coral could be dead in 20 years,
if global warming and pollution continue. [100] “Reefs are tough,” says Clive Wilkinson, a biologist at the
Australian Institute of Marine Science. “You can hammer them with cyclones, and they’ll bounce right
back. What they can’t bounce back from is chronic, constant stress.”
61
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Global Warming’s destroying coral reefs, the cornerstone of marine biodiversity

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization led by
Eileen Claussen, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs, February 13, 2004 “Press Release: Global Warming Expected to Further Degrade Coral
Reef Systems” http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/global_warming_reefs.cfm
Coral reefs have the highest biodiversity of any marine ecosystem, providing important ecosystem
services and direct economic benefits to the large and growing human populations in low-latitude
coastal zones. One recent estimate valued the annual net economic benefits of the world’s coral reefs at
$30 billion. But human activities including development in coastal areas, over-fishing, and pollution
have contributed to a global loss approaching 25 percent of these valuable ecosystems. Global warming
is expected to further contribute to coral reef degradation in the decades ahead. A new Pew Center on
Global Climate Change report, Coral Reefs & Global Climate Change: Potential Contributions of
Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems, authored by Drs. Robert W. Buddemeier, Joan
A. Kleypas, and Richard B. Aronson, outlines the likely impacts of climate change and global warming
over the next century to coral reef systems both in U.S. waters and around the world. The report reviews
the published literature in an effort to analyze the current state of knowledge regarding coral reef
communities and the potential contribution of future climate change to coral reef degradation and loss.
The report concludes that recent global increases in reef ecosystem degradation and mortality (the
“coral reef crisis”) are exceeding the adaptive capacity of coral reef organisms and communities. The
severity of this crisis will only intensify with future changes in the global climate. “Coral reefs are
striking, complex, and important features of the marine environment,” said Eileen Claussen, President
of the Pew Center. “If we fail to act, the destruction of these rare and important ecosystems will
continue unabated, threatening one of our world’s most precious natural resources.”
62
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CACO3 INTERNAL LINK
CO2 induced CACO3 dissolution kills reefs—it’s key to growth and protection
FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February
2004 “Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems &
Global climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change
Reef-building occurs where calcium carbonate precipitation exceeds its removal. The structural
components of reefs (skeletons of corals and algae) are glued together and made more resistant to
physical breakdown by calcium carbonate cements that precipitate within the reef framework, and by
the over- growth of thin layers of calcareous algae. A reduction in CaCO3precipitation by whatever
means (mortality of reef organisms, lowered calcification rates, or lowered cementation rates) reduces
a reef’s ability to grow and to withstand erosion (Kleypas et al., 2001). Some slow-growing or weakly
cemented reefs may stop accumulating or shrink as carbonate deposition declines and/or erosion
increases. Such effects have been observed in the Galápagos and elsewhere (Eakin, 1996; Reaka-Kudla
et al., 1996). Future changes in seawater chemistry will not only lead to decreases in calcification rates,
but also to increases in CaCO3dissolution. Field experiments (Halley and Yates, 2000) indicate that the
dissolution rate could equal the calcification rate once atmospheric CO2concentrations reach double
the preindustrial levels. This points to a slow-down or reversal of reef-building and the potential loss of
reef structures in the future.
63
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CACO3 INTERNAL LINK
C02 kills coral—deprives them necessary CACO3 for calcification

The oceans currently absorb about a third of the anthropogenic CO2 inputs to the atmosphere,resulting
in significant changes in seawater chemistry that affect the ability of reef organisms to calcify
(Houghton et al., 2001). Photosynthesis and respiration by marine organisms also affect seawater
CO2concentration, but the overwhelming driver of CO2concentrations in shallow seawater is the
concentration of CO2in the overlying atmosphere. Changes in the CO2concentration of seawater
through well-known processes of air- sea gas exchange alter the pH (an index of acidity) and the
concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions (Box 7; previous page). Surface seawater chemistry
adjusts to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations on a time scale of about a year. Projected
increases in atmospheric CO2may drive a reduction in ocean pH to levels not seen for millions of years
(Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Many marine organisms use calcium (Ca2+) and carbonate (CO32–)
ions from seawater to secrete CaCO3skeletons. Reducing the concentration of either ion can affect the
rate of skeletal deposition, but the carbonate ion is much less abundant than calcium, and appears to
play a key role in coral calcification (Langdon, 2003). The carbonate ion concentration in surface
water will decrease substantially in response to future atmospheric CO2increases (Box 7; Figure 5),
reducing the calcification rates of some of the most important CaCO3producers. These include corals
and calcareous algae on coral reefs and planktonic organisms such as coccolithophores (Riebesell et
al., 2000) and foraminifera in the open ocean (Barker and Elderfield, 2002).
64
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CORAL IMPACT
Coral’s key to global biodiversity—offers unique geological and biological structures to sustain life
FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and Richard B. Aronson, DAUPHIN ISLAND SEALAB, February 2004
“Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global
climate change” Published by the Pew Center for Climate Change
Coral reefs offer many values to human society and to the health of the biosphere. Reefs support fisheries,
and reef structures provide natural breakwaters that protect shorelines, other ecosystems, and human
settlements from waves and storms. Humans use reefs and reef products extensively for food, building
materials, pharmaceuticals, the aquarium trade, and other products. Due to their grandeur, beauty, and
novelty, reefs have become prime tourist destinations and, therefore, economic resources. Less evident are
the multiple “ecosystem services” of coral reefs, such as recycling nutrients and providing food, shelter,
and nursery habitat for many other species. Many of these services are related to the geologic and biologic
structures that create the spatial complexity necessary for the high biodiversity of reefs. The biodiversity is
not all marine; humans, like many seabirds and other air-breathing species, have colonized island and
coastal environments formed by coral reef communities
65
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: INCREASED SEA LEVELS HELP REEFS
Flooding overpowers reef adaptability, suppressing growth

P.W. Glynn, professor in the Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 19 June 1992 “Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives”
Coral Reefs 12:1-17
Some workers have suggested that sea level rise that would accompany global warming might initially
favor vertical reef flat accretion when coral growth could keep pace with the flooding (Buddemeier
and Smith 1988; Hopley and Kinsey 1988). This prediction is based on a globally averaged most
probable sea level rise of 15+_3 ram/year (Hoffman et al. i983). Predictions of coral reef growth
responses to sea level rise are complicated, however, by the high susceptibility of important reef-
building coral species to the sea warming events observed in the 1980s (Williams and Bunkley-
Williams 1990; Glynn 1991). It is probable that sustained elevated sea temperatures that would
accompany sea level rise would suppress coral growth or kill many reef flat corals before they could
respond to reef flooding. If coral growth is retarded, it may be more susceptible to the destructive
effects of corallivores and bioeroders that would probably not be affected by higher temperatures.
Com- pared with the mass coral mortalities in Panama caused by the 1982-83 ENSO warming event,
most corallivores, herbivores, and bioeroding sea urchin populations remained at pre-1983 abundances
or increased in size after that disturbance (Glynn 1985 a, 1988 c, 1990).
66
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Environmental Decay Risks Collapse Of Civilization

Dernbach 98 (John C. Associate Professor, Law, Widener University, “Sustainable Development as a
Framework for National Governance,” CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v.
49, Fall 1998, p. 16.)
The global scale and severity of environmental degradation and poverty are unprecedented
in human history. Major adverse consequences are not inevitable, but they are likely if these
problems are not addressed. Many civilizations collapsed or were severely weakened
because they exhausted or degraded the natural resource base on which they
depended. n76 In addition, substantial economic and social inequalities have caused or contributed
to many wars and revolutions. n77 These problems are intensified by the speed at which they have
occurred and are worsening, making it difficult for natural systems to adapt. The complexity of
natural and human systems also means that the effects of these problems are difficult to anticipate.
The potential impact of global warming on the transmission of tropical diseases in a time of
substantial international travel and commerce is but one example.
67
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS OCEANS
Warming devastates ocean ecosystems- disrupts salinity, plankton, oxygen and circulation
In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and
animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming. In some marine and freshwater
systems, shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance are with high confidence
associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels
and circulation. {1.2} Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show
significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the
direction of change expected as a response to warming(figure SPM.2). However, there is a notable lack of
geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing
countries. {1.2, 1.3}
Collapse of ocean ecosystems ends life on Earth

Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law, 2003, Lexis
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do
for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For
example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs
provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,
services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another
significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More
generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that
represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur,
as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore,
human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining
biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows
that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent
on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems
are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of
interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any
other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly
valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on
sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine
ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use
biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the
Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine
wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even
primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force
and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about
the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has
traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to
the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about
causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should
inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are
doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the
United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.
We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves,
and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
68
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES FLOODING
Warming causes massive global flooding

By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions around the world. More
severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods in low-lying islands such as
Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break
through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable.
Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California
creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern
California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season. Melting along
the Himalayan glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate. Floating ice in the
northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is mostly gone during
summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean
waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of
flooding around the globe (roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water
temperature changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over
fishing rights. Each of these local disasters caused by severe weather impacts surrounding areas whose
natural, human, and economic resources are tapped to aid in recovery. The positive feedback loops and
acceleration of the warming pattern begin to trigger responses that weren’t previously imagined, as
natural disasters and stormy weather occur in both developed and lesser-developed nations. Their
impacts are greatest in less-resilient developing nations, which do not have the capacity built into their
social, economic, and agricultural systems to absorb change.
69
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- WARMING CAUSES FLOODING
Warming causes flooding

Maggie Borman, Staff writer for The Telegraph, 7-13-08, “Global warming may increase floods, scientist
says,” http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/average_16116___article.html/inches_illinois.html
The National Wildlife Federation says people in the Central United States are not imagining things. The
last few decades have brought more heavy summer rainfall, along with increased likelihood of devastating
floods. Climate scientist Amanda Staudt said that while no single storm or flood, such as the high water
recently in the Midwest, can be attributed directly to global warming, changing climate conditions are at
least partly responsible for the trends. Because warmer air can hold more moisture, global warming is
expected to bring more and heavier precipitation in the years to come, she said. "The big picture is that
global warming is making tragedies such as the recent Midwest flooding more frequent and intense," the
Wildlife Federation's Staudt said.
Warming caused Katrina and Darfur, and is only going to get worse
Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer for CNSNews, 7-11-08, “Global Warming Led to ‘Black Hawk Down,’
Congressman Says,” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32291
Bordes said that he thinks the warming of the atmosphere could lead to a situation in which his home,
which is near the superdome in New Orleans, could become permanently inundated with water. Markey
also told the students that there no longer exists any debate about whether or not disasters like Katrina are
caused by climate change. “There now is no question that this harm is being caused by human activity,”
said Markey. “It’s warming up the planet and melting the glaciers. There is an underwater heat wave going
on. The waters get warmer and warmer and that intensifies the storms and creates even greater havoc when
those storms reach land.” “The planet is running a fever. It’s heating up but there is no emergency rooms
for planets,” he said. “The worst consequences affect the planet -- not only New Orleans -- but the whole
planet. “The same thing is true by the way with Darfur,” Markey added. “Darfur is really about water. This
is an issue which really goes to the heart of the incredible impact that climate change is having upon our
planet. “
70
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES SEA LEVEL RISE
Warming causes Ocean rise, mountain instability, hydroyitic systems

Observational evidence4 from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being
affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2} Changes in snow, ice and
frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes, increased ground
instability in mountain and other permafrost regions and led to changes in some Arctic and Antarctic
ecosystems. {1.2} There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected through
increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers and through effects
on thermal structure and water quality of warming rivers and lakes. {1.2}
Warming melts ice sheets, causing massive rises in sea levels

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 “Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-
spm.pdf
• Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after
2100. Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains
due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming
(relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9°C to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were
sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet
and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in
Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when
palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.
{6.4, 10.7} • Dynamical processes related to ice fl ow not included in current models but suggested by
recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea
level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude.
{4.6, 10.7}
71
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES MONSOONS
Warming makes monsoons and El ninos more common and lethal

Important components of anthropogenic climate change can be expected to be in the
form of changes in the intensity or frequency of established climate patterns
illustrated by these regimes [74]. Although there is little consistency as yet between
models regarding projections of many of these patterns, recent trends in the tropical
Pacific for the surface temperature to become more El Niño-like are projected to
continue by many models. There is also evidence that warming associated with
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause an intensification of the Asian
summer monsoon and an increase of variability in its precipitation. The influence of
increased greenhouse gases on major climate regimes, especially the El Niño, is an
important and urgent area of research.
72
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES DRAUGHTS
Climate change distorts rain patterns and destroys water sources, causing massive droughts
Adequate supplies of fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and sanitation are the most basic prerequisite
for human habitation. Changes in rainfall, snowfall, snowmelt, and glacial melt have significant effects
on fresh water supplies, and climate change is likely to affect all of those things. In some areas of the
Middle East, tensions over water already exist. Mountain glaciers are an especially threatened source
of fresh water [3]. A modest rise in temperature of about 2° to 4°F in mountainous regions can
dramatically alter the precipitation mix by increasing the share falling as rain while decreasing the
share falling as snow. The result is more flooding during the rainy season, a shrinking snow/ice mass,
and less snowmelt to feed rivers during the dry season [4]. Forty percent of the world’s population
derives at least half of its drinking water from the summer melt of mountain glaciers, but these glaciers
are shrinking and some could disappear within decades. Several of Asia’s major rivers—the Indus,
Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow—originate in the Himalayas [4]. If the massive snow/ice sheet
in the Himalayas—the third-largest ice sheet in the world, after those in Antarctic and Greenland—
continues to melt, it will dramatically reduce the water supply of much of Asia. Most countries in the
Middle East and northern Africa are already considered water scarce, and the International Water
Resource Management Institute projects that by 2025, Pakistan, South Africa, and large parts of India
and China will also be water scarce [5]. To put this in perspective: the U.S. would have to suffer a
decrease in water supply that produces an 80 percent decrease in per capita water consumption to
reach the United Nations definition of “water scarce.” These projections do not factor in climate
change, which is expected to exacerbate water problems in many areas.
Warming increases Droughts and FLoods

Even larger variations in precipitation are projected. Although, on average, globally
precipitation increases there are large regional variations and large areas where
there are likely to be decreases in average precipitation and changes in its seasonal
distribution. For instance, at high northern latitudes large increases are projected in
winter and over south Asia in summer. Southern Europe, Central America, Southern
Africa and Australia are likely to have drier summers.
73
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES HURRICANES
Global Warming causes hurricanes

China View, 7-14-08, “Study: hurricane season longer, big storms sooner”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/14/content_8543160.htm
BEIJING, July 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Hurricane seasons are arriving early and hanging around longer during
the past century, and the big storms are forming earlier, some climate scientists say. Plus, the area of
warm water able to support hurricanes is growing larger over time. The Atlantic Ocean is becoming
more hurricane friendly, scientists say, and the shift is likely due to global warming. "There has been
an increase in the seasonal length over the last century," Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist with the Pew
Center on Global Climate Change, told LiveScience. "It's pretty striking." A study Gulledge co-
authored with other climate scientists found a five-day increase in season length per decade since 1915.
Hurricane season officially starts June 1, but the first named storm of the 2008 season, Tropical
Storm Albert, formed on May 31. The first hurricane of the season, Hurricane Bertha, formed on July 1,
reaching hurricane strength on July 7, relatively early in the season for a major storm. In the last
decade, more strong storms have been forming earlier in the season, said hurricane researcher Greg
Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
74
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES DISEASES [GENERAL]
Warming causes diseases

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

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

A recent study by New Zealand doctors, researchers at the Wellington School of Medicine's public health
department said outbreaks of dengue fever in South Pacific islands are directly related to global warming.
************ According to a report from World Wildlife Fund, dengue, or breakbone fever has now
resurged in the Americas infecting over 200,000 people in 1995. ************ In a San Francisco
Chronicle article (September 28, 1996) Paul Epstein of Harvard's School of Public Health noted during a
conference on Climate Change and Human Health in the Asian Pacific, that insects are bringing illnesses
like malaria and dengue to higher altitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It was also reported at this
conference that continued global warming will cause the spread of these diseases and also encephalitis and
yellow fever to higher latitudes. ************ "Many of the most important diseases in poor countries,
from malaria to diarrhoea and malnutrition are highly sensitive to climate," said Diarmid Campbell-
Lendrum, of the World Health Organization (WHO), and a co-author of a report published in the science
journal Nature on November 17, 2005. The report says that climate change is the driving force behind an
increase in debilitating illnesses such as malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea. "Those least able to cope and
least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected," says lead author
Jonathan Patz, a professor at University of Wisconsin at Madison's Gaylord Nelson Institute for
Environmental Studies. "Herein lies an enormous global ethical challenge."...."Our energy-consumptive
lifestyles are having lethal impacts on other people around the world, especially the poor."says Dr. Patz.
The parts of the globe most vulnerable are the Asian and South American Pacific coasts, the Indian Ocean
coast and sub-Saharan Africa. Patz and his colleagues point to the moral responsibility of the industrial
countries, such as the United States to take a leadership role in curbing emissions.
75
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming increases spread of infectious diseases that have heavy economic costs and destroy biodiversity
Yet another area of potential concern is health—both of humans, of domesticated plants and animals,
and of wildlife (National Research Council, 1999a). There is widespread appreciation of the potential
for unwelcome invasions of new or exotic diseases in the human population, particularly of vector-
borne diseases such as malaria. Similar concerns may arise for pests and diseases that attack livestock
or agriculture. Another concern is diseases of wildlife. Scenarios based on climate models for
greenhouse warming indicate that changes will occur in the geographic distribution of a number of
waterborne diseases (e.g., cholera, schistosomiasis) and vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, yellow
fever, dengue, leishmaniasis) if not countered by changes in adaptation, public health, or treatment
availability. These changes will be driven largely by increases in precipitation leading to favorable
habitat availability for vectors, intermediate and reservoir hosts, and/ or warming that leads to
expansion of ranges in low latitudes, oceans, or montane regions. The host-parasite dynamics for abrupt
climate change have not been targeted specifically as yet, but Daszak et al. (2001) suggested three
phenomena that indicate abrupt climate change may have had heightened impacts on key human
diseases: There appears to be a strong link between El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
outbreaks of Rift Valley fever, cholera, hantavirus, and a range of emergent diseases (Colwell, 1996;
Bouma and Dye, 1997; Linthicum et al., 1999), and if ENSO cycles become more intense, these events
may become more extensive and have greater impact; Malaria has reemerged in a number of upland
tropical regions (Epstein, 1998) (although this is debated by Reiter, 1998); and Recent extreme weather
events have precipitated a number of disease outbreaks (Epstein, 1998). Criteria that define emerging
infectious diseases of humans were recently used to also identify a range of emerging infectious
diseases that affect wildlife (Daszak et al., 2000). They include a fungal disease that is responsible for
mass mortality of amphibians on a global scale and linked to species extinctions (Berger et al., 1998),
canine distemper virus in African wild dogs, American ferrets and a series of marine mammals, and
brucellosis in bison as well as others. An ongoing reduction in biodiversity and increased threats of
disease emergence in humans and livestock make the impacts of these changes potentially very large.
Emerging diseases are affected by anthropogenic environmental changes that increase transmission
rates to certain populations and select for pathogens adapted to these new conditions. Daszak (2001)
points to abrupt climate change as pushing environmental conditions past thresholds that allow diseases
to become established following their introduction. For example, African horse sickness (a vector-borne
disease of horses, dogs, and zebras) is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Although it usually dies out
within 2 to 3 years of introduction to Europe, the latest event involving imported zebras to Spain
resulted in a 5-year persistence, probably because recent climate changes have allowed the biting midge
vector to persist in the region (Mellor and Boorman, 1995). Introduced diseases are costly—a single
case of domestic rabies in New Hampshire led to treatment of over 150 people at a cost of $1.1 million.
The cost of introduced diseases to humans, livestock, and crop plant health is estimated today at over
$41 billion per year (Daszak et al., 2000). Abrupt climate change-driven disease emergence will
significantly increase this burden. Furthermore, the economic implications of biodiversity loss due to
abrupt climate change-related disease events may be severe, as wildlife supports many areas (fisheries,
recreation, wild crops) very significant to our well-being.
76
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Climate Change enables disease vectors - 300,000 will die by 2020

Infectious disease Climate change will have a number of serious health-related impacts, including illness
and death directly attributable to temperature increases, extreme weather, air pollution, water diseases,
vector- and rodent-borne diseases and food and water shortages. 1.7m people die prematurely every year
because they do not have access to safe drinking water, and the situation will worsen if waterborne
pathogens multiply as a result of rising temperatures.28 But the greatest security risk is from infectious
disease. Temperature is the key factor in the spread of some infectious diseases, especially where
mosquitoes are a vector, as with Ross River fever, malaria and dengue fever. As the planet heats up,
mosquitoes will move into previously inhospitable areas and higher altitudes, while disease transmission
seasons may last longer. A study by the World Health Organisation has estimated that 154,000 deaths
annually are attributable to the ancillary effects of global warming due mainly to malaria and malnutrition.
This number could nearly double by 2020.29 Currently, some 40% of the world’s population lives in areas
affected by endemic malaria.30 Extreme weather events and climate-related disasters could lead to short-
term disease spikes because of the damage to food production, displacement and reductions in the
availability of fresh water. Poorer nations with limited public health services will be especially
vulnerable.31 Health problems can quickly metamorphose into a national-security crisis if sufficient
numbers of people are affected and there are serious economic and social consequences, as occurred during
the devastating flu pandemic of 1918–19 which killed from 40–100m people.32 Climate change does not
automatically or always provide a more favourable environment for the spread of infectious diseases, since
transmission rates and lethality are a function of many interrelated social, environmental, demographic and
political factors, including the level of public health, population density, housing conditions, access to clean
water and the state of sewage and wastemanagement systems, as well as human behaviour. All these factors
affect the transmission dynamics of a disease and determine whether or not it becomes an epidemic. But
where climate is a consideration, temperature, relative humidity and precipitation will affect the intensity of
transmission. Temperature can influence the maturation, reproductive rate and survivability of the disease
agent within a vector, or carrier.33 So climate change will alter the distribution of the animals and insects
which are host to dangerous pathogens, increasing or decreasing the range of their habitats and breeding
places.
77
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES DISEASES [MALARIA]
Warming causes malaria

9A412CDFCBB9&copyid=BDC59903-2014-4D8D-9947-FF5B41D9B582\
Global warming may cause an increase in malaria cases and the spread of malaria to new areas of the
globe, experts say. One official with a Swiss company working to develop a malaria vaccine said that
curbing the spread of the disease in current high-threat areas could help limit transmission to new regions
Warming causes malaria and dengue

9A412CDFCBB9&copyid=BDC59903-2014-4D8D-9947-FF5B41D9B582
Between 1.5 billion and 3.5 billion people could become infected with dengue by 2080 because of global
warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel also said an additional
220 million to 400 million people could face exposure to malaria. The report called upon governments in
developed countries to carry the responsibility for responding to public health threats posed by climate
change. Medindia.net (India) (12/13)
Global warming increases malaria

Jaspreet Kaur, staff writer for The Med Guru, 7-14-08, “Global Warming Adds to Malaria Cases,”
http://www.themedguru.com/articles/global_warming_adds_to_malaria_cases-8616131.html
Another after-effect has been added to the already disastrous effects of global warming on the planet.
Experts say that global warming is leading to an increase in the number of malaria cases. The irreversible
changes occurring in the environment are adding fuel to the spread of the already dreaded disease. It has
been found that Europe, North America and North Asia are almost immune from the malaria threat because
the temperatures are much lower in these regions. But with the rising temperatures all over the world, this
may no longer hold true. Experts believe that even a slight increase in temperature can lead to the breeding
of malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Therefore, billions of people can come under the clasp of malaria. And all
these developments add to the need of inventing a vaccine which can prevent people from contracting the
disease.
78
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING BAD LAUNDRY LIST
Global warming leads to terrorism, poverty, environmental degradation, and more
CNNPolitics, 6-25-08, “Global warming could increase terrorism, official says”,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html?
eref=rss_politics#cnnSTCText
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the
world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the
National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Climate change could increase flooding in
coastal areas, like the flooding that hit the Philippines. Climate change "will aggravate existing problems
such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political
institutions," Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African,
Asian, Central American and Central Asian countries.” People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and
some may turn to terrorism, he said. "The conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could
increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity," he said. "Economic refugees will perceive
additional reasons to flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure
on countries receiving refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these
climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming.
Anthropogenic warming is occurring, melting ice, raising the sea level, and will cause 20-30% species
to go extinct
Reuters, 11-17-07, Highlights of U.N. climate panel summary report,
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL17206824
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea
level." Causes of changes "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-
20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in ... greenhouse gas concentrations" from human
activities. Annual greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have risen by 70 percent since 1970.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, far exceed the natural range over the last
650,000 years. Projected climate changes Temperatures are likely to rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 Celsius
(2.0 and 11.5 Fahrenheit) and sea levels by between 18 cm and 59 cm (7 inches and 23 inches) this century.
Africa, the Arctic, small islands and Asian mega-deltas are likely to be especially affected by climate
change. Sea level rise "would continue for centuries" because of the momentum of warming even if
greenhouse gas levels are stabilised. "Warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible".
About 20-30% of species will be at increasing risk of extinction if future temperature rises exceed 1.5 to
2.5 Celsius. Five reasons for concern Risks to unique and threatened systems, such as polar or high
mountain ecosystems, coral reefs and small islands. Risks of extreme weather events, such as floods,
droughts and heatwaves. Distribution of impacts - the poor and the elderly are likely to be hit hardest, and
countries near the equator, mostly the poor in Africa and Asia, generally face greater risks such as of
desertification or floods. Overall impacts - there is evidence since 2001 that any benefits of warming would
be at lower temperatures than previously forecast and that damages from larger temperature rises would be
bigger. Risks or "large-scale singularities", such as rising sea levels over centuries; contributions to sea
level rise from Antarctica and Greenland could be larger than projected by ice sheet models.
79
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS TRADE
Warming causes flooding, disease, and hurts essential trade
CNNPolitics, 6-25-08, “Global warming could increase terrorism, official says”,

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

(Spicer, 1996, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121) More fundamentally, it
will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed.
A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and
ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be
true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly
be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world
stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.
80
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS ECONOMY
Warming hurts the economy, is accelerating and causing more damage than expected
David Adam, environment correspondent for The Guardian, 4-18-08, “I underestimated
the threat, says Stern,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions
Stern said this week that new scientific findings showed greenhouse gas emissions were causing more
damage than was understood in 2006, when he prepared his study for the government. He pointed to last
year's reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and new research which shows
that the planet's oceans and forests are soaking up less carbon dioxide than expected. He said: "Emissions
are growing much faster than we'd thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we'd thought,
the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate
change seems to be faster." Stern said the new findings vindicated his report, which has been criticised by
climate sceptics and some economists as exaggerating the possible damage. "People who said I was
scaremongering were profoundly wrong," he told a conference in London. He said that increasing
commitments from countries to curb greenhouse gases now needed to be translated into action. Earlier this
week, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said a lack of such action from developed countries could
derail attempts to seal a new global climate treaty at a crucial meeting in Copenhagen next year. The Stern
Review was credited with shifting the debate about climate change from an environmental focus to the
economic impacts. It said the expected increase in extreme weather, with the associated and expensive
problems of agricultural failure, water scarcity, disease and mass migration, meant that global warming
could swallow up to 20% of the world's GDP, with the poorest countries the worst affected. The cost of
addressing the problem, it said, could be limited to about 1% of GDP, provided it started on a serious scale
within 10 to 20 years.
US economic decline causes nuclear war

- Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury
Department, "It's Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun,"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964)
Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than
face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to
World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really
big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the
chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?
81
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING HURTS ECONOMY
Warming bad impacts outweigh any positive ones, warming causes disease and hurts econ

A study, by scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that 154,000 people die every
year from the effects of global warming, from malaria to malnutrition, children in developing nations
seemingly the most vulnerable. These numbers could almost double by 2020. "We estimate that climate
change may already be causing in the region of 154,000 deaths...a year," Professor Andrew Haines of the
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told a climate change conference in Moscow. Haines
said the study suggested climate change could "bring some health benefits, such as lower cold-related
mortality and greater crop yields in temperate zones, but these will be greatly outweighed by increased
rates of other diseases." Haines mentioned that small shifts in temperatures, for instance, could extend the
range of mosquitoes that spread malaria. Water supplies could be contaminated by floods, for instance,
which could also wash away crops. On November 28, 1998 the San Francisco Chronicle ran an Associated
Press article reporting that dollar damages from weather-related natural disasters (floods, storms, droughts,
fires) worldwide for 1998 totaled $89 billion. (The final figure for 1998 was to be $93 billion.) Total
damages for the entire decade of the 1980's were $83 billion (this is the inflation-adjusted figure; actual
figure was $54 billion). Damage totals for the 1990's soared above $340 billion, a 300% increase over the
1980's.
Warming damages the economy and we must act now
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, 10-31-06, “Warming Called Threat To
Global Economy” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000269.html
Failing to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global economy on the scale of the Great
Depression or the world wars by spawning environmental devastation that could cost 5 to 20 percent of the
world's annual gross domestic product, according to a report issued yesterday by the British government.
The report by Nicholas Stern, who heads Britain's Government Economic Service and formerly served as
the World Bank's chief economist, calls for a new round of international collaboration to cut greenhouse
gas emissions linked to global warming. "There's still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if
we act now and act internationally," Stern said in a statement. "But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even
by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity
close."
82
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING HURTS ECONOMY
Climate Change causes financial shocks and loss of biodiversity

Serious impacts to ecological or economic capital stocks can occur when they are disrupted in a manner
preventing their timely replacement, repair, or adaptation. It is generally believed that gradual climate
change would allow much of the economic capital stocks to roll over without major disruption. By
contrast, a significant fraction of these stocks probably would be rendered obsolete if there were abrupt
and unanticipated climate change. For example, a rapid sea-level rise could inundate or threaten coastal
build-ings; abrupt changes in climate, particularly droughts or frosts, could destroy many perennial
crops, such as forests, vineyards, or fruit trees; changes in river runoff patterns could reduce the value
of river facilities and flood-plain properties; warming could make ski resorts less valuable and change
the value of recreational capital; and rapid changes in climate could reduce the value of improperly
insulated, heated, and cooled houses. There may also be an impact on more intangible investments such
as health, technological, and “taste” capital, although these are more speculative. Similarly, ecological
systems are vulnerable to abrupt climate change because they have long-lived natural capital stocks,
they are often relatively immobile and migrate slowly, and they do not have the capacity of humans to
adapt to or reduce vulnerability to major environmental changes. Ecological systems are also vulnerable
because of anthropogenic influences on the environment, which repeatedly alter ecosystems and limit
species abundance and composition as a result of habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and loss. Past
examples of ecosystem vulnerability to rapid climate change, such as the Younger Dryas cooling,
illustrate the fragility of species diversity at one location as forests experienced rapid change. In
southern New England, trees such as spruce, fir, and paper birch experienced local extinctions within a
period of 50 years at the close of the Younger Dryas (Peteet et al., 1993). North American extinctions of
horses, mastodons, mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and many other animals were greater at this time
than at any other extinction event over millions of years (Meltzer and Mead, 1983). The reasons for this
extinction have been linked to both climate and early human impacts (Martin, 1984).
83
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES BLACKOUTS
Warming causes blackouts

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

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

- Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury
Department, "It's Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun,"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964)
Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than
face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to
World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really
big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the
chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?
84
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES WILDFIRES

Warming causes wildfires
Ecobridge, 10-5-06, “Evidence of Global Warming” http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm
Wildfires IncreasingThe forests of Canada, Alaska and the former Soviet Union including Siberia are
apparently burning like never before, experts said at the American Geophysical Union conference in San
Francisco (Dec.18, 2000). The likely reason: Global warming is drying out northern timber and brush. As a
result, lightning bolts spark infernos of colossal extent. In Alaska and Canada's boreal forests, fire
consumed an average of more than 7 million acres a year in the 1990s. That's a sharp rise from the average
of 3 million acres per year in the 1960s, scientists said on the third day of the conference. See Source
Article or 103************The year 2000 was the worst U.S. wildfire season in 50 years. A replay is
proving that the year 2001 is producing scorching summer weather, again turning the Western United
States into a tinderbox, where a few sparks could easily ignite a new inferno. Officials at the National
Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, say bone-dry conditions coupled with thick underbrush make for
another potential record-breaking fire season in 2001. Firestorms in 2000 scorched some 7.5 million acres
— an area roughly the size of Maryland — and cost some $1.7 billion to fight. See Article or 106 <>With
wildfires come the prospect of flooding and mudslides. The record California wildfires of October -
November 2003 that destroyed 100s of thousands of forest acreage, together with thousands of homes and
businesses, promise more destruction from floods and landslides, say forest officials. See Planet Ark Story
Also See ENN Article The wildfires burning in the late summer of 2001 across the Western United States
were releasing tons of mercury into the atmosphere, say researchers from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. Hans Friedli and colleague Lawrence Radke conducted laboratory tests to find out
how much mercury a fire could release. About half the atmospheric mercury got there from natural sources
in soil, oceans and volcanoes, and the other half through human activity. Mercury is transformed in the
atmosphere through chemical processes and then rains or falls out as wet or dry deposition to the surface.
For trees, "wet deposition is most important," said Friedli. "Mercury is picked up by the surfaces - the
leaves or needles - and it stays there."
The immediate impact of forest fires hurt biodiversity, crush corporations, deplete water, and erode soil
World Wildlife Foundation 9/12/06
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_fires/index.cfm
The immediate impact of forest fires can be devastating to human communities and forest ecosystems
alike. Fires can alter the structure and composition of forests, opening up areas to invasion by fast-
colonizing alien species and threaten biological diversity. Buildings, crops and plantations are destroyed
and lives can be lost. For companies, fire can mean the destruction of assets; for communities, besides loss
of an important resource base, fire can also lead to environmental degradation through impacts on water
cycles, soil fertility and biodiversity; and for farmers, fire may mean the loss of crops or even livelihoods.
Also, any species can be a keystone species – even resilient ecosystems are susceptible when new
species die
Perrings, 95 (Charles, Prof. at U. of NY, Biological Loss)
The contributors to this volume have argued that the fundamental goal of biodiversity conservation is not species preservation for its own sake, but the protection of the productive
Ecosystem resilience
potential of those ecosystems on which human activity depends. This, it has been argued, is a function of the resilience of such ecosystems.
has been shown to be a measure of the limits of the local stability of the self- organization of the system.
Hence a system may be said to be resilient with respect to exogenous stress or shocks of a given magnitude
if it is able to respond without losing self- organization. Where species or population deletion jeopardizes
the resilience of an ecosystem providing essential services, then protection of ecosystem resilience implies
species preservation. This is not to say that we should dismiss arguments for species preservation for its
own sake. The identification of existence or nonuse value in contingent valuation exercises indicates that
people do think in such terms. But it does make it clear that there is both an economically and ecologically
sound rationale for ensuring the conservation of species that are not currently in use. More particularly,
species which are not now keystone species but may become keystone species under different
environmental conditions have insurance value, and this insurance value depends on their contreibution to
ecosystem resilience.
85
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS PLANTS
Warming will lead to water and food shortages, destroying crops and increasing starvation
Pamela Hess, staff writer for AP, 6-25-08, “Report: Climate Change linked to national
security” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_co/global_warming_security
The assessment of global climate change through 2030 is one in a series of periodic intelligence reports that
offer the consensus of top analysts at all 16 spy agencies on foreign policy, security and global economic
issues. Congress requested the report last year. The assessment is classified as confidential. It predicts that
the United States and most of its allies will have the means to cope with climate change economically.
Unspecified "regional partners" could face severe problems. Fingar said the quality of the analysis is
hampered by the fact that climate data tend not to focus on specific countries but on broad global changes.
For that reason, the intelligence agencies have only low to moderate confidence in the assessment. Africa is
seen as among the most vulnerable regions. An expected increase in droughts there could cut agricultural
yields of rain-dependent crops by up to half over the next 12 years. Parts of Asia's food crops are
vulnerable to droughts and floods, with rice and grain crops potentially facing up to a 10 percent decline by
2025. As many as 50 million additional people could face hunger by 2020. The water supply, while larger
because of melting glaciers, will be under pressure from a growing population and increased consumption.
Between 120 million and 1.2 billion people in Asia "will continue to experience some water stress." Latin
America may experience increased precipitation, possibly cutting tens of millions of people from the ranks
of those in need of water. But from 7 million to 77 million people could be short of water resources because
of population growth.
86
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING HURTS PLANTS
Warming kills off plants which spillover to the rest of the environment
Extremes of environment are most damaging to the reproductive stages of plants. For example, changes
in mast fruiting,5 which are often synchronous over large regions, have strong effects that cascade
through all levels of an ecosystem (Koenig and Knops, 2000). One example is the influence that large
acorn crops have on increasing the populations of deer, mice, and ultimately ticks (Jones et al., 1998).
Thus, climatically induced changes in masting that lead to increased acorn production can result in an
enhanced risk of Lyme disease, which then impacts human health. It is likely that the effects of abrupt
climate change on mast fruiting will be nonlinear and thus the impacts of these changes will be difficult
to predict (Koenig and Knops, 2000). Drought is also of primary importance to forests. In contrast to
earlier predictions that global warming would increase radial growth of trees in boreal forests, white
spruce (Picea glauca) tree ring records show recent decreases in radial growth. These decreases are
presumed to be due to temperature-induced drought stress, which has implications for forest carbon
storage at high latitudes. In the Southern Hemisphere (Patagonia), recent pulses of mortality in
Austrocedrus chilensis trees were associated with only 2 to 3 years of drought (Villalba and Veblen,
1998). Not only is the lack of water directly damaging in a drought, but there is increased susceptibility
to fire as a forest dries out. Further, there is evidence that drought triggered an ecotonal shift in New
Mexico (Allen and Breshears, 1998) where ponderosa pine experienced high mortality rates in less than
5years and the ecotone migrated over 2 km. Woody mortality loss occurs much faster than tree growth
gain, which has pervasive and persistent ecological effects on associated plant and animal communities.
Warming induced droughts cause greater erosion killing plants and increase outbreaks of defoliating insects
Droughts and floods are also responsible for changes in erosion patterns, as reduced vegetation due to
fires results in greater soil loss (Allen, 2001). For example, in the Indonesian tropics, drought years
have led to a greater frequency and magnitude of fires resulting in a loss of peatlands, increased erosion,
and increased global air pollution. Globally, rates of soil erosion are 10 to 40 times greater than rates of
soil formation (i.e., over 75 billion tons from terrestrial systems annually; Pimentel and Kounang,
1998). Droughts have also been implicated in insect outbreaks and pulses (births and deaths), with
impacts on tree demography (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1998). Episodic outbreaks of pandora moth
(Coloradia pandora), a forest insect that defoliates ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and other western
US pine species, have been linked to climatic oscillations (Speer et al., 2001). Drought years have been
linked to insect crashes as well as booms (Hawkins and Holyoak, 1998).
Unique Link- Warming uniquely devastates food supply- extreme weather and fertilizer disruption
Of course, doomsayers have long warned of an approaching food deficit and been proved wrong. Most
food economists believe that global supply will be able to keep ahead of rising demand. But their
assumptions have not adequately factored in the impact of climate change, especially the shift in rainfall
distribution, rising temperatures and the probable increase in extreme weather events. Nor have they
accounted for the fact that agricultural yields are heavily dependent on high fertiliser use, which links food
production to climate change through the energy cycle. The need to achieve greenhouse-gas reductions will
increase energy costs, making it more difficult to maintain the per capita food yield gains of the previous
century.
87
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – WARMING HURTS PLANTS
Warming devastates agriculture- flooding and droughts kill crops

4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=1c900945-f246-42ec-a806-e63190d24817, 1378-9
7.5. Changes in climate extremes Most of the presentation so far has concerned
average climate. However, it is not the changes in average climate so much as the
extremes of climate—droughts, floods, storms and extremes of temperature in very
cold or very warm periods—that provide the largest impact on our lives. The most
obvious change to be expected in extremes is a large increase in the number and
severity of extremely warm days (figure 20) coupled with a decrease in the number
of extremely cold days. A number of model projections show a generally decreased
daily variability of surface air temperature in winter and increased daily variability in
summer in Northern Hemisphere land areas, suggesting that the situation in figure
20(c) could apply in these areas (figure 26 shows an example). However, the greatest
impact is likely to occur with changes connected with precipitation events, especially
precipitation intensity. Moderate rainfall soaks into the soil and benefits plants.
However, the same rainfall falling with greater intensity in a shorter period can lead
to floods, run off, less soil moisture and may also cause damage. In heavy rainfall
events, the intensity is dependent on the total water vapour available from the
volume of air drawn in by the storm’s circulation [76]; this rises by about 6.5% per °C
(section 7.2). Further, since many storms, especially in tropical areas, obtain most of
their energy from the release of latent heat of condensation, larger increases in
rainfall intensity could occur. Many model studies confirm these results (figure 21)
that mean, with increasing temperature, a large rate of increase in the likelihood of
floods. For instance, a recent modelling study (figure 22) has shown that, with
doubled CO2 concentration, the probability of extreme seasonal precipitation in
winter is likely to increase over large areas of central and Northern Europe and to
decrease over parts of the Mediterranean and north Africa. In parts of central Europe,
increases are indicated in the return period of extreme rainfall events of about a
factor of five (e.g. from 50 years to 10 years). Similar results have been obtained in a
study of major river basins around the world [77]. Note also from figure 21 that the
number of days with lighter rainfall events (less than 6 mm/day) is expected to
decrease. This is because, with the more intense hydrological cycle, a greater
proportion of the rainfall will fall in the more intense events and further, in regions of
convection, the areas of downdraught become drier as the areas of updraught
become more moist. In many areas with relatively lowrainfall, therefore, the rainfall
will tend to become less. Further, in such areas it is likely that the number of rainy
days will be substantially fewer with more chance of prolonged periods of no rainfall
at all; in other words, much more likelihood of drought. Further, the higher
temperatures will lead to increased evaporation reducing the amount of moisture
available at the surface—thus adding to the drought conditions. The proportional
increase in the likelihood of drought is much greater than the proportional decrease
in average rainfall. The impact of this is considered in more detail in section 8.
88
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES FOOD SHORTAGES
Warming causes food shortages

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

WILLIAM H. CALVIN, prof @ University of Washington [Atlantic Monthy] 98
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some
powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies,
unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized
countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with
significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to
accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide
problem — and could easily lead to a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy
to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its
own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
89
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING HURTS THE BARENTS SEA
Global warming dramatically alters Barents Sea life and hurts key species.
Arne Eide and Knut Heen, professors at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science,
6/14/2002, Economic impacts of global warming A study of the fishing industry in North
Norway
Most global circulation models (GCMs) show an increase of perhaps 5–10 °C in air temperature in the
northern regions including the Barents Sea over the next 100 years. Based on these it is realistic to assume
an increase in mean sea temperature of 2 °C over some decades. Year-to-year variability is assumed to be
as present. 6.2.1. Consequences 1. Growth rate of cod and herring increases by 20%. We assume that the
amount of primary and secondary production increases sufficiently to allow increased growth. 2. Increased
recruitment of cod and herring. Number of recruits at age 3 for cod is increased from a historic average of
just above 600–800 millions. The increase of the herring recruitment will be up to 30%. 6.3. Scenario 2 The
average inflow to the Barents Sea of warm Atlantic water masses is significantly reduced leading to an
average reduction in sea temperature of 3 °C, while standard deviation is assumed to remain constant. This
might happen either as a result of a general reduction in the flow of the Gulf Stream or in the branch of it
entering the Barents Sea. Even with a reduction of 3 °C the summer temperatures in the western Barents
Sea will be higher than in other oceans at similar latitudes. 6.3.1. Consequences Such a dramatic change in
temperature may completely alter the ecosystem including the species composition. In this case, we assume
that cod, capelin and herring, at least in an intermediate period, will still be the main species, but growth,
recruitment and distribution will be altered: 1. Growth rate of cod and herring will be reduced by 25%. 2.
Recruitment to the cod and herring stocks will be reduced. Assume average number of 3-year old cod will
be reduced from 600 to 400 millions. Similarly the herring recruitment will be reduced to one-third.
The Barents Sea is key to regional economic and social stability, as well as world food supplies
Arne Eide and Knut Heen, professors at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science,
6/14/2002, Economic impacts of global warming A study of the fishing industry in North
Norway
The Barents Sea (Fig. 1) contains some of the most abundant fish resources in the world. Plankton forms
the basis of the biological production system, with sea mammals at the top of the biological hierarchy,
preying both on cod, pelagic fish and shrimp, while cod prey on pelagic fish and shrimp. Our focus is on
that part of the ecosystem defined by the cod and pelagic fish stocks and on the vessel groups and
processing sector associated with those species: together they form the most important components of the
Barents Sea ecosystem and regional economy
90
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMINNG BAD FOR ASIA
Climate change will devastate Asia—killing billions through disease, drought, flooding and
starvation
Channel News Asia 6 Apr 07 “Asia faces floods, drought, disease: UN climate report”
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st
BRUSSELS - Asia faces a heightened risk of flooding, severe water shortages, infectious disease and
hunger from global warming this century, the UN's top climate panel said on Friday. The region is
confronted by a 90-percent likelihood that more than a billion of its people will be "adversely affected" by
the impacts of global warming by the 2050s, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
said. Its estimates, in a major report unveiled in Brussels, say the magnitude of climate- change effects will
vary according to the size of the world's population, energy use and the level of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, which determines the rise in global temperature. But under any scenario, the world's most
populous region will be badly hit. Here are the major findings: -- 120 million to 1.2 billion people in Asia
will experience increased water stress by 2020, and 185 to 981 million by 2050. -- Cereal yields in South
Asia could drop in some areas by up to 30 percent by 2050. -- Even modest rises in sea levels will cause
flooding and economic disruption in densely-populated mega-deltas, such as the mouths of the Yangtze in
China, the Red River in China and Vietnam, and the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta in low-lying Bangladesh. --
Cholera and malaria could increase, thanks to flooding and a wider habitat range for mosquitoes. -- In the
Himalayas, glaciers less than four kilometres (2.5 miles) long will disappear entirely if average global
temperatures rise by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit). This will initially cause increased flooding and
mudslides followed by an eventual decrease in flow in rivers that are glacier-fed. -- Per capita water
availability in India will drop from around 1,900 cubic metres (66, 500 cubic feet) currently to 1,000 cu.
metres (35,000 cu. ft.) by 2025.
91
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***AFF IMPACT CALCULUS***
92
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
SLIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BIG IMPACTS
Small changes cause massive effects

R. B. Alley et al, Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State
University, 3/28/08, http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt
Amplifiers are abundant in the climate system and can produce large changes with minimal forcing.
For example, drying causing vegetation dormancy or death reduces the evapotranspiration that supplies
moisture for a sizable fraction of the precipitation in many continental regions, further reducing rainfall
and reinforcing drought (29). In cold regions, cooling increases surface coverage by snow and ice,
increasing reflection of incoming solar radiation and causing even further cooling in an ice-albedo
feedback. These positive feedbacks may include their own sources of persistence. Loss of vegetation
reduces the ability of roots to capture water and allows subsequent precipitation to run off to streams
and the oceans, perhaps leading to desertification (30). If snowfall on land persists long enough, an ice
sheet may grow sufficiently thick that its surface becomes high enough and cold enough that melting is
unlikely. Persistence also may arise from the wind-driven circulation of the oceans, stratospheric
circulation and related chemistry (31), or other processes.
Small changes have dramatic impacts

When investigating the impacts of climate change, it is natural to look first for the impacts of abrupt
climate changes. An abrupt climate change—whether warming or cooling, wetting or drying—could
have lasting and profound impacts on human societies and natural ecosystems. But it must be
remembered that profound impacts are not limited to cases of abrupt climate change. Modest changes or
increased variability of climate may be sufficient to produce severe impacts, giving the false appearance
that these impacts were caused by an abrupt external forcing. Abrupt impacts result from the fact that
economic and ecological processes have adapted to specific climatic patterns and are therefore typically
bounded by experience (in the case of society) or history (in the case of ecosystems). Abrupt impacts
therefore have the potential to occur when gradual climatic changes push societies or ecosystems across
thresholds and lead to profound and potentially irreversible impacts, just as slow geophysical forcing
can cross a threshold and trigger an abrupt climate change. Consider that since the nineteenth century,
Grand Forks, North Dakota, had successfully fought frequent floods up to a river stage of 49 feet. Then,
in 1997, a flood crested at 54 feet and caused catastrophic damages despite the fact that the flood crests
were only 10 percent higher than the previous high. This modest difference from typical experience was
sufficient to cross an impact threshold (Pielke, 1999). Research by Pearce (2000) explored impact
thresholds for migrating species, describing problems encountered by caribou on their 1,500-km-long
trek from winter grounds in the mountains to the Arctic coastal plain in spring. Increased winter
snowfall has led to delayed migration and increased river volume. In 1999, snowfall was 50 percent
above average, snow melted a month later than usual, and none of the females in the herd made it to the
coast before calving. A record low number of calves eventually reached the coast, and some were
forced to swim the Porcupine River when only a few days old. These events were observed by the
native people in the area, who were moved to reduce their traditional harvest of caribou. The size of the
herd dropped from 178,000 in 1989 to 129,000 in 1999. Impacts on the migration of many other species
are similarly dependent on boundaries linked to climate. The Grand Forks floods also help demonstrate
the interaction between societal decisions, perceptions of what constitutes “typical climate,” and impact
thresholds. Following the 1997 Grand Forks floods, the community decided to relocate some properties
and build additional levees to raise its threshold to catastrophic impacts. Depending on the assessment
of the probabilities and consequences of future flood levels as well as the cost and benefit of flood
protection, the community could have chosen 55, 60, or 65 feet as the elevation for the levees. Often,
such decisions are made based on assumptions of past weather patterns and runoff. However, if climate
is changing, or if the underlying climate system is itself variable, decisions based on past precipitation,
runoff, and flood patterns are likely to build in thresholds that incorrectly estimate potential threats
compared to decisions based on expectations that allow for changes in climatic means or climate
variability. (For more information on the flooding and response in Grand Forks and along the Red
River, see International Red River Basin Task Force, 2000.)
93
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING IMPACT CALCULUS [TIME FRAME]
Don’t listen to their long timeframe arguments, complete global warming can occur within 10 years.
Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with
startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was
achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the
globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide
into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age
climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have
shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.
Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change
most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase
the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes
of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and
extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate
surprises are to be expected.
94
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
PREFER WARMING IMPACTS
Prefer our impacts; policy-makers should focus on mitigating global warming before other impacts.
R. B. Alley et al, J. Marotzke, W. D. Nordhaus, J. T. Overpeck, D. M. Peteet, R. A. Pielke Jr., R. T.
Pierrehumbert, P. B. Rhines, T. F. Stocker, L. D. Talley, J. M. Wallace, Department of Geosciences and
EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Southampton Oceanography Centre,
University of Southampton, Department of Economics, Yale University, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University,
Institute for Space Studies, New York, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Department of the Geophysical Sciences,
University of Chicago, Department of Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Oceanography,
University of Washington, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern,
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego, 3/28/08,
http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt
The difficulty of identifying and quantifying all possible causes of abrupt climate change, and the lack
of predictability near thresholds, imply that abrupt climate change will always be accompanied by more
uncertainty than will gradual climate change. Given the deep uncertainty about the nature and speed of
future climate changes, policy-making thus must focus on reducing vulnerability of systems to impacts
by enhancing ecological and societal resiliency and adaptability. Failure of the Viking settlements in
Greenland but persistence of the neighboring Inuit during Little Ice Age cooling [e.g. (64)] underscores
the value of developing effective strategies that are favorable in the face of unanticipated abrupt climate
change. Research that contributes to identification and evaluation of "no-regrets" policies--those actions
that are otherwise sensible and will improve resiliency and adaptability--may be especially useful (2).
Slowing the rate of human forcing of the climate system may delay or even avoid crossing of thresholds
95
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING O/WS WAR
Climate Change is more devastating than war and takes longer to repair
War has customarily been considered the main threat to international security because of the large number
of deaths it causes and the threat it poses to the functioning and survival of the state. Judged by these
criteria, it is clear that climate change is potentially as detrimental to human life and economic and political
order as traditional military threats.57 Environmental dangers, such as climate change, stem not from
competition between states or shifts in the balance of power; rather, they are human-induced disturbances
to the fragile balance of nature. But the consequences of these disturbances may be just as injurious to the
integrity and functioning of the state and its people as those resulting from military conflict. They may also
be more difficult to reverse or repair.
96
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***NEG CLIMATE SCIENCE***
97
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING IS SLOW
Global warming rate is slowing because it’s not caused by fossil fuels/CO2
(James Hansen, et al, professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
at Columbia University, 8-29-2000, “Global warming in the twenty-first century: An
alternative scenario” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full)
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid
warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as
chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the
positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs
has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change
in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of
black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs
could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such
a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries.
However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global
monitoring of aerosol properties.
98
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING INEVITABLE
Global warming won’t lead to their impacts, and it’s inevitable anyway
Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We Know It”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Climate change will undoubtedly have
losers -- but it will also have winners. There will be a reshuffling of climate zones on earth. And there is
something else that we can already say with certainty: The end of the world isn't coming any time soon.
Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently embroiled in their own struggle over who
owns the truth. While some have always seen themselves as environmental activists aiming to shake
humanity out of its complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the unavoidable.
One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is
director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern
Germany. "We have to take away people's fear of climate change," Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent
interview (more...). "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to
preach moralistic sermons to people." Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no
longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6
degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.
Warming impacts will not occur

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

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated
with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised. {3.2.3} Estimated
long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding to the six AR4 Working Group III stabilisation
categories is shown in Figure SPM.8. Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to
contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the
Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m if global average warming
were sustained for millennia in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C relative to pre-industrial values. The corresponding
future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000
years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea
level rise. {3.2.3}
99
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NO WARMING
There is no global warming; evidence backing claims of rising temperature were based on El Nino’s
effects.
Patrick J. Michaels, December 31, 1998, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia,
is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute., Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks
Global Warming Hysteria, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188.
The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore,
some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm
temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and
devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a
strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a
warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.
Global warming isn’t something to worry about - the earth goes through cycles of cooling and
warming due to oceanic influence on global temperatures.
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, May
16, 2008, Global-warming myth; Politics trumps science, Database: NexisLexis.
The Keenlyside team found that natural

variability in the Earth's oceans will "temporarily offset"
global warming from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is oceanic;
hence, what happens there greatly influences global temperature. It is now known that
both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or longer, in
relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold
stage for a decade, which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific
temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming, either.
100
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
BALLOON/SATELITES PROVE NO WARMING
Satellite and Balloon data indicate that warming isn’t occurring- there more accurate than ground
temperature
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the
University of Alabama and Alabama's State Climatologist,[C02 science magaszine, 5/28/03
Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate
models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggest otherwise. Climate models attempt to describe the
ocean/atmospheric system with equations which approximate the processes of nature. No model is perfect
because the natural system is incredibly complex. One modest goal of model simulations is to describe
and predict the evolution of the ocean/atmospheric system in a way that is useful to discover possible
environmental hazards which lie ahead. The goal is not to achieve a perfect forecast for every type of
weather in every unique geographic region, but to provide information on changes in large-scale features.
If in testing models one finds conflict with even the observed large scale features, this would suggest that at
least some fundamental processes, for example heat transfer, are not adequately described in the models. A
common feature of climate model projections with CO2 increases is a rise in the global surface
temperature as well as an even more rapid rise in the layer up to 30,000 feet called the troposphere. Over
the past 24+ years various calculations of surface temperature indeed show a rise of about 0.7 °F. This is
roughly half of the total rise observed since the 19th century. In the lower troposphere, however, various
estimates which include the satellite data Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less
warming, about 0.3 °F - an amount less than half that observed at the surface. The real world shows less
warming in the atmosphere, not more as models predict. Are these data reliable? A new version of the
microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, by Remote Sensing Systems or RSS of
California. Two weeks ago a paper was published in Science magazine' electronic edition which used a
curious means of testing our UAH version against RSS.[1] The paper cited climate model results which
agreed more with RSS, because RSS data showed about 0.4°F more warming than UAH's data for this
same layer called the mid-troposphere. UAH's total warming for this layer was about 0.05°F. (This layer
is higher in the atmosphere than the lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.3°F warming.) The
strong implication of the paper was that since RSS was more consistent with the model output, it was likely
a more accurate dataset than ours. That same week, with much less fanfare, my latest paper appeared in the
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.[2] Unlike the paper in Science magazine, I performed
several rigorous tests to estimate the potential error of our UAH satellite data. I used real observations
from balloon datasets created by independent organizations, some with data from as many as 400
different balloon stations. Our UAH satellite data and the balloon data corroborated each other with
remarkable consistency, showing only a slow warming of the bulk of the atmosphere. This evidence
indicates that the projected warming of the climate model had little consistency with the real world. This is
important because the quantity examined here, lower tropospheric temperature, is not a minor aspect of
the climate system. This represents most of the bulk mass of the atmosphere, and hence the climate
system. The inability of climate models to achieve consistency on this scale is a serious shortcoming
and suggests projections from such models be viewed with great skepticism. Changes in surface
temperature have also been a topic of controversy. The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced
global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere
temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp
upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.[3] Since IPCC
2001, two important papers have shown something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new
sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years
and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago.
These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.
101
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
MODELS NOT RELIABLE
Models are not scientific and nowhere near as reliable as actual data
University of Alabama (“Comparing satellite & balloon climate data corroborates
slower rate of global warming”, 5/14/2003, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?
pid=11540).
Many climate models forecast that global warming should be happening at a rate much faster than that seen
by either the UAH satellite dataset or the weather balloon data. "But models don't provide scientific
measurements," Christy said. "Climate models can be valuable for many scientific purposes, but models
and their output shouldn't be confused with data or used as a standard for validating real data. "If you have
reliable data that disagree with a computer model, it's time to find out what's wrong with the model. To do
anything else might lead you to conclude that your theories are correct and the real world is wrong."
Climate change models are inadequate because of dimming

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

7.4. Regional climate models Most of the regional changes mentioned so far have
been on the scale of continents; these can be studied with general circulation models
of the kind described in section 6. For studies on smaller scales, however, such
models possess severe limitations arising from the coarse size of their horizontal grid
—typically 300 km. To overcome these limitations, regional climate models (RCMs)
have been introduced with much higher resolution, typically about 50 km. They cover
a limited region and are ‘nested’ in a global circulation model that defines the
varying boundary conditions at the edges of an RCM. They have achieved
considerable success in providing simulations of regional detail and extremes,
especially for precipitation. However, it is important to realize that, because of the
greater natural variability apparent in local climate compared with climate averaged
over continental scales, climate change projections on local and regional scales are
bound to be more uncertain than those on larger scales.
102
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
IPCC MODELS BAD- URBAN HEAT
IPCC models fail- don’t account for Urban heat island effect
P. D. Jones, member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia at Norwich in
the U.K., 2005, “Global Warming: A fraudulent notion based on corrupted data” accessed via
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/
Ever since the beginning of the greenhouse scare, astute observers have suspected that urban heat was
responsible for a large slice of the purported warming. The IPCC has stonewalled, telling policymakers
that the urban heat island issue has "...been taken account of." This site proves the contrary. There is simply
no systematic compensation for urban warming in the Jones dataset. Occasionally there is a slight
adjustment in a record for a site change or other anomaly but the majority of records are used “raw”.
This applies even to large cities with large, documented heat islands – e.g. Los Angeles, Chicago,
Sydney, Johannesburg etc. etc. In recent years, two independent remote sensing methods – nightlight
pictures and infrared heat imaging – have clarified the extent of urban heat islands. Their evidence is
incontrovertible. Nightlight images show that the bulk of CRU’s records come from lit areas of the surface.
Infrared imaging shows that many are from cities with huge heat islands – enough to raise the annual
average temperature by 2-3 degrees Celsius compared to the surrounding countryside. The problem should
have been obvious all along. The UHI was first identified in London 200 years ago, and many studies have
shown that it can raise the temperature even in small towns. But political correctness, a desire not to
"rock the boat", the corrupting influence of "greenhouse funding" on the science and sheer wishful thinking
have made the urban heat island a tabu subject in the greenhouse debate. This site breaks that tabu. It turns
the spotlight on individual city records included in the CRU dataset, and also examines the CRU results for
various "grid cells" across the globe. It leaves no doubt that the CRU temperature graphs are
contaminated with pervasive and substantial urban heat which has nothing to do with greenhouse
gases. Satellite images of night lights have been published by NASA and give a good indication of the
location of urban areas over the entire earth. Taking the same midwest USA area as the Infra Red image
above, this is a small preview of how the Jones / IPCC temperature stations are dominantly located in urban
regions. The IPCC tell policymakers that the urban heat island issue has "...been taken account of.." Sure,
we can see that, their data is collected mainly from UHI areas. Follow the Earthlights link for larger
images of the USA with Jones stations located. See "City reviews" link at left for UHI contamination in
Chicago compared to more rural neighboring stations. Below is a classic example of century long growth
in small town UHI contamination from the region shown above:
103
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS [CLOUDS]
Cloud cover provides a significant reduction in temperature

Dr. David M. Chapman, May 2006, Honorary Associate, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney.
“Global Warming, are we hiding behind a smokescreen?” Geodate, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p6-8, 3p
Significant growth in (jet) air traffic in the past 50 years has increased cover by high-level cirrus clouds
developing from aircraft condensation trails or contrails, which may have led to some reduction in GI.
The impact of contrails on temperature was demonstrated when, in the aftermath of the terrorist incident
in New York on September 9, 2001, [when] all commercial aircraft in the US were grounded for three
days: the average diurnal temperature range over the contiguous US increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius
over the period (Travis, et al, 2002).
104
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NOT ANTHROPOGENIC
Warming can be explained by the moderate warming cycle and the urban heat island effect
Dennis T. Avery, a Senior Fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the
Center for Global Food Issues, 6/9/08, Thermometers are Doing the Talking,
(http://www.cgfi.org/2008/06/09/thermometers-are-doing-the-talking-by-dennis-t-avery/
Unless the planet starts warming again, quickly and significantly, the Green momentum for a low-carbon
society will come to a screeching stop. There are many indications that we are in a long, moderate
warming cycle, which began 150 years ago with the end of the Little Ice Age, and may continue for
several more hundred years. There is no indication that this modest warming will be bad for humans, or for
the wildlife. The thermometers show a net global temperature increase of just 0.2 degree C since 1940
—and even that tiny increase has been inflated by the urban heat island effect.
Warming isn’t anthropogenic – 31,000 scientists agree

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

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

Noah Shachtman, 6-3-08, “Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change,”
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html
West faults the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability
to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's
impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution
to global warming."
105
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 DOES NOT LEAD TO WARMING
CO2 and fossil fuels don’t have as much of an impact on global warming as other compounds
James Hensen et al (researchers at National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia
University Earth Institute, June 16, 2000, “Global warming in the 21st century: an
alternative situation,” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full.pdf).
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that
rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such
as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols,
the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2
GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future,
the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined
with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this
reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger
of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of
developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change
requires compositionspecific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.
Non-CO2 greenhouse gasses have primarily driven climate change

James Hensen et al (researchers at National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia
University Earth Institute, June 16, 2000, “Global warming in the 21st century: an
alternative situation,” http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full.pdf).
A corollary following from Fig. 1 is that climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 Wym2) is nearly equal to
the net value of all known forcings for the period 1850–2000 (1.6 Wym2). Thus, assuming only that our
estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been
the primary drive for climate change in the past century.
106
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS [MYSTERIES FORCES]
Volcanoes and mysteries forces cool the earth- prefer our evidence it’s based on observations not
flawed models
Physorg, Science Physics Tech Nano News, 4-12-05 Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global
Warming
http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html
A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the
Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not
accounted for in the computer models scientists currently use to predict the future of the world’s
temperature. The researchers, David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, professors of physics, plotted data
from satellite measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere in the months and years following the volcanic
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The results, published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research
Letters (and now online), show that global temperatures dropped more and rebounded to normal
significantly faster than conventional climate models could have predicted. “All we did was chart the data,”
says Douglass. “We can be confident that our numbers are accurate because we aren’t using computer
models and assumptions; we’re using simple observations. Despite whatever models might say, the analysis
of the actual data says that the atmosphere rebounded from the Pinatubo volcano much faster than was
expected.” In addition, the analysis of Douglass and Knox showed that the amount of the cooling measured
could be explained only if there was some mechanism producing a kind of self-correcting feedback. In
other words according to Douglass “ This feedback mechanism prevented the Earth from becoming much
colder.” In an attempt to approach the climate warming issue from a data-centered, rather than model-
centered, way, Douglass and Knox looked for a global temperature-changing event that was well-recorded
and did not occur at the same time as other events, such as El Nino or particularly high solar activity. They
found their candidate in the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, the largest volcanic eruption in the
20th century. The volcano forced millions of tons of debris into the Earth’s atmosphere, which blocked
some of the Sun’s heat from reaching the Earth. The average temperature of the world dropped more than
half a degree immediately following the eruption.
107
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NO CONSENSUS
Their evidence references a voted decision and not scientific proof

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

debate
And it must be clearly recognized that up until now, such proof cannot be given. There exists no proof to
innocent mankind. But here stands a fallacious reversal of what should be proved indeed. It is not the duty
of the skeptics to have to bring a proof of whatever it is about which they are skeptical as long as they are
not stating anything but their doubt about some claimed truth. Rather, it is up to the scientists making the
new assertion who must bring the corresponding proof, in this case of human guilt. The terms of the debate
have been inverted. Guilt has been erected as the truth, and it is up to the defendants of the opposite view to
bring proof of the absence of guilt. This is an absurd trap in which to fall, and which distorts the entire
debate. This adroit deception has a pernicious effect. The respective roles of the opponents have been
surreptitiously inverted, and all further real inquiry into the matter is now subject to a barrier in the shape of
an automatic accusation of superfluity. Man has been declared guilty simply because, at the present time, ,
and as mentioned above there are moreover some superficially attractive reasons for ascribing guilt to him
no other bearer of guilt has been found.
108
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NO CONSENSUS
Probability of warming does not constitute scientific proof

On the contrary, to use the notion of probability in order to define the degree of confidence in the diagnosis
of a unique problem may lead to dramatic errors. In order to discover the truth about a specific unique
problem, one has to somehow aggregate a large number of indications, many of which are very different
from each other, each one revealing only one part of the overall truth. Unlike the repetition of the same
event, these different indications have very different statistical weights. Some seem major, other minor.
One can gather a very large number of them, all pointing in the same direction (or perhaps not).
Progressively, a truth is apprehended in accord with all the available indications, but without necessarily
being the truth. There is no question here of a mathematical proof the subtlety of the process of proof (in
the non-mathematical sense) of guilt. One may possess 99% of the indications, yet a single additional fact
whose veracity is not in doubt can, at the last minute, exonerate the accused person. Each case is unique. It
is meaningless to apply statistics in such cases, and to attempt to do so leads to dangerous arbitrariness.
Numerous judicial errors have resulted from this fallacy, nor of a unique and incontrovertible relation of
cause and effect. Until such proof or incontrovertible demonstration has been accomplished, some new
indication found from some previously unsuspected or not investigated source has the potential to
annihilate the entire conviction constructed up to that point, and to itself form the basis of the definitive
establishment of the real truth.
109
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
IPCC INACCURATE
The IPCC’s global warming predictions are inaccurate

WorldNetDaily.com, 6-10-03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32992
The IPCC's global-warming theory has been widely disputed. WorldNetDaily has reported that Dr. Fred
Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has
been little or no warming since about 1940. In 1998, 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, saying, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
oreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate." Then in January 2002, the journal Science published the findings of scientists who had been
measuring the vast West Antarctic ice sheet. The researchers found that the ice sheet is growing thicker,
not melting. The journal Nature published similar findings by scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues
at the University of Illinois. Rather than using the U.N.'s computer models, the researchers took actual
temperature readings and discovered temperatures in the Antarctic have been getting slightly colder –
not warmer – for the last 30 years. Last September, U.S. scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South
Pole Station announced that, finally, they have been able to measure the temperature of the atmosphere
18 to 68 miles over the pole. They found it to be 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the computer
models used to predict global warming showed.
110
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
INDICT – RANDALL SCWATZ
Randall and Schwartz are unqualified doomsayers—the articles nothing but sensationalist military
games
Lorne Gunter, staff writer for the Edmonton Journal, February 25th 2004 “Left-leaning, Bush-bashing
newspaper engaged in distortion: Global-warming believers taking in by sexed-up climate-change report”
p. A13
One author, Doug Randall is an MBA; the other, Peter Schwartz is a self- described "scenario planning
futurist," who "helps organizations think the unthinkable by creating alternative stories or scenarios
about how the future might pan out." Hmm, "think the unthinkable" and "alternative" futures -- like,
say, creating an alternative story about an unthinkable future climate catastrophe that is more alarmist
than even the wildest predictions by David Suzuki or the UN? The Guardian misrepresented Schwartz
as a CIA analyst and never mentioned he is the founder of GBN and currently serves as its chairman.
He has consulted with the CIA, but is not employed by them. Nor did the Guardian see fit to mention
that Schwartz is a frequent script consult on Hollywood sci-fi movies or that his 1999 book, The Long
Boom, predicted the dot.com boom could continue for decades. No reader would know any of this from
the Guardian's sensationalist story, nor would they have much of a clue that neither co-author is a
climate scientist. The story doesn't say they are, but it doesn't state they're not, either. The Guardian also
conveniently failed to explain that the Pentagon branch that commissioned the report -- the internal
think-tank known as the Office of Net Assessment -- is responsible for "modelling" and "gaming"
worst-case scenarios for American national security, then assessing whether the U.S. military is up to
the challenge of defending against such possibilities, in manpower, training and equipment. Indeed, the
ONA is not mentioned until the 23rd paragraph of a 25-paragraph story, and even then its role as the
Pentagon's brainstorming arm, where all sorts of out-there and fringe ideas are rolled into fantastical
storylines to test the military's ability to adapt, is never explained.
111
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
SKEPTICS QUALIFIED
Warming deniers are more accomplished than their counterparts

H. Sterling Burnett, staff writer for the Heartland Institute, July 2008, A must read book on global
warming, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23409
As Solomon's knowledge grew, he found the limits of newspaper writing precluded an adequate in-depth
exploration of these skeptical scientists' important observations. Accordingly, selecting some of the
scientists discussed in his columns, Solomon wrote The Deniers. As a jacket blurb puts it, "What he found
shocked him. Solomon discovered that on every 'headline' global warming issue, not only were there
serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent
scientists." Solomon does not attempt to settle the science, show that humans are or are not responsible for
the present warming trend, or decide what we can expect the future harms or benefits of continued warming
(or cooling) might be. Instead, he simply shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties
concerning each important facet of the "consensus" view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views
are at least as plausible--and often more compelling--than the alarmist point of view.
112
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: RESOURCE WARS
Resource abundance not shortage causes conflict

Many of these projections are highly speculative or simply misleading, betraying the authors’ lack of
specialised knowledge of the realities of inter national security. A case in point is the mischaracterisation of
LeBlanc’s position. In fact, LeBlanc made a much more sophisticated and in some places contrary
argument – that when people live in states they will often starve rather than fight, ‘because the government
won’t allow them to fight’.49 Similarly, the proposition that South Korea and Japan would develop nuclear
weapons as they diversify away from fossil fuels to nuclear power is highly questionable because it ignores
the very real domestic and international constraints on either country going nuclear.50 South Korea and
Japan have eschewed nuclear weapons despite the fact that they have long produced much of their
electricity from nuclear power plants. It is drawing a long bow indeed to suggest that abrupt climate change
alone would lead either to reconsider their long-standing aversion to nuclear weapons.
Economic incentives prevent resource war escalation

Emily Meierding PhD Student University of Chicago, March 2007. “Strategic Substitution and the
Declining Likelihood of International Resource Wars” Prepared for the International Studies Association
Conference; Chicago, IL; March 2007
The prevailing pessimistic view has met with some dissent, arising from a variety of quarters. In a study
of international territorial dispute resolution, Beth Simmons makes the theoretical observation that
states possess powerful economic incentives to resolve territorial conflicts. Stable agreements facilitate
trade and international investment. 23 Firm international demarcation also functions as a credible signal
of participant states’ commitment to the rule of law and their respect for private property rights. These
demonstration effects help attract international investment. 24 The presence of natural resources should
increase states’ imperative to resolve border disputes. When international borders are contested,
resource ownership is ambiguous. This impedes extractive industry development and resource sales.
Consequently, states possess a powerful incentive to clarify resource control.
113
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: RESOURCE WARS
Resource scarcity theory’s inherently flawed—ignores potential for cooperation while forming broad
non-falsifiable arguments
In addition to oversampling cases of resource conflict, the environmental security literature pays
little attention to the cooperative activities undertaken by joint resource claimants. States
frequently collaborate to develop and distribute shared resources, such as transborder oil pools
and rivers that pass through multiple riparian states. Peaceful resource cooperation may actually
exceed violent resource conflict in the international system. However, the environmental security
literature is ill-equipped to assess that claim. Single case studies of specific resource contests have been
more attentive to these dynamics; however, the generalizability of individual investigations to broader
questions of resource conflict versus cooperation is uncertain. The environmental security approach
has also been criticized for the density of its theoretical propositions. The Toronto School, in
particular, is chastised for a lack of theoretical parsimony. The range of environmental changes being
examined, combined with the number and density of causal pathways authors identify, make
their theories virtually non-falsifiable. The proliferation of variables and mechanisms also calls into
question the theories’ predictive utility.
Resource scarcity spurs innovation, preventing war

If these intra-disciplinary critics collectively call into question the resource pessimists’ claim that resource
scarcity frequently leads to violent conflict, a more fundamental critique has emerged from resource
economists. Resource “cornucopians” argue that the very concept of scarcity is flawed. Julian Simon, the
most prominent of these claimants, asserts that market demand for increasingly scarce goods inspires
technological innovation, which resolves supply problems through improvements in productive efficiency
or through the creation of substitute inputs. When consumers demand a resource, more of it, or of a
functional substitute, is supplied. Human knowledge, he claims, is “the ultimate resource.” The
cornucopian argument suggests that natural resource scarcity should not have a significant impact on the
likelihood of conflict. Future resource-inspired violence will be rare
114
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WARS
Pessimistic resource predictions have empirically failed—increased food production and 70s oil crisis
prove
The pessimists’ predictive record is poor. Their apocalyptic expectations have rarely come to pass.
Malthus himself provides a prominent example of miscalculation; he predicted that Europe would
experience an overpopulation-induced famine during the nineteenth century. Instead, food production
consistently kept pace with demand. No Great Power wars were fought over minerals. The 1970s oil
crisis did not lead to blows between major oil-consuming states. And, while the two recent Gulf Wars
suggest that oil has had a more mixed record than most natural resources, I argue that the amount of
petroleum-inspired violence occurring in the background image international system is very low,
relative to the extremity of states’ dependence on the commodity. Modern, developed states do not fight
over natural resources.
Even in the tensest circumstances, nuclear war will NEVER break out because of warming
Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagner, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, Institute
for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/15/08, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-
files/publication/working-papers/climatewarwp.pdf
A potentially more serious example is rapid sea level rise in the major deltas of Asia and Africa. Coastal
plains are often fertile and hence densely populated (Nicholls and Small, 2002). Without coastal protection,
inundation, erosion and saltwater intrusion would drive many people to higher grounds (Nicholls and Tol,
2006). They may resettle peacefully, or start quarrelling with their new neighbours. One can speculate
about the consequences of large-scale migrations today. In West Africa, for instance, the situation is
already so tense that additional refugees are unlikely to do any good – note that the coasts of Cameroon,
Gabon and Nigeria are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Similarly, forced migration of large
numbers of Bengali from the coastal plain to the hills of northern Indian and Bangladesh would not be
without problems either, and may even escalate to nuclear war. However, these impacts will not be on
today’s world. Sixty-seven years ago, Western Europe was at war. In 2075, South Asia and West Africa
may be stable and prosperous.
Warming prevents conflict which turns case

for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/15/08, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-
We investigate the relationship between a thousand-year history of violent conflict in Europe and various
reconstructions of temperature and precipitation. We find that conflict was more intense during colder
periods. This relationship is weakening over time, and is not robust to the details of the climate
reconstruction or to the sample period. We thus confirm Zhang et al. (2006, Climatic Change, 76, 459-477)
that, at least in temperate climates, global warming would, if anything, lead to reduced violent conflict.
115
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WARS
Warming doesn’t lead to war

for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, 1/1508, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-
In this paper, we study the relationship between climate change and violent conflict over the past
millennium in Europe. Our results do not show a clear-cut picture: We present some evidence that
abnormally cold periods were abnormally violent, as do Zhang et al. (2006). However, we also show that
this evidence is not particularly robust. If one has strong priors that climate change causes conflict, our
results provide confirmation. However, if one has strong priors that there is no link, our results do not
overthrow such doubt. If anything, cold implies violence, and this effect is much weaker in the modern
world than it was in mediaeval times. This implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil)
war between (within) European countries. Should anyone ever seriously have believed that, this paper does
put that idea to rest.
116
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: MARINE BIODIVERSITY
Overfishing’s makes marine biodiversity loss inevitable

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

Felicia Coleman, associate scholar scientist in the Department of Biological Sciences, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, and Susan L Williams, professor of Environmental Science and Policy at UC,
Davis 2002 “Overexploiting marine ecosystem engineers: potential consequences for biodiversity” Trends
in ecology & evolution vol. 17, no1, pp. 40-44
Overfishing is a major environmental problem in the oceans. In addition to the direct loss of the
exploited species, the very act of fishing, particularly with mobile bottom gear, destroys habitat and
ultimately results in the loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, overfishing can create trophic cascades in
marine communities that cause similar declines in species richness. These effects are compounded by
indirect effects on habitat that occur through removal of ecological or ecosystem engineers. Mass
removal of species that restructure the architecture of habitat and thus increase its complexity or
influence the biogeochemistry of sediments could have devastating effects on local biodiversity and
important water-sediment processes.
117
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: ECONOMY
Warming reduces health care costs and boosts millions into the economy
Thomas Gale Moore (senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, “Health
and Amenity Effects of Global Warming,” 5/3/1996,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html).
In the early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Transportation sponsored a series of conferences on climate
change that examined, among other things, the effect of climate on health care expenditures and on
preferences of workers for various climates. At that time, the government and most observers were
concerned about possible cooling of the globe. The Department organized the meetings because it planned
to subsidize the development and construction of a large fleet of supersonic aircraft that environmentalists
contended would affect the world's climate. The third gathering, held in February 1974, examined the
implications of climate change for the economy and people's well-being and included a study of the costs to
human health from cooling, especially any increased expenses for doctors' services, visits to hospitals, and
additional medication (Anderson 1974). For that meeting, the Department asked the researchers to consider
a cooling of 2deg.C and a warming of 0.5deg.C. Robert Anderson, Jr., the economist who calculated health
care outlays, made no estimate of the costs or savings should the climate warm; but his numbers show that
for every 5 percent reduction in the annual number of heating degree days, a measure of winter's chill,
health care costs would fall by $0.6 billion (1971 dollars).[1] In his paper summarizing the various studies
on economic costs and benefits of climate change, Ralph D'Arge (1974), the principal economist involved
in the DOT project, indicated that a 10 percent shift in degree days would be equivalent to a 1deg.C change
in temperature. Thus the gain in reduced health costs from a warming of 2.5deg.C would be on the order of
$3.0 billion in 1971 dollars or $21.7 billion in 1994 dollars, adjusting for population growth and price
changes (using the price index for medical care).
Warming reduces health care costs by billions
Thomas Gale Moore (senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, “Health
and Amenity Effects of Global Warming,” 5/3/1996,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html).
A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans
with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties
scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures
reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by
about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might
reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference,
this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures
of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing
to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures.
118
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: STORMS
Global warming won’t lead to storms
Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We
Know It” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns
and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any
rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize. "According to our computer model, neither the
number nor intensity of storms is increasing," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max
Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. "Only the boundaries
of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming more severe in Scandinavia
and less so in the Mediterranean."
119
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: FLOODING
Warming won’t cause flooding or melting, it increases ice and sea levels
Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, “Not the End of the World as We
Know It” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will strike major coastal cities, raising
horrific scenarios of New York, London and Shanghai sinking into the tide. However this horror story is a
relic of the late 1980s, when climate simulations were far less precise than they are today. At the time,
some experts believed that the Antarctic ice shield could melt, which would in fact lead to a dramatic 60-
meter (197-foot) rise in sea levels. The nuclear industry quickly seized upon and publicized the scenario,
which it recognized as an argument in favor of its emissions-free power plants. But it quickly became
apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in
the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant
block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass:
Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over
Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced
by about 5 cm (2 inches).
120
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: HURRICANES
There are no new hurricanes/hurricanes are not caused by GW

NOAA News Releases, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2-21-08, “NOAA:
Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction”
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-and-global-warming-not-the-
cause-of-increased-destruction/
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S.
over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike
in the number or intensity of hurricanes. “We found that although some decades were quieter and less
damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs
of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers
as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is
nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant
increase in destruction along our coasts.”
121
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: CORAL
Sediment stress’s the major cause of coral loss- not global warming
Sediment deposited onto corals interferes with feeding by the polyps and costs the colonies energy to
remove (Riegl and Branch, 1995). In the extreme, burial by rapid or prolonged sediment deposition is fatal
to corals and other bottom-dwellers. Sediment accumulation also inhibits the establishment of new reefs,
because coral communities require hard and stable surfaces. Sediment suspended in the water increases
turbidity and reduces available light. Reefs that grow in naturally turbid environments, with organisms that
are suited to such conditions, may experience low impacts from a moderately increased sediment supply
(Larcombe and Woolfe, 1999), but sediment loading on reefs that are accustomed to low-sediment
conditions imposes significant stress (e.g., Cortés, 1994). Sediment on a coral reef can have two sources:
transport of soil particles with freshwater runoff from land, or resuspension of sediment already on the
seafloor. Human activities have reduced some sediment sources and increased others. Damming of major
rivers has dramatically reduced their sediment discharge to the ocean (Meade et al., 1990; Vörösmarty and
Sahagian, 2000), but large river outflows represent only a small proportion of the world’s coastline and are
usually not near reefs. In smaller coastal watersheds and offshore, human activity has tended to increase
sediment discharge and resuspension in coastal waters. In Southeast Asia, Burke et al. (2002) calculated
that more than 21 percent of all coral reefs are threatened by sedimentation from land-based sources,
primarily due to logging and poor agricultural practices. McCulloch et al. (2003) used coral skeletal
records (1750–1998) to show that sediment delivery to the near-shore central Great Barrier Reef increased
five- to ten-fold with the introduction of European agricultural practices. These findings support the
contention that significant portions of the Great Barrier Reef suffer chronic anthropogenic sediment stress
(Wolanski et al., 2003). Local dumping, dredging, land reclamation, mining, and construction activities
can also result in increased sedimentation or resuspension of sediment in the marine environment.
Sea level rise allows for coral expansion—projected rates assurance adaptation
The predicted rise of sea level due to the combined effects of thermal expansion of ocean water and the
addition of water from melting icecaps and glaciers is between 0.1 and 0.9 meter (4-36 inches) by the end
of this century (Houghton et al.,2001). Sea level has remained fairly stable for the last few thousand years,
and many reefs have grown to the point where they are sea-level-limited, with restricted water circulation
and little or no potential for upward growth. A modest sea-level rise would therefore be beneficial to such
reefs. Although sea-level rise might “drown” reefs that are near their lower depth limit by decreasing
available light, the projected rate and magnitude of sea-level rise are well within the ability of most reefs to
keep up (Smith and Buddemeier, 1992). A more likely source of stress from sea-level rise would be
sedimentation due to increased erosion of shorelines.
122
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: CORAL
Reef survival’s guaranteed through adaptation—El Nino proves

Over the past 5–10 years, evidence for the diversity of zooxanthellae and environmentally correlated
coral-algal partnerships has expanded rapidly, and experiments have shown that the processes required
for adaptation driven by bleaching occur in nature (Baker, 2001; Kinzie et al., 2001). Buddemeier et al.
(in press) review the evidence and conclude that adaptive bleaching is real, but its operational
significance will not be fully known until we have a better understanding of the detailed mechanisms
and of the functional taxonomy of the zooxanthellae (Coles and Brown, 2003). Field data indicate that
coral bleaching on some eastern Pacific reefs was much worse during the 1982-83 El Niño than in
1997-98, although temperature extremes during the two events were similar (Glynn et al., 2001;
Guzmán and Cortés, 2001; Podestá and Glynn, 2001). The difference in responses to these two
comparable events offers some support for the idea that corals or communities can adapt to higher
temperatures over decades, either through adaptive bleaching (Baker, 2003) or through evolutionary
selection for more heat/irradiance-tolerant corals that survive bleaching events (Glynn et al., 2001).
123
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WARMING HURTS OCEANS
The Labrador Sea which is the most sensitive to water formation won’t even form water in the event of
elevated warming
Andrew J. Weaver and Claude-Marcel Hillaire (Gordon head of the School of Earth and Ocean
Sciences at the University of Victoria and a Canadian geoscientist of great distinction and a world
leader in Quaternary research. He is known for his groundbreaking research on the environment,
climate change, and oceanography. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and professor at
l'Université du Québec à Montréal, 4/16/2004, “Global Warming and the next Ice Age,”
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=5e63d5e2-5a5a-4141-a53a-7826e5e7c1bb
%40sessionmgr2)
Unquestionable evidence for a substantial reduction of AMO has been found only for intervals such as
the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and some short, particularly cold, intervals of the last ice ages (such
as those during Heinrich events). During these time periods, vast ice sheets occupied the Northern
Hemisphere, providing a large freshwater source to the North Atlantic through either the dispersal of
huge quantities of icebergs (Heinrich events) or the direct release of meltwater into the most critical
sector associated with the AMO — the northeast Atlantic. On the other hand, the most critical site with
respect to sensitivity to enhanced freshwater supplies from the Arctic has been, and would be, the
Labrador Sea ( 10). Indeed, convection could stop there in response to global warming, as demonstrated
by recent modeling experiments, apparently without any major effect on the overall rate of AMO ( 11).
Worthy of mention is the fact that the strong east-west salinity gradient of the North Atlantic, with more
saline waters eastward, seems a robust and permanent feature that was maintained even during the Last
Glacial Maximum, when the rate of AMO was considerably reduced ( 12). A clear picture of the North
Atlantic under high freshwater supply rates arises from its recent history. High freshwater supplies may
indeed impede convection in the Labrador Sea because of their routing along western North Atlantic
margins, but this would result in an increased eastward branch of AMO (see the figure). Further
indication for such behavior is found in records of the Last Interglacial Interval. Relatively dilute
surface water existed in the Labrador Sea, preventing intermediate water formation. However, a high-
velocity WBUC existed throughout the whole period, indicating a high AMO along the "eastern route" (
10).
Oceans and forests are too saturated to absorb any more CO2
David Biello, staff writer from Scientific American, 10-22-07, “Climate Change Pollution Rising—Thanks
to Overwhelmed Oceans and Plants,” http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-pollution-
rising-thanks-to-overwhelmed-oceans
The world may finally acknowledge that global warming is a major environmental hazard. But new
research shows that reducing the main greenhouse gas behind it may be even more difficult than
previously believed. The reason: the world's oceans and forests, which scientists were counting on to
help hold off catastrophic rises in carbon dioxide, are already so full of CO2 that they are losing their
ability to absorb this climate change culprit.
124
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC CAN’T SOLVE WARMING
China is a horrible leader in alternative energy, they adulterate our air and pollute in astonishing
numbers
Cliff, Steven, atmospheric scientist at the University of California, 2006, “We are
Breathing Chinese Polution”, NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p78-79
Expanding deserts, coal-fired growth and auto emissions in China are not only threats to the health and well-being of
the Chinese, but also to that of Americans. At least one-third of the background aerosol pollution (soot,
smoke and dust particles, collectively called aerosols) in California today has floated across
the Pacific from Asia, and this fraction is increasing. I collect and analyze air samples from four sites in the
Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains, and the filters in my samplers are tracking this trend. Of California’s annual
average limit for particulate matter—12 micrograms per cubic meter of air—Asian pollution already accounts for 4–6
micrograms at these mountain sites. China’s economic boom, combined with population growth in
the western United States, is bound to push pollution levels beyond all California and US air
quality standards. Oceans, we now understand, do not insulate land masses from atmospheric conditions
elsewhere. Any pollution that does not dissipate quickly will, with some variation, be transported by the prevailing
westerly winds across the Pacific Ocean in less than a week. In the springtime, which is the dry season, a dust storm in
the Gobi Desert of China and Mongolia can send a huge cloud over the US within three to five days, which then moves
on to Greenland and Europe mixed with North American pollution. One of the largest documented events of this kind
happened in the spring of 2001 and was tracked by satellite. People throughout the West noted the hazy skies and asked
about the location of the “fire.” In early April of this year, satellites tracked a large carbon cloud
from Chinese coal-burning smokestacks crossing the Pacific.
Carbon emissions are out of control, even a 70% decrease would not stop rising temperatures
Shermer, Michael, 2006, “The Flipping Point” Scientific American, Vol. 294 Issue 6,
p28
It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts
per million (ppm)—too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution,
levels rose to 280 ppm—just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach
450 to 550 by the end of the century—too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms
from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment
itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip. According to Flannery, even if we reduce our
carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global
temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise
could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March. 24 issue of Science
reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured
in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice
Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.
125
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC CAN’T SOLVE WARMING
No solvency: If we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases today it would taken centuries for them
to decline
Hillman, Mayer and Fawcett, Tina, 2007, The Suicidal Planet: How To Prevent Global Climate
Catastrophe, pg. 25-26
The effects of climate change cannot quickly be reversed by reducing or even eliminating future
emissions of greenhouse gases. There are two reasons for this. First, greenhouse gases released
into the atmosphere linger for decades (in the case of relatively short-lived gases like methane),
or hundreds of years (for carbon dioxide), or even thousands of years (for the long-lived gases
like per-fluorocarbons). Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are
respectively one-third and more than twice as high as those at any time over the last 650,000
years. Even if no additional carbon dioxide were emitted from now on, atmospheric
concentrations would take centuries to decline to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. While elevated
levels of greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, additional warming will occur.
Less than 5 percent of global warming stems from the combustion of fossil fuels; water effects
global warming more.
ROBERT H. ESSENHIGH, professor of mechanical engineering whose main focus is in

the area of combustion. June 23, 2008, Small Parts of Greenhouse Man-Made, Lexis
Nexis Database.
Reading the June 7 letter "Fight against warming can't wait," from David A. Scott of
the Sierra Club, I was astonished that his organization believes global warming is due
to carbon-dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, since the numbers just
don't support it. Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water and carbon
dioxide are about 99 percent of the total, at relative proportions of roughly 80 percent
water and 20 percent carbon dioxide. So, if we want to "control" global warming by
reducing the greenhouse gases, shouldn't we start with water? And, since its source is
natural -- evaporation from rivers, lakes and seas, with return as rain -- how do we do
that? Carbon dioxide's primary source also is nature: vegetation and the sea. Using data
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and can the IPCC be wrong?),
the annual in/out carbon tonnage (carried as carbon dioxide) is about 60 gigatons per
year from vegetation and 90 gigatons per year from the sea, for a total of 150 gigatons
per year. And from combustion? Currently, it measures about 6 or 7 gigatons per year,
which is less than 5 percent of the total. Combine the carbon dioxide with the water
emissions, and 5 percent of 20 percent is 1 percent. So this is a problem? Exactly why and how? But the
real kicker is that it's not the rising carbon dioxide that is driving up the temperature; it's the
rising temperature that is driving up the carbon dioxide, and this has been going on
since the bottom of the last Ice Age.
126
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***ICE AGE***
127
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC ICE AGE DA
A. Uniqueness – Ice age now

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

Andrea Thompson (Staff writer for Livescience, 8/7/07, “Global Warming Good News: No more Ice
Ages,” http://www.livescience.com/environment/070907_co2_iceage.html)
Ice ages naturally occur about every 100,000 years or so as the pattern of Earth's orbit changes with
time and alters the way the sun strikes the planet's surface. When less solar energy hits a given area of
the surface, temperatures become cooler (this is what causes the difference in temperatures between
summer and winter). Long-term changes in Earth's orbit that cause less solar energy to hit the surface
can cool down summer temperatures so that less ice melts at the poles. If ice sheets and glaciers don't
melt a bit in the summer, the ice accumulates and starts to advance—in past ice ages, sheets of ice
covered all of Canada and most of the Northern United States. The level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is also an important factor in triggering an ice age. In the past, lower carbon dioxide levels
(caused by natural processes) helped cool the Earth and again allowed ice to advance. Rising carbon
dioxide levels, as is the case with global warming, can have the opposite effect. No more ice ages
Through the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is now accumulating in the atmosphere. Tyrrell and
his colleagues used a model to study what would happen if carbon dioxide continued to be emitted and
how that would affect the long-term balance of carbon dioxide in the air and the ocean's chemistry. The
ocean is absorbing some of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air, which is causing it to become more
acidic (similarly, the bubbles of carbon dioxide dissolved in your soda are what give it acidity). Tyrrell
and his team's model shows that carbon dioxide levels will be higher far into the future than previously
predicted, because the acidifying ocean will dissolve more calcium carbonate from the shells of marine
organisms, which acts as a buffer against acidification. But this buffer can only help to a certain point,
and eventually the ocean won't be able to take up any more carbon dioxide. "It can't just keep taking it
up," said Joan Kleypas of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not involved in
the study. The model results, detailed in a recent issue of the journal Tellus, project that 8 to 10 percent
of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will remain there for thousands of years, causing
levels of the greenhouse gas to equilibrate in the atmosphere at twice their pre-industrial levels. "It
won't go back to original levels," Kleypas told LiveScience. Even if we burn only a quarter of the
Earth's total reserves of fossil fuels (currently we have burned less than one tenth of reserves), the
carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere could cause the next ice age to be skipped because ice
sheets and glaciers will have melted and won't be able to reform substantially, Tyrrell found. In fact,
burning up all of Earth's reserves would prevent the next five ice ages, the model shows, he said. "Our
research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil
fuels," Tyrrell said. "It shows that if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we
burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates;
we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
128
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC ICE AGE DA
C. Impact – Ice Ages will lead to extinction

L.David Roper, Virginia, Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1/23/05,
http://www.roperld.com/science/tempsolinsatc.pdf
Surely, prior to the Next Glacial Maximum about 100 kiloyears in the future surviving Humans will
migrate to European, Asian and also American refugia. (See Figure 12.) Surviving North Americans
will probably migrate to Central America. A glance at Figure 12 should convince that an exodus to
refugia could happen as early as 50, or even 20, kiloyears in the future. With the Human development
of weapons of mass and indiscriminant destruction and demonstrated willingness to use them when
challenged by other Humans, it is likely that Humans will contribute to their own die offs as they
struggle for survival as the Next Major Ice Age begins to take its Human toll. It is not clear that
Humans will survive all of the three predicted coldest periods of the Next Major Ice Age. (See Figure
12.) The first and mildest, at about 20 kiloyears in the future, is probably the most dangerous, as there
may be still enough of the destructive technology around then.
129
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE AGE NOW
Another ice age is coming

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

Godfrey Hewitt (professor at the school of biological sciences, former President, European Society for
Evolutionary Biology, “the genetic legacy of the Quaternary Ice age,” June 22, 2000,
http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/courses/Hewitt%20ice%20age.pdf).
While the Antarctic ice cap grew from the Oligocene (35Myr), the Arctic ice cap became established
about 2.4Myr ago, the beginning of the Quaternary. From then until 0.9Myr ago, the ice sheets
advanced and receded with a roughly 41,000-yr (41-kyr) cycle; thereafter they have followed a 100-kyr
cycle and become increasingly dramatic. Such periodicity suggests a controlling mechanism, and the
Croll–Milankovitch theory proposes that the regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are
the pacemakers of the ice-age cycles1,2. The main orbital eccentricity has a 100-kyr cycle, variation in
the Earth’s axial tilt has a 41-kyr cycle, and precession due to the Earth’s axial wobble has a 19–23-kyr
cycle; these all modify the insolation of the Earth and the energy it receives. Much energy is transported
by the oceanic circulation system, and the interaction of orbital variation and currents leads to
significant climate changes2,3.
We may have an ice age before the 2100- huge temperature changes
John Houghton (“Global warming” 5/4/2005, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-
4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=089cf8fd-4311-4421-a041-68fb57103cef, co-chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group. He was the lead editor of first three
IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive
at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.).
To develop projections of future climate, it is necessary first to turn the emission scenarios into
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (see section 4 and figure 18(b)) and then to radiative
forcing (see section 5). Climate models incorporating the profiles of radiative forcing can then be run
into the future so as to provide simulations of future climate. We have noted earlier that a measure for
climate change that has been widely used is the change in global average temperature. Figure 19 shows
projections of global atmospheric temperature rise from pre-industrial times to the end of the 21st
century. It shows an increase of about 0.6°C up to the year 2000 and an increase ranging from about
2°C to about 6°C by 2100, the wide range resulting from the very large uncertainty regarding future
emissions and also from the uncertainty that remains regarding the feedbacks associated with the
climate response to the changing atmospheric composition (as described in section 6)9. Compared with
the temperature changes normally experienced from day to day and throughout the year, changes of
between 2°C and 6°C may not seem very large. But it is in fact a large amount when considering
globally averaged temperature. Compare it with the 5°C or 6°C change in global average temperature
that occurs between the middle of an ice age and the warm period in between ice ages (figure 8). The
changes projected for the 21st century are from one-third to a whole ice age in terms of the degree of
climate change!
130
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE AGE NOW
Next Ice Age is coming

L.David Roper, Virginia, Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1/23/05,
http://www.roperld.com/science/tempsolinsatc.pdf
In this article a “Major Ice Age” is defined as the period of about 115 kiloyears between two Major
Interglacials surrounding the Major Ice Age. (See Figure 1.) The “Major Interglacials” are of about 5-15
kiloyears duration and are the times when the Earth’s temperature is at a high maximum at the edges of
a Major Ice Age period. The temperature differential between the low point (Glacial Maximum) of a
Major Ice Age and the Major Interglacial that follows it is about 9-12 degrees Celsius. The Earth left
the Last Major Ice Age to enter the Present Major Interglacial about 10 kiloyears ago and is on the
verge of entering the Next Major Ice Age. That is, the Earth is on the high-time edge of the Present
Major Interglacial. The Last Glacial Maximum was about 20 kiloyears ago. There have been eight
Major Ice Ages of varying severity and variability over the last 900 kiloyears (Alley, 2001; Wilson,
2000). The Last Major Interglacial is called the Eemian Interglacial.
131
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING SOLVES ICE AGE
Warming prevents Ice age

FRED HOYLE and CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE, School of Mathematics, Cardiff
University, 7/27/00, http://www.springerlink.com/content/ng20078362640715/fulltext.pdf
The most important factor that controls the Earth’s climate is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse
effect raises the Earth’s temperature by about 40 _C above what it would otherwise have been. Without
the greenhouse effect the Earth would be locked into a permanent ice-age. This fact gives the lie to
those constantly seeking to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a bad thing greatly to be
feared. The reverse is true. The greenhouse effect is an exceedingly good thing, without which those of
us who happen to live in temperate latitudes would be buried under several hundreds of metres of ice.
Water vapour and carbon dioxide are the main greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide produces essentially the whole of its effect
through absorption at infrared wavelengths from about 13.5 _m to 17.5 _m. Because the blocking by carbon dioxide over this
interval is large, the band having steeply-falling wings, additions of carbon dioxide have only a second-order influence on the
greenhouse effect and are inconsequential compared to the major factors which control the Earth’s climate. The blocking effect of
water vapour rises all the way from 17.5 _m to almost 100 _m.
Warming prevents the start of another Ice Age

Berger and M. F. Loutre, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut d'Astronomie et de Géophysique
G. Lemaître, 2 Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 8/23/02,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287
When paleoclimatologists gathered in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm period would end
(1), a slide into the next glacial seemed imminent. But more recent studies point toward a different future: a
long interglacial that may last another 50,000 years. An interglacial is an uninterrupted warm interval
during which global climate reaches at least the preindustrial level of warmth. Based on geological records
available in 1972, the last two interglacials (including the Eemian, ~125,000 years ago) were believed to
have lasted about 10,000 years. This is about the length of the current warm interval--the Holocene--to
date. Assuming a similar duration for all interglacials, the scientists concluded that "it is likely that the
present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene" (1, p. 267). Some
assumptions made 30 years ago have since been questioned. Past interglacials may have been longer than
originally assumed (2). Some, including marine isotope stage 11 (MIS-11, 400,000 years ago), may have
been warmer than at present (3). We are also increasingly aware of the intensification of the greenhouse
effect by human activities
132
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 prevents Ice Ages by stopping glacier formation

Berger and M. F. Loutre, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut d'Astronomie et de
Géophysique G. Lemaître, 2 Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 8/23/02,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287
Such a long interglacial appears to have occurred only once in the last 500,000 years, at MIS-11 (2, 3,
16). At this time, astronomical insolation and some proxy climate indicators were similar to those of
today. The CO2 concentration was at an interglacial level [slightly above 280 ppmv (8)]. Simulations
with these values (16) also show a particularly long interglacial, illustrating the importance of CO2
concentrations during periods when the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the
climate system. The present-day CO2 concentration of 370 ppmv is already well above typical
interglacial values of ~290 ppmv. Taking into account anthropogenic perturbations, we have studied
further in which the CO2 concentration increases to up to 750 ppmv over the next 200 years, returning
to natural levels by 1000 years from now (13, 15). The results suggest that, under very small insolation
variations, there is a threshold value of CO2 above which the Greenland Ice Sheet disappears (see the
bottom panel of the figure). The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of
human activities during the early third millennium. In this case, an "irreversible greenhouse effect"
could become the most likely future climate. If the Greenland and west Antarctic Ice Sheets disappear
completely, then today's "Anthropocene" (17) may only be a transition between the Quaternary and the
next geological period. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. already predicted in 1972 that "The net impact of human
activities on the climate of the future decades and centuries is quite likely to be one of warming and
therefore favorable to the perpetuation of the present interglacial" [(1), p. 436]. This scenario will have
to be confirmed with models that better simulate ice sheets and ocean circulation. Recent results by
Peltier and Vettoretti (18) are encouraging. With the Canadian climate general circulation model, they
showed that under the present-day insolation regime and preindustrial CO2 concentration, no glacial
inception is possible. In contrast, the model is able to simulate a glacial transition at the end of the
Eemian.
133
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Increased oceanic C02 absorption prevents next ice age

Fred Pierce (environmental reporter for the New Scientist, 7/22/04, ” Fossil-fuel hangover may block
ice ages,” http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/106ns_004.htm)
The fossil fuels we burn today may leave an atmospheric "hangover" lasting hundreds of thousands of
years, which may cause enough residual warming to prevent the onset of the next ice age. This is the
most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. The
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes carbon dioxide as having a lifetime in the
atmosphere of between five and 200 years before it is ultimately absorbed by the oceans. In fact, as
much as one-tenth of the CO2 we are emitting now will linger in the air for at least 100,000 years, and
perhaps much longer, says Toby Tyrrell of the UK's National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.
"It is often assumed that the Earth will always recover from perturbations. But our research shows that
it doesn't necessarily behave like this," says Tyrrell. "It isn't always inherently self-rectifying." Tyrrell
and his colleagues used mathematical models to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a
greenhouse world. As the ocean absorbs ever more CO2 from the atmosphere, it becomes more acid and
so dissolves more calcium carbonate from the shells of marine organisms. This in turn reduces the
oceans' ability to absorb more CO2 (see Diagram), leaving more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Even with the most modest estimates, warming will stave off the next ice age for half a million years
Fred Pierce (environmental reporter for the New Scientist, 7/22/04, ” Fossil-fuel hangover may block
ice ages,” http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/106ns_004.htm)
This complication has been suggested before, notably by David Archer of the University of Chicago.
Tyrrell's analysis substantiates Archer's suspicions, providing a firm estimate of just how big, and how
long-lasting, the fossil-fuel hangover is likely to be (Tellus B, vol 59, p 664). The effect may be great
enough to prevent the next ice age, Tyrrell found. Ice ages occur roughly every 100,000 years. The chill
begins when wobbles in the planet's orbit marginally change where solar radiation hits the Earth. This is
enough to trigger the growth of ice caps. But for reasons that are not yet clear, this initial cooling also
causes the oceans to draw CO2 out of the air. Starved of this greenhouse gas, the atmosphere's
temperature nosedives until much of the planet is covered in ice. Atmospheric CO2 is now at 380 parts
per million, up from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. An analysis by Archer two years ago, using
models linking climate and ice sheets, suggested that atmospheric CO2 levels above 560 ppm would
almost certainly be enough to prevent the global cooling that now triggers an ice age every 100,000
years or so. Even levels of 400 ppm would make such cooling less likely. Tyrrell's new analysis of
ocean chemistry suggests that if CO2 levels in the air rise to 900 ppm by 2100, as predicted by the
IPCC's "business as usual" scenario, there would be little chance they would fall below 560 ppm in time
for the next ice age to appear on schedule or, possibly, at all. While that might sound to some like a
good thing, the short-term warming caused by that much carbon dioxide is likely to cause such severe
disruption that it would not be good policy. Further CO2 releases, from the burning of all known fossil
fuels, for example, could postpone the next ice age for at least half a million years. Only by then could
nature reabsorb the excess carbon - mainly because it would be used up as part of the slow chemical
weathering of rock.
134
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Burning fossil fuels prevents Ice Ages

Toby Tyrrell (the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National
Oceanography Centre, 7/27/07, “Next Ice age delayed by rising CO2 levels,”
http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2007/aug/07_100.shtml)
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the
implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and
Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. According to New Scientist
magazine, which features Dr Tyrrell's research this week, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching
disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. Dr Tyrrell's team used a
mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing
supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The world's oceans are absorbing CO2 from the
atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium
carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the
oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed. Computer
modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle,
first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently
developed a theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon. The work, which is part-
funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the
University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of
the next ice age. Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-
industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it
doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present
rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.' Ice ages
occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the
sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not
only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric
CO2 are also important. Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests
that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about
4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels
could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.
135
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING STOPS ICE AGE
Global warming ultimately delays the effects of an ice age- a net positive outcome
Andrew C. Revkin (“When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer,
11/11/2003, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9C04E6D61539F932A25752C1A9659C8B63).
Others have proposed that an earlier warm era that lasted even longer -- 30,000 years -- was a better
model for the Holocene. But many experts still say they are convinced that the current warmth should,
under the influence of orbital cycles alone, near an end ''any millennium now,'' as Dr. Richard A.
Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, puts it. But the planet is feeling a new
influence, that of people. Humans may delay the dawn of the next ice age by a millennium or two, or
even longer, many climate experts say, as Earth's long-buried stores of coal, oil and other carbon-rich
fossil fuels are burned, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse
gases. That insulating blanket has a bigger climatic influence than the slight flux in incoming solar
energy from changes in Earth's orientation relative to the Sun, said Dr. James A. Hansen, the director of
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ''We have taken over control of the mechanisms that
determine the climate change,'' he said. Other scientists, while agreeing with this thesis for the short
term, say that eventually the buffering properties of the atmosphere, ocean and Earth will restore
balance, returning most of the liberated carbon to long-term storage and allowing the orbital rhythm
once again to dominate. ''Orbital changes are in a slow dance leading to a peak 80,000 years from
now,'' said Dr. Eric J. Barron, the dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn State. ''I
can hardly imagine that human influences won't have run their course by that time.'' It may seem that
human-driven global warming, although perhaps a disaster on the scale of centuries, may be a good
thing in the long run if it fends off the next ice age awhile.
136
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE AGE CAUSES EXTINCTION
A coming Ice age will wipe out the world

Phil Chapmen (Staff writer for the Australian, 4/23/08, “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh,”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html)
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true
believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide,
and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature
(the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York,
the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that
it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts
us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It
snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of
Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in
1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so
I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is
where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11
years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon
after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in
January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours.
Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this
matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The
previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that
lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's
Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That
the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not
proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma,
at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar
to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse
than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more
people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and
Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions
will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and
millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more
serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million
years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal
conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid
climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The
interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years
ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global
temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but
may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was
even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C
cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice,
and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
137
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE AGE CAUSES EXTINCTION
Ice ages and global cooling have empirically lead to complete extinction
Agençe France-Presse (“Earth’s wobble linked to extinctions,” 10/12/2006,
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1763328.htm).
Climate change, naturally induced by tiny shifts in Earth's rotational axis and orbit, periodically wipes out
species of mammals, a study says. Palaeontologists have long puzzled over fossil records that, remarkably,
suggest mammal species tend to last around two and a half million years before becoming extinct. Climate
experts and biologists led by Jan van Dam at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, overlaid a
picture of species emergence and extinction with changes that occur in Earth's orbit and axis. The Earth's
orbit is not a perfect circle. It is slightly elliptical, and the ellipticality itself goes through cycles of change
that span roughly 100,000 and 400,000 years. Its axis, likewise, is not perfectly perpendicular but has a
slight wobble, rather like a poorly-balanced child's top, which goes through cycles of 21,000 years. In
addition, the axis, as schoolbooks tell us, is also tilted, and this tilt also varies in a cycle of 41,000 years.
These three shifts in Earth's pattern of movement are relatively minor compared with those of other planets.
But they can greatly influence the amount of heat and light the Earth receives from the Sun. The effect can
be amplified, causing global cooling, affecting precipitation patterns and even creating ice ages in higher
latitudes, when two or all the cycles peak together.
138
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WARMING CAUSES COOLING
Global warming doesn’t cause cooling

S Rahmstorf and A Ganopolski (Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, 1999, “LONG-TERM
GLOBALWARMING SCENARIOS COMPUTED WITH AN EFFICIENT COUPLED CLIMATE
MODEL,” http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search)
Based on the past instability of the Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ and on physical considerations, warnings
have been raised repeatedly that anthropogenic climate change might trigger another instability of the
circulation and a severe cooling over the North Atlantic and parts of Europe (Broecker, 1987, 1997;
White, 1993). A large number of model simulations (reviewed in Rahmstorf et al., 1996) have
confirmed the sensitivity of the circulation to freshwater input and the fact that a collapse would cause a
strong cooling. The pattern of this cooling, seen in atmospheric models driven by cold North Atlantic
conditions (Schneider et al., 1987) and in coupled models (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1988, and also in
the CLIMBER-2 model, Ganopolski et al., 1998c), is similar to the pattern of anomalous warmth shown
in Figure 1. Until now, however, the hypothesis that global warming could lead to a cooling of Europe
has not been supported by model simulations. None of the published greenhouse scenarios shows such a
cooling, even though most show a decline and some even a complete shutdown of the thermohaline
circulation (Rahmstorf, 1997).
Climate and freshwater models are certain that warming won’t cause an ice age
Andrew Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel (professor at the Canadian School of Earth
and Ocean Sciences, and Canadian geoscientist of great distinction and a world leader in
Quaternary research. He is known for his groundbreaking research on the environment,
climate change, and oceanography. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada,
Awarded the Logan Medal, the Geological Association of Canada's highest honour,
4/16/2004, “Global warming and the next ice age,” Science,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=14&sid=362c0493-3619-4e43-b8b4-
09eaa15d2a36%40sessionmgr8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=aph&AN=12965894).
In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe
to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it
is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO — despite the
appealing possibility raised in two recent studies ( 18, 19) — although it is possible that deep
convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences
on the climate downstream over Europe.
139
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Even if they’re right only minor climate changes will occur, Global warming won’t lead to an ice age
or a collapse of the AMO
Andrew J. Weaver and Claude-Marcel Hillaire (Gordon head of the School of Earth and Ocean
Sciences at the University of Victoria and a Canadian geoscientist of great distinction and a world
leader in Quaternary research. He is known for his groundbreaking research on the environment,
climate change, and oceanography. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and professor at
l'Université du Québec à Montréal, 4/16/2004, “Global Warming and the next Ice Age,”
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=5e63d5e2-5a5a-4141-a53a-7826e5e7c1bb
%40sessionmgr2)
Models that eventually lead to a collapse of the AMO under global warming conditions typically fall
into two categories: (i) flux-adjusted coupled general circulation models, and (ii) intermediate-
complexity models with zonally averaged ocean components. Both suites of models are known to be
more sensitive to freshwater perturbations. In the first class of models, a small perturbation away from
the present climate leads to large systematic errors in the salinity fields (as large flux adjustments are
applied) that then build up to cause dramatic AMO transitions. In the second class of models, the
convection and sinking of water masses are coupled (there is no horizontal structure). In contrast, newer
non — flux-adjusted models find a more stable AMO under future conditions of climate change ( 11,
13, 14). Even the recent observations of freshening in the North Atlantic ( 15) (a reduction of salinity
due to the addition of freshwater) appear to be consistent with the projections of perhaps the most
sophisticated non — flux-adjusted model ( 11). Ironically, this model suggests that such freshening is
associated with an increased AMO ( 16). This same model proposes that it is only Labrador Sea Water
formation that is susceptible to collapse in response to global warming. In light of the paleoclimate
record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming
will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that
global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO — despite the appealing possibility
raised in two recent studies ( 18, 19) — although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea
will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over
Europe.
THC shut down won’t cause an ice age-- comparisons ignore crucial climate differences
W. S. Broecker, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, January 1999 "What If the
Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global
Experiment," Geological Society of America Today 9(1):1-7
http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsat9901.htmroyalties
But is it realistic to believe that a shutdown of the conveyor a century or so from now would produce
the conditions that characterized the last glacial period? The answer is very likely "no," for several
reasons. The first has to do with the fact that during the Younger Dryas, Canada and Scandinavia still
had sizable ice caps. The second is that the abrupt part of the warming at the close of the Younger
Dryas brought climate only about halfway to its interglacial state (Severinghaus et al., 1998). The other
half of the transition was more gradual, reflecting perhaps the post-Younger Dryas retreat of the
residual ice caps in Canada and Scandinavia. Finally, modeling studies (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993;
Stocker and Schmittner, 1997) that forecast a greenhouse-induced conveyor shutdown do so only after a
substantial global warming (4 to 5°C) has occurred. Hence, the global climate conditions prevailing at
the time of the shut-down would be substantially warmer than those that existed just before the onset of
the Younger Dryas. For these reasons, the analogy to the conditions that prevailed during the Younger
Dryas surely constitutes a worst case scenario.
140
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Studies conclude that a collapse of the THC kills little vegetation and it would come back later anyways
MICHAEL VELLINGA AND RICHARD A. WOOD, Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research, 9/02, www.springerlink.com/fulltext.pdf
Response is strongest around the North Atlantic but significant changes occur over the entire globe and
highlight rapid teleconnections. Precipitation is reduced over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. A
southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone over the Atlantic and eastern Pacific creates
changes in precipitation that are particularly large in South America and Africa. Colder and drier
conditions in much of the Northern Hemisphere reduce soil moisture and net primary productivity of
the terrestrial vegetation. This is only partly compensated by more productivity in the Southern
Hemisphere. The total global net primary productivity by the vegetation decreases by 5%. It should be
noted, however, that in this version of the model the vegetation distribution cannot change, and
atmospheric carbon levels are also fixed. After about 100 years the model’s thermohaline circulation
has largely recovered, and most climatic anomalies disappear
The THC is resilient to change and collapse would happen thousands of years later
Possible instabilities of the THC also have important implications for the predictability of future
climate change. Model simulations show that as an instability is approached, small deviations in
initial or boundary conditions can determine whether a transition to a different equilibrium will
occur, which inherently limits predictability. This behavior has been investigated with a climate
model of reduced complexity (Knutti and Stocker, 2001). The threshold is approached by a
prescribed global warming over about 140 years, equivalent to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Small
random fluctuations, as produced by atmospheric disturbances at the ocean surface, can excite large
changes in the THC when the system is close to a threshold (Figure 4.1). Many experiments with the
same model but slightly different initial conditions (Monte Carlo simulations) indicate that the North
Atlantic THC can undergo many oscillations before it settles in an active or a collapsed state. In some
cases, a rapid collapse of the THC occurs many thousands of years after the perturbation. Obviously,
beyond the problem of approaching an instability point and the increased vulnerability of the THC
to further perturbation, such an evolution results in a much more unpredictable climate system
(Figure 4.1).
141
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Although the THC shutdown is caused by global warming, it won’t lead to an Ice age
A question of great societal relevance is whether the North Atlantic THC will remain stable under the
global warming expected for the next few centuries. A possible shutdown of the THC would not induce
a new glacial period, as press reports suggested; however, it clearly would involve massive changes both
in the ocean (major circulation regimes, upwelling and sinking regions, distribution of seasonal sea ice,
ecological systems, sea level) and in the atmosphere (land-sea temperature contrast, storm paths,
hydrological cycle, extreme events). The most pronounced changes are expected in regions that are today
most affected by the influence of the North Atlantic THC (e.g., Scandinavia and Greenland). Current
knowledge of the evolution of the THC is summarized in the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001b). Several comprehensive coupled climate models were
run with a scenario of increasing greenhouse gas forcing for the next 100 years. Most models show a
reduction in the THC in response to the forcing (Plate 7). This is due to enhanced warming of the sea
surface in the high latitudes and a stronger poleward atmospheric transport of moisture, leading to more
precipitation in the North Atlantic region. Those two effects, in concert, lead to an increase in buoyancy of
the North Atlantic surface waters, which reduces the THC. Although the relative strength of the two
mechanisms is debated and uncertain (Dixon et al., 1999; Mikolajewicz and Voss, 2000), most climate
models seem to show a general reduction in the Atlantic THC in response to global warming. The
exceptions to this behavior remind us of the inherent uncertainties present in the simulations. It is not clear
whether all relevant feedback mechanisms are considered properly in the current generation of climate
models and whether their strength is simulated realistically. A simulation by Latif et al. (2000) suggested
that changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) frequency and amplitude might change the
freshwater balance of the tropical Atlantic in such a way that increases in buoyancy in the high latitudes are
compensated for by drier (and hence more saline) conditions in the tropics. Gent (2001) reported on a
simulation in which evaporation from a warmer sea surface in the North Atlantic is not compensated for by
enhanced precipitation, and this simulation results in a stabilization of the THC. While it is not currently
possible to decide which simulations are more realistic—those of Plate 7 showing a THC decrease or those
that do not—the two simulations by Latif et al. (2000) and Gent (2001) illustrate that the quantitatively
correct simulation of heat and freshwater flux changes is essential for the projection of the evolution of the
THC under global warming.
142
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Probability of THC collapsing in the next century is below 10 percent

Timothy M. Lenton et al, Hermann Held‡, Elmar Kriegler‡,§, Jim W. Hall¶, Wolfgang Lucht‡, Stefan
Rahmstorf‡, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, School
of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, Newcastle NE1 7RU, United Kingdom; and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford
University, and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 11/21/07,
http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search
The proximity of the present climate to this tipping point varies considerably between models,
corresponding to an additional North Atlantic freshwater input of 0.1–0.5 Sv (44). The sensitivity of
North Atlantic freshwater input to anthropogenic forcing is also poorly known, but regional
precipitation is predicted to increase (12) and the GIS could tribute significantly (e.g., GIS melt over
1,000 years is equivalent to 0.1 Sv). The North Atlantic is observed to be freshening (49), and estimates
of recent increases in freshwater input yield 0.014 Sv from melting sea ice (18), 0.007 Sv from
Greenland (29), and 0.005 Sv from Eurasian rivers (50), totaling 0.026 Sv, without considering
precipitation over the oceans or Canadian river runoff. The IPCC (12) argues that an abrupt transition of
the THC is “very unlikely” [the probability is lower than 10%] (probability <10%) to occur before 2100
and that any transition is likely to take a century or more. Our definition encompasses gradual
transitions that appear continuous across the tipping point; hence, some of the IPCC runs (ref. 12, p. 773
ff) may yet meet our criteria (but would need to be run for longer to see if they reach a qualitatively
different state). Furthermore, the IPCC does not include freshwater runoff from GIS melt. Subsequent
OAGCM simulations clearly pass a THC tipping point this century and undergo a qualitative change
before the next millennium (48). Both the timescale and the magnitude of forcing are important (51),
because a more rapid forcing to a given level can more readily overwhelm the negative feedback that
redistributes salt in a manner that maintains whatever is the current circulation state.
143
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***AFF AT: ICE AGE DA***
144
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE AGE NOT COMING
High CO2 levels prevent another ice age for at least another 50,000 years
Andrew Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel (professor at the Canadian School of Earth
and Ocean Sciences, and Canadian geoscientist of great distinction and a world leader in
Quaternary research. He is known for his groundbreaking research on the environment,
climate change, and oceanography. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada,
Awarded the Logan Medal, the Geological Association of Canada's highest honour,
4/16/2004, “Global warming and the next ice age,” Science,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=14&sid=362c0493-3619-4e43-b8b4-
09eaa15d2a36%40sessionmgr8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=aph&AN=12965894).
Several modeling studies provide outputs to support this progression. These studies show that with elevated
levels of carbon dioxide, such as those that exist today, no permanent snow can exist over land in August
(as temperatures are too warm), a necessary prerequisite for the growth of glaciers in the Northern
Hemisphere [e.g., ( 6)]. These same models show that if the AMO were to be artificially shut down, there
would be regions of substantial cooling in and around the North Atlantic. Berger and Loutre ( 7)
specifically noted that "most CO[sub2] scenarios led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years
before the present to 50,000 years from now . . . with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for
CO[sub2] concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated." They further
argued that the next glaciation would be unlikely to occur for another 50,000 years.
145
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
ICE MELTING WON’T LEAD TO ICE AGE
Their models are wrong-Polar ice melting won’t lead to a new Ice age
Lorne Gunter (staff writer for the National Post and columnist with the Edmonton Journal, 2/25/08,
“Forget global warming: welcome to the New Ice Age,”
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289)
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just
because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and
environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order
every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this
winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just
anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma. According to Robert Toggweiler
of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant
professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers
-- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm
equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After
Tomorrow) are all wrong. "We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not
ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate
models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers
have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
146
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
WARMING CAUSES COOLING
Global warming causes Flushing Failure which triggers cooling

William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The
great climate flip-flop," The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64)
There are a few obvious precursors to flushing failure. One is diminished wind chill, when winds aren't as
strong as usual, or as cold, or as dry — as is the case in the Labrador Sea during the North Atlantic
Oscillation. This El Niño-like shift in the atmospheric-circulation pattern over the North Atlantic, from the
Azores to Greenland, often lasts a decade. At the same time that the Labrador Sea gets a lessening of the
strong winds that aid salt sinking, Europe gets particularly cold winters. It's happening right now: a North
Atlantic Oscillation started in 1996. Another precursor is more floating ice than usual, which reduces the
amount of ocean surface exposed to the winds, in turn reducing evaporation. Retained heat eventually melts
the ice, in a cycle that recurs about every five years. Yet another precursor, as Henry Stommel suggested in
1961, would be the addition of fresh water to the ocean surface, diluting the salt-heavy surface waters
before they became unstable enough to start sinking. More rain falling in the northern oceans — exactly
what is predicted as a result of global warming — could stop salt flushing. So could ice carried south out of
the Arctic Ocean. There is also a great deal of unsalted water in Greenland's glaciers, just uphill from the
major salt sinks. The last time an abrupt cooling occurred was in the midst of global warming. Many ice
sheets had already half melted, dumping a lot of fresh water into the ocean. A brief, large flood of fresh
water might nudge us toward an abrupt cooling even if the dilution were insignificant when averaged over
time. The fjords of Greenland offer some dramatic examples of the possibilities for freshwater floods.
Fjords are long, narrow canyons, little arms of the sea reaching many miles inland; they were carved by
great glaciers when the sea level was lower. Greenland's east coast has a profusion of fjords between 70°N
and 80°N, including one that is the world's biggest. If blocked by ice dams, fjords make perfect reservoirs
for meltwater. Glaciers pushing out into the ocean usually break off in chunks. Whole sections of a glacier,
lifted up by the tides, may snap off at the "hinge" and become icebergs. But sometimes a glacial surge will
act like an avalanche that blocks a road, as happened when Alaska's Hubbard glacier surged into the
Russell fjord in May of 1986. Its snout ran into the opposite side, blocking the fjord with an ice dam. Any
meltwater coming in behind the dam stayed there. A lake formed, rising higher and higher — up to the
height of an eight-story building. Eventually such ice dams break, with spectacular results. Once the dam is
breached, the rushing waters erode an ever wider and deeper path. Thus the entire lake can empty quickly.
Five months after the ice dam at the Russell fjord formed, it broke, dumping a cubic mile of fresh water in
only twenty-four hours. The Great Salinity Anomaly, a pool of semi-salty water derived from about 500
times as much unsalted water as that released by Russell Lake, was tracked from 1968 to 1982 as it moved
south from Greenland's east coast. In 1970 it arrived in the Labrador Sea, where it prevented the usual salt
sinking. By 1971-1972 the semi-salty blob was off Newfoundland. It then crossed the Atlantic and passed
near the Shetland Islands around 1976. From there it was carried northward by the warm Norwegian
Current, whereupon some of it swung west again to arrive off Greenland's east coast — where it had started
its inch-per-second journey. So freshwater blobs drift, sometimes causing major trouble, and Greenland
floods thus have the potential to stop the enormous heat transfer that keeps the North Atlantic Current
going strong.
147
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- WARMING SHUTS DOWN THC
Melted icecaps dilute the ocean’s salinity, slowing the thermohaline system
As melting of the Greenland ice sheet exceeds the annual snowfall, and there is increasing freshwater
runoff from high latitude precipitation, the freshening of waters in the North Atlantic Ocean and the
seas between Greenland and Europe increases. The lower densities of these freshened waters in turn
pave the way for a sharp slowing of the thermohaline circulation system.
Global warming will lead to an ice age instead of delay it

Andrew C. Revkin (“When will the next ice age begin?” New York Times staff writer,
11/11/2003, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9C04E6D61539F932A25752C1A9659C8B63).
But many climatologists note that the complex interplay of greenhouse gases, orbital shifts and other
influences on climate remain poorly understood. In fact, some experts say, there is a chance that human-
induced warming could shut down heat-toting ocean currents that keep northern latitudes warmer than they
otherwise would be. The result could be a faster descent into glacial times instead of a delay.
CO2 and warming collapses the THC which offsets global warming by making the world cooler
Jochem Marotzke, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, 2/15/00,
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1347.full
Abrupt climate change may not have been merely a feature of the past but may be induced by the
buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled model studies (23) have shown that global warming can
lead to a collapse of the North Atlantic THC: Higher atmospheric temperatures lead to a generally
wetter atmosphere and hence increased moisture transport from low to high latitudes. The increased
precipitation in the North Atlantic leads to reduced surface salinity and density, interrupting deep
convection and bringing the Atlantic THC to a halt. As a consequence, northern Europe might cool
even under global warming and, more alarming, this cooling might occur much more rapidly than the
gradual global warming, thus making adaptation far more difficult. The critical question is, How close
to a transition is the real climate system?
Warming melts ice sheets that cause changes in the THC

Ice sheets are linked to abrupt climate change because melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice
sheet would add directly to global sea level rise and to possible changes in the thermohaline circulation
(Manabe and Stouffer, 1997). Much attention has been focused on the possibility of a rapid collapse of
the West Antarctic ice sheet. Recent geological and glaciological evidence points to a stable but net
decay since the last ice age (Conway et al., 1999), but with considerable uncertainty about future trends
and the possibility of rapid dynamic response to future warming. The Greenland ice sheet has the
potential for rapid surface melting and perhaps enhanced ice flow with continued greenhouse warming.
Laser-altimeter surveys in the 1990s indicated an overall negative mass balance for Greenland ice that
results in a 0.13 mm per year sea level rise (Krabill et al., 2000). Since the late 1800s the margin of the
Greenland ice sheet has retreated 2 km in some places (Funder and Weidick, 1991) indicating that
Greenland ice is responding to twentieth century warming. The influence of the Greenland ice sheet
system on potential abrupt climate change appears to be linear except for the possibility of threshold
changes in ocean circulation, but the existence of dynamically controlled ice streaming at least suggests
the possibility of dynamical changes (Fahnestock et al., 1993).
148
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming causes changes in the THC which causes abrupt climate change
Changes in ocean circulation, and especially THC in the North Atlantic, have been implicated in abrupt
climate change of the past, such as the Younger Dryas and the Dansgaard/Oeschger and Heinrich/Bond
oscillations (Broecker et al., 1988; Alley and Clark, 1999; Stocker, 2000). Today, relatively warm
waters reach high latitudes only in the North Atlantic. The high salinity of the Atlantic waters allows
them to sink into the deep ocean when they cool, and warmer waters flowing along the surface then
replace them. This yields a net heat transport into the high northern latitudes of the Atlantic and
northward heat transport throughout the South Atlantic, carrying heat into the North Atlantic
(Ganachaud and Wunsch, 2000; see also Plate 4b.) Outburst floods, which would have freshened the
North Atlantic and reduced the ability of its waters to sink, immediately preceded the coolings of the
Younger Dryas and the short cold event about 8,200 years ago (Broecker et al., 1988; Barber et al.,
1999); this suggests causation. Evidence of reduction or elimination of northern sinking of waters
during cold times (Sarnthein et al., 1994; Boyle, 2000) provides further support, as does the see-saw
relation between Greenland and Antarctic temperatures on millennial scales (Blunier and Brook, 2001;
see also Plate 2), which suggests that reduction in heat transport to the north allowed that heat to remain
in the south. Those and other considerations focus attention on changes in the THC as one cause of
abrupt climate change. However, additional processes presumably were active in the past abrupt
changes exemplified by the Younger Dryas, as indicated by the difficulty of fully explaining the
paleoclimatic data on the basis of the single mechanism of North Atlantic THC changes. Therefore, the
ocean’s role in climate is developed more fully in the following. Water has enormous heat capacity—
oceans typically store 10-100 times more heat than equivalent land surfaces over seasonal time scales,
and the solar input to the ocean surface for a year would warm the upper kilometer only 1 degree—so
the oceans exert a profound influence on climate through their ability to transport heat from one
location to another and their ability to sequester heat away from the surface. The deep ocean is a
worldwide repository of extremely cold water from the polar regions. If much of this water were
brought to the surface in temperate or tropical regions, it could cause substantial cooling that, although
transient, could last for centuries. It is not easy to bring cold water to the surface against a stable
gradient, though, and this can happen only in special circumstances. Such localized change could,
however, have a wider impact through atmospheric teleconnections. Fluctuations in ocean heat
transport can also affect climate; for example, an increase in equator-to-pole heat transport would warm
the polar regions (melting ice) and cool the tropics. The implications of fluctuation in heat transport by
the Atlantic THC have received particular attention, especially as a mediator of Younger Dryas and
Dansgaard/Oeschger abrupt change. Deep water forms only in the North Atlantic and around the
periphery of Antarctica, where extremely cold, dense waters occur. There is no deep-water formation in
the North Pacific, because the salinity is too low to allow high enough density to drive deep convection,
despite the low temperatures. By analogy, change in the freshwater balance of the North Atlantic, which
might be caused by glacial discharge or warming of the planet through increases in carbon dioxide,
potentially can act as a trigger to turn the THC on or off.
149
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Global warming causes thermohaline shut down

The second concerns possible changes in the ocean’s thermohaline circulation (THC).
This is a current that circulates in the deep ocean (figure 23) driven to a large degree
by the descent of water in the Greenland sea and Labrador sea areas of the north
Atlantic ocean. Water that has originated in the tropics and moved north in the
Atlantic, undergoing a lot of evaporation, is both salty and cold—hence it is
unusually dense and readily sinks. With global warming, there is additional fresh
water input at high latitudes because of increased precipitation and ice melt. As a
result, the THC will weaken and less heat will flow northward from tropical regions to
the north Atlantic. All coupled ocean–atmosphere GCMs show this occurring,
although in varying degrees, resulting in less warming in the region of the north
Atlantic (including north-west Europe)—although none show actual cooling occurring
in this region during the 21st century. There is also evidence that large changes in
the THC have occurred in the past [83]. In the longer term, some models show the
THC actually cutting off completely after two or three centuries of increasing
greenhouse gases. Intense research is being pursued—both observations and
modelling—to elucidate further likely changes in the thermohaline circulation and
their possible impact.
150
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- THC SHUTDOWN CAUSES ICEAGE
Thermohaline shut down freezes the northern atlantic region, destroying agriculture and water
supplies
After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010, disrupting the
temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm flows of the Gulf Stream (the North
Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less
warm water north and causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North
America. The North Atlantic Ocean continues to be affected by fresh water coming from melting
glaciers, Greenland’s ice sheet, and perhaps most importantly increased rainfall and runoff. Decades of
high-latitude warming cause increased precipitation and bring additional fresh water to the salty, dense
water in the North, which is normally affected mainly by warmer and saltier water from the Gulf
Stream. That massive current of warm water no longer reaches far into the North Atlantic. The
immediate climatic effect is cooler temperatures in Europe and throughout much of the Northern
Hemisphere and a dramatic drop in rainfall in many key agricultural and populated areas. However, the
effects of the collapse will be felt in fits and starts, as the traditional weather patterns re-emerge only to
be disrupted again—for a full decade. The dramatic slowing of the thermohaline circulation is
anticipated by some ocean researchers, but the United States is not sufficiently prepared for its effects,
timing, or intensity. Computer models of the climate and ocean systems, though improved, were unable
to produce sufficiently consistent and accurate information for policymakers. As weather patterns shift
in the years following the collapse, it is not clear what type of weather future years will bring. While
some forecasters believe the cooling and dryness is about to end, others predict a new ice age or a
global drought, leaving policy makers and the public highly uncertain about the future climate and what
to do, if anything. Is this merely a "blip" of little importance or a fundamental change in the Earth’s
climate, requiring an urgent massive human response? Cooler, Drier, Windier Conditions for
Continental Areas of the Northern Hemisphere Each of the years from 2010-2020 sees average
temperature drops throughout Northern Europe, leading to as much as a 6 degree Fahrenheit drop in ten
years. Average annual rainfall in this region decreases by nearly 30%; and winds are up to 15% stronger
on average. The climatic conditions are more severe in the continental interior regions of northern Asia
and North America. The effects of the drought are more devastating than the unpleasantness of
temperature decreases in the agricultural and populated areas. With the persistent reduction of
precipitation in these areas, lakes dry-up, river flow decreases, and fresh water supply is squeezed,
overwhelming available conservation options and depleting fresh water reserves. The Mega-droughts
begin in key regions in Southern China and Northern Europe around 2010 and last throughout the full
decade. At the same time, areas that were relatively dry over the past few decades receive persistent
years of torrential rainfall, flooding rivers, and regions that traditionally relied on dryland agriculture.
In the North Atlantic region and across northern Asia, cooling is most pronounced in the heart of
winter -- December, January, and February -- although its effects linger through the seasons, the
cooling becomes increasingly intense and less predictable. As snow accumulates in mountain regions,
the cooling spreads to summertime. In addition to cooling and summertime dryness, wind pattern
velocity strengthens as the atmospheric circulation becomes more zonal. While weather patterns are
disrupted during the onset of the climatic change around the globe, the effects are far more pronounced
in Northern Europe for the first five years after the thermohaline circulation collapse. By the second
half of this decade, the chill and harsher conditions spread deeper into Southern Europe, North
America, and beyond. Northern Europe cools as a pattern of colder weather lengthens the time that
sea ice is present over the northern North Atlantic Ocean, creating a further cooling influence and
extending the period of wintertime surface air temperatures. Winds pick up as the atmosphere tries to
deal with the stronger pole-to-equator temperature gradient. Cold air blowing across the European
continent causes especially harsh conditions for agriculture. The combination of wind and dryness
causes widespread dust storms and soil loss. Signs of incremental warming appear in the southern
151
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
most areas along the Atlantic Ocean, but the dryness doesn’t let up. By the end of the decade, Europe’s
climate is more like Siberia’s.
152
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Collapse of THC drops temperature around the world

The collapse of the THC causes rapid global change in surface air temperature (Figure 2). Within 20
years after the shutdown of the THC persistent anomalies (lasting two or more decades) have covered
most of the Northern Hemisphere. In the Southern Hemisphere the response takes longer to become
apparent, up to three decades. The reduction of northward heat transport and surface heat release in the
North Atlantic lead to significant cooling of the air in that area. Maximum cooling of up to 8 ◦C occurs
over the northwest Atlantic. Over Europe the cooling is 1–3 ◦C in the third decade after the THC
collapse (Figure 3). The comparatively strong cooling over the northwest Atlantic and Labrador Sea and
the Sea of Okhotsk is caused by increased sea-ice cover (Vellinga et al., 2002) that isolates the
atmosphere from the relatively warm sea surface and augments the cooling. The atmospheric circulation
effectively spreads the signal over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. This results in significant
cooling up to 2 ◦C over Asia and North America.
A salinity spike collapses the THC and stops continental warming

Within 10 years after the salinity perturbation is applied the Atlantic THC (as measured by the
zonally averaged meridional circulation) collapses (Figure 1). This eliminates the northward heat
transport and associated heat release in the North Atlantic. As mentioned already the model is not
in equilibrium during the first 100 years of the experiment. Even so, the transient climate response
allows an assessment of the impact that a permanent THC collapse would have because of the
rapid response in important ocean and atmosphere variables, such as ocean heat transport, sea
surface temperature (‘SST’), precipitation etc. The effects of the slowest components of the climate
system (e.g., heat uptake by the deep ocean) on surface variables may, however, be underestimated in
this transient climate state. To see to what extent anomalies spread globally we mostly present fields for
years 20–30 of the experiment, even though the response around the North Atlantic is sometimes
stronger in the first decade.
153
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- THC ON BRINK
Thermohaline shut down will begin in 2010

After roughly 60 years of slow freshening, the thermohaline collapse begins in 2010, disrupting the
temperate climate of Europe, which is made possible by the warm flows of the Gulf Stream (the North
Atlantic arm of the global thermohaline conveyor). Ocean circulation patterns change, bringing less
warm water north and causing an immediate shift in the weather in Northern Europe and eastern North
America. The North Atlantic Ocean continues to be affected by fresh water coming from melting
glaciers, Greenland’s ice sheet, and perhaps most importantly increased rainfall and runoff. Decades of
high-latitude warming cause increased precipitation and bring additional fresh water to the salty, dense
water in the North, which is normally affected mainly by warmer and saltier water from the Gulf
Stream. That massive current of warm water no longer reaches far into the North Atlantic. The
immediate climatic effect is cooler temperatures in Europe and throughout much of the Northern
Hemisphere and a dramatic drop in rainfall in many key agricultural and populated areas. However, the
effects of the collapse will be felt in fits and starts, as the traditional weather patterns re-emerge only to
be disrupted again—for a full decade.
154
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT -- THC KEY TO OCEAN
THC affects the overturning of the ocean

Peter U. Clark et al ([Nicklas G. Pisias² Thomas F. Stocker & Andrew J. Weaver ]* Department of
Geosciences, Oregon State University, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State
University, Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, 2/21/02, “The role of the
thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change,”
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/thermohalinecirculation.pdf)
The ocean affects climate through its high heat capacity relative to the surrounding land, thereby
moderating daily, seasonal and interannual temperature ¯uctuations, and through its ability to transport
heat from one location to another. In the North Atlantic, differential solar heating between high and low
latitudes tends to accelerate surface waters polewards whereas freshwater input to high latitudes
together with low-latitude evaporation tend to brake this ¯ow. Today, the former thermal forcing
dominates the latter haline (freshwater) forcing and the meridional overturning in the Atlantic drives
surface waters northward, while deep water that forms in the Nordic Seas ¯ows southward as North
Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). This thermohaline circulation (THC) is responsible for much of the total
oceanic poleward heat transport in the Atlantic, peaking at about 1:2 6 0:3 PW (1 PW equals 1015
watts) at 248N (ref. 1).
155
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
THC IMPACT [FISHERIES]
Reduced oceanic circulation caused by global warming will destroy fisheries

Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Physics of the Oceans Potsdam University and Member of the German
Advisory Council on Global Change, 7/28/97, “Risk of sea-change in the Atlantic,”
http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/spb/ovidweb.cgi?
QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c8aa94c0b9249362ccb8a0647773dcb8b8e0160721288b22d6ee14f018578a72e4
686988b58f11a12baa14c18c9df54c29766a799b5a256137f4f52ae3462a018e66655ea2208f162a20c75b
509468795e37f73d70c48234b83ecb9ea66d8fd75cd865acf5b4e65efa79ae20a5629450d87cceb0806bd5
7df239313dd3baeea5acd44a84323f9d0747d555699daea53c5ab9ab7fc3fd1de77d2e933b46f8851ea287f
d19113aa022a437358ae52000ff14f62ff928c711a4730138b335f0f965a5f6209c8aca32efb236b55fa0084
4804736404b153d5b1e05b5c5d7d54b3c0a3)
Global warming can roughly compensate for the reduced oceanic heat transport in these experiments,
because the ocean circulation winds down only slowly. There are several caveats here. That the
maximum effect is south of Greenland points at the overflow problem mentioned above. One can only
speculate whether the response would be larger if the models formed more deep water north of the sills,
so that the 'conveyor belt' would reach further north and interact with sea ice as it does in the real world.
And a much faster circulation change (such as those seen in the ice-age climate records) may be
possible through a different, convective type of instability [3], which has its own critical thresholds and
depends on regional detail poorly represented in present climate models. But whatever the effects of air
temperature, such as change in ocean circulation would certainly have a severe effect on marine
ecosystems and fisheries. Even small fluctuations in ocean currents have led to the collapse of fish
stocks and sea-bird populations in the past. Another concern is that a reduced thermohaline circulation
would weaken the carbon dioxide uptake of the ocean [9], effectively making the climate system more
susceptible to anthropogenic emissions. So a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation would
probably have serious consequences, involving risks that no nation bordering the North Atlantic would
willingly take. Climate models are still too coarse to accurately predict how vulnerable the ocean
circulation is, but they suggest that crossing a critical limit is within the range of possibilities for the
next century. A disruption of the thermohaline circulation cannot be ruled out if we continue to pollute
the atmosphere at the present rate. The work of Stocker and Schmittner is a timely reminder, before the
Kyoto climate summit in December, that swift action is needed to reduce the risk of unwelcome
climatic surprises.
Fisheries are key to the global economy and human nutrition

Earth Trends, environmental information, 10-31-06,
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/info_guides/EarthTrends-InformationGuide-Fisheries.pdf
For centuries, fisheries have supported local economies by providing steady employment
and income, and have served as a primary source of protein, particularly in developing
countries. The importance of fisheries to the global economy and human nutrition has only
increased as advances in technology have made it easier to harvest marine resources.
However, unsustainable fishing practices have caused dramatic declines in most fish
stocks, decimating wild populations and jeopardizing the long-term utilization of fisheries
resources.
156
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
THC IMPACT [BIODIVERSITY]
Even if collapse of THC doesn’t cause Ice age, it will still result in a loss of biodiversity
If the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration leads to a collapse of the Atlantic THC, the
result will not be global cooling. However, there might be regional cooling over and around the North
Atlantic, relative to a hypothetical global-warming scenario with unchanged THC. By itself, this reduced
warming might not be detrimental. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of net cooling over the
North Atlantic if the THC decrease is very fast. Such rapid cooling would exert a large strain on natural and
societal systems. The probability of this occurring is unknown but presumably much smaller than that of
any of the more gradual scenarios included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (Plate
7). The probability is not, however, zero. Obtaining rational estimates of the probability of such a low-
probability/high-impact event is crucial. It is worth remembering that models such as those used in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report consistently underestimate the size and extent of
anomalies associated with past changes of the THC; if the underestimate results from lack of model
sensitivity possibly linked to overly coarse resolution or other shortcomings rather than from improper
specification of forcing, future climate anomalies could be surprisingly large. Even if no net cooling results
from a substantial, abrupt change in the Atlantic THC, the changes in water properties and regional
circulation are expected to be large, with possibly large effects on ecosystems, fisheries, and sea level.
There are no credible scenarios of these consequences, largely because the models showing abrupt change
in the THC have too crude spatial resolution to be used in regional analyses. To develop these scenarios
would require the combination of physical and biological models to investigate the effects on ecosystems,
and the “nesting” of large-scale and coastal models to investigate sea-level change.
157
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
THC IMPACT [STARVATION]
Thermohaline shutdown causes mass starvation

Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University,
winner of the 2006 Crafoord Prize (the ‘Nobel for GeoScience), chairman of the Geochemical Society 28
November 1997 “Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will Man-Made
CO2 Upset the Current Balance?” Science: Vol. 278. no. 5343, pp. 1582 - 1588
Through the record kept in Greenland ice, a disturbing characteristic of the Earth's climate system has been
revealed, that is, its capability to undergo abrupt switches to very different states of operation. I say
"disturbing" because there is surely a possibility that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases might trigger
yet another of these ocean reorganizations and thereby the associated large atmospheric changes. Should
this occur when 11 to 16 billion people occupy our planet, it could lead to widespread starvation, for in
order to feed these masses, it will be necessary to produce two to three times as much food per acre of
arable land than we now do. More problematic perhaps than adapting to the new global climate produced
by such a reorganization will be the flickers in climate that will likely punctuate the several-decade-long
transition period (Fig. 3, right panel).
158
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
THC IMPACT [CORAL]
A THC shut down would devastate coral populations—lowers key temperatures

Circulation,from local (wind-driven upwelling) to global (thermohaline) scales,is
likely to change with global climate. Virtually all coral reefs at high latitudes occur where
boundary currents deliver warm waters from tropical regions (e.g., Bermuda near the Gulf Stream,
Lord Howe Island in the East Australia Current, and the Ryukyus of Japan in the Kuroshio Current).
Changes in the path or strength of these currents would impose different temperature regimes on these
reefs. There has been concern that ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) will shut down in the future
due to changes in ocean temperature and freshwater runoff (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993). Recent
modeling predicts a 0–40 percent slowing of THC within this century, but most models do not predict a
complete shutdown (Gent, 2001). A slowing of THC would lead to significant changes in oceanic
circulation and upwelling patterns that could potentially affect coral reef ecosystems (Vellinga and
Wood, 2002), but how THC will be affected by global climate change remains uncertain (Broecker,
2003).
Reefs are key to marine biodiversity—serves as a biological and structural safeguard

Coral reefs,which support more biodiversity than any other marine ecosystem,also alter water energy
and circulation in many near-shore environments. This shapes other habitats and protects them from
wave impact and coastal erosion. Mangrove systems, for example, often develop in quiet near-shore
environments protected by reefs and are highly productive nurseries for many important marine
species. Loss of reefs as both biological and structural entities would impoverish the marine biota and
potentially reduce the large-scale resilience of tropical and subtropical marine ecosystems.
159
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT KEY
Failure of the North Atlantic Current drops temperature by 18 degrees.

EUROPE is an anomaly. The populous parts of the United States and Canada are mostly between the
latitudes of 30° and 45°, whereas the populous parts of Europe are ten to fifteen degrees farther north.
"Southerly" Rome lies near the same latitude, 42°N, as "northerly" Chicago — and the most northerly
major city in Asia is Beijing, near 40°N. London and Paris are close to the 49°N line that, west of the
Great Lakes, separates the United States from Canada. Berlin is up at 52°, Copenhagen and Moscow at
about 56°. Oslo is nearly at 60°N, as are Stockholm, Helsinki, and St. Petersburg; continue due east and
you'll encounter Anchorage. Europe's climate, obviously, is not like that of North America or Asia at
the same latitudes. For Europe to be as agriculturally productive as it is (it supports more than twice the
population of the United States and Canada), all those cold, dry winds that blow eastward across the
North Atlantic from Canada must somehow be warmed up. The job is done by warm water flowing
north from the tropics, as the eastbound Gulf Stream merges into the North Atlantic Current. This warm
water then flows up the Norwegian coast, with a westward branch warming Greenland's tip, at 60°N. It
keeps northern Europe about nine to eighteen degrees warmer in the winter than comparable latitudes
elsewhere — except when it fails. Then not only Europe but also, to everyone's surprise, the rest of the
world gets chilled. Tropical swamps decrease their production of methane at the same time that Europe
cools, and the Gobi Desert whips much more dust into the air. When this happens something big, with
worldwide connections, must be switching into a new mode of operation. The North Atlantic Current is
certainly something big, with the flow of about a hundred Amazon Rivers. And it sometimes changes
its route dramatically, much as a bus route can be truncated into a shorter loop. Its effects are clearly
global too, inasmuch as it is part of a long "salt conveyor" current that extends through the southern
oceans into the Pacific.
160
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT COLLAPSE CAUSES EXTINCTION
Failure of North Atlantic Current would lead to extinction

I hope never to see a failure of the northernmost loop of the North Atlantic Current, because the result
would be a population crash that would take much of civilization with it, all within a decade. Ways to
postpone such a climatic shift are conceivable, however — old-fashioned dam-and-ditch construction in
critical locations might even work. Although we can't do much about everyday weather, we may
nonetheless be able to stabilize the climate enough to prevent an abrupt cooling.
161
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***S02***
162
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC S02 DA
Sulfur has a absorbing effect on CO2 molecules and decreases global temperatures
William Cotton– Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
“Human Impacts on Weather And Climate, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Press” April 9, 2007
http://icecap.us/docs/change/aerosols.pdf
Clouds, we have seen, are good reflectors of solar radiation and therefore contribute significantly to the net
albedo of the Earth system. We thus ask, how might aerosol particles originating through anthropogenic
activity influence the radiative properties ofclouds and thereby affect climate? First of all, there are
indications that in urban areas aerosols make clouds `dirty' andthereby decrease the albedo of the cloud
aerosol layer and increase the absorptance of the clouds Kondrat'yev et al., 1981. This effect appears to be
quite localized; being restricted to over and immediately downwind of major urban areas, particularly cities
emitting large quantities of black soot particles. Kondrat'yev et al.\ noted that the water samples collected
from the clouds they sampled were actually dark in color. A potentially more important impact of aerosol
on clouds and climate is that they can serve as a source of cloud condensation nuclei CCN and thereby alter
the concentration of cloud droplets. Twomey 1974 first pointed out that increasing pollution results in
greater CCN concentrations and greater numbers of cloud droplets, which, in turn, increase the reflectance
of clouds. Subsequently, Twomey 1977 showed that this effectwas most influential for optically thin
clouds; clouds having shallow depths or littlecolumn integrated liquid water content. Optically thicker
clouds, he argued, are already very bright, and are therefore susceptible to increased absorption by the
presence of dirty aerosol. In Twomey's words: `ìt an increase in global pollution could, at the same time,
make thin clouds brighter and thick clouds darker, the crossover in behavioroccurring at a cloud thickness
which depends on the ratio of absorption to the cube root of drop nucleus concentration. The sign of the net
global effect, warming or cooling,therefore involves both the distribution of cloud thickness and the
relative magnitude ofthe rate of increase of cloud-nucleating particles vis-a-vis particulate
absorption.}"Subsequently, Twomey et al. 1984 presented observational and theoretical evidence indicating
that the absorption effect of aerosols is small and the enhanced albedo effect plays a dominate role on
global climate. They argued that the enhanced cloud albedo has a magnitude comparable to that of
greenhouse warming see Chapter 11 and acts to coolthe atmosphere. Kaufman et al.1991 concluded that
although coal and oil emit 120 times as many CO2 molecules as SO2 molecules, each SO2 molecule is 50-
1100 times as effective in cooling the atmosphere than each CO2 molecule is in warming it. This is by
virtue of the SO2 molecules' contribution to CCN production and enhanced cloud albedo.Twomey suggests
that if the CCN concentration in the cleaner parts of the atmosphere, such as the oceanic regions, were
raised to continental atmospheric values, about 10%more energy would be reflected to space by relatively
thin cloud layers. He also points out that an increase in cloud reflectivity by 10% is of greater consequence
than a similar increase in global cloudiness. This is because while an increase in cloudiness reduces the
incoming solar radiation, it also reduces the outgoing infrared radiation. Thus both cooling and heating
effects occur when global cloudiness increases. In contrast, an increase in cloud reflectance due to
enhanced CCN concentration does not appreciably affect infrared radiation but does reflect more incoming
solar radiation which results in a net cooling effect.
163
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – SO2 CAUSES COOLING
Data has proved that aerosol significantly conceals global warming

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

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

Haze from small particles surely affected climate, but how? Old speculations about the effects of smoke
from volcanoes were brought to mind in the 1960s, when urban smog became a major research topic. Some
tentative evidence suggested that aerosols emitted by human industry and agriculture could change the
weather. A few scientists exclaimed that smoke and dust from human activities would cause a dangerous
global cooling. Or would pollution warm the atmosphere? Theory and data were far too feeble to answer
the question, and few people even tried to address it. Among these few, the uncertainties fueled vigorous
debates, in particular over how adding aerosols might change the planet's cloud cover. Finally, in the late
1970s, powerful computers got to work on the stupefyingly complex calculations, helped by data from
volcanic eruptions. It became clear that overall, human production of aerosols was cooling the atmosphere.
Pollution was significantly delaying, and concealing, the coming of greenhouse effect warming.
164
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Switch to alternative energy means dimming won’t offsets global warming

David Sington (studied natural science at Cambridge, works for BBC, awarded the
Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism, In 2000, he was made an
Honorary member of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 1/13/ 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm, “Why the sun seems to be
dimming”).
But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate
the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's
atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra
energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius. This has led many scientists to
conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say,
during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius. But it now
appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in
effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be
more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought. If so, then this is bad news, according to
Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to
rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last
being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is
dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. "That means we'll get reducing cooling and
increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox. Even the most pessimistic
forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature
rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa,
and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.
165
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Experts believe aerosol leads to net cooling

Later, beginning around 2002, climatologists were surprised by evidence that hazes were having an
even bigger effect than they had supposed. As far back as 1989, Atsumu Ohmura in Switzerland had
published evidence that sunlight had been growing dimmer throughout the 20th century. Ohmura’s
work had attracted scarcely any attention, even though some computer modellers had begun to worry
that their models did not seem to include enough aerosol absorption. Now evidence turned up by other
scientists convinced many experts that the Northern Hemisphere, at least, had seen a dimming of 10
percent or more — much more than the experts had thought, indeed probably great enough to affect
agriculture. Aerosol pollution was the only plausible cause. "There could be a big gorilla sitting on the
dining table, and we didn't know about it," Ramanathan admitted in 2004. Many aerosol specialists
now suspected that they had seriously underestimated how strongly greenhouse warming had been held
back by the cooling effect of aerosols. If so, then temperatures would now rise more sharply. For the
"global dimming" trend was not really global but regional, and during the 1980s it had reversed in many
regions. Nobody could explain why this had happened. Perhaps one cause was the pollution controls
imposed by some nations, which had certainly been reducing sulfates. The way these sulfates and other
aerosols had previously kept some sunlight from reaching the surface had given the world "a false sense
of security" about global warming, the respected atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen warned in 2003.
Whatever was happening, it was more obvious than ever that the world urgently needed better
measurements of aerosols, and better models for how they blocked sunlight.(93a*) = Milestone Large
uncertainties also remained in figuring how aerosols interacted with gases, and above all with water
vapor (the main "indirect effect”"or "Twomey effect"). Questions were raised once again by detailed
observations that confirmed the speculation that had first started scientists worrying back in the 1960s
— cirrus clouds did grow from jet contrails, visibly influencing the climate in regions beneath heavily
traveled air routes.(94*) Experts published widely divergent models for the formation of such clouds
and their absorption of radiation. Controversial measurements published in 1995 claimed that clouds
absorbed much more radiation than the conventional estimates said, raising a specter of "missing
physics." As one researcher complained, "The complexity of this problem seems to grow with each new
study." It was reasonable to expect that improvements in theoretical models and measuring techniques
would eventually lead to a reconciliation (indeed within the next decade theory and observations would
largely converge), but meanwhile, Ramanathan admitted, "If I wake up with a nightmare, it is the
indirect aerosol effect." And this effect was only one of several areas where new studies kept showing
that, as Ramanathan and a colleague remarked, people were still "in the early stages of understanding
the effects" of aerosols.(95*) This persistent ignorance about aerosols — their direct and indirect
effects, and even their concentrations — was the largest single obstacle to attempts to predict future
climate, especially for a given region. Funding agencies accordingly pushed vigorous and costly efforts
to measure aerosol effects, and significant results accumulated in the early 21st century. Yet different
computer models still gave substantially different results, and if some issues were settled, new puzzles
appeared in theoretical papers or field studies to provoke new controversies. Nevertheless, most experts
felt that they could at least fix a rough range for the gross global consequences. They grew increasingly
certain that the sum of human aerosol emissions had a net cooling influence, at least in most parts of the
world. Estimates of the magnitude of the cooling (both directly, and indirectly through clouds) ranged
from fairly small to quite strong. Pollution was delaying the appearance of greenhouse warming in
some industrialized regions and perhaps everywhere. As greenhouse gas emissions continued to
accumulate, few doubted that the warming would soon leap past any possible aerosol cooling
effects.
166
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Aerosols have the capability to balance our CO2

Judith White, 7-16-2001, Professor at Texas A&M University,
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/tau-aph071601.php
Sure, air pollution is bad, but new research indicates that a limited amount of aerosol pollutants in the
air could partially counteract global warming, at least on a local scale.
Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Don Collins has received grants from NASA
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to design instruments to measure the impacts of aerosol
pollution on climate. Collins will use funds from the three-year NASA grant to develop an aircraft-
mounted device to study the interaction of aerosols with light, while the five-year NSF grant money will
go toward an instrument to determine exactly which particles will form droplets in clouds. "Aerosols
are man-made chemical particles that accumulate in our atmosphere," said Collins, who teaches and
conducts research in the College of Geosciences' Department of Atmospheric Sciences. "Aerosols are
the primary cause of the haze over a city on a polluted day. Certain aerosol particles can absorb
sunlight, while others scatter or reflect light. Increased concentrations of particles can also modify
clouds, which causes more energy to be reflected back into space." "As the atmosphere becomes more
polluted by man's activities, more sunlight may be reflected back into space, leading to a cooling effect
on Earth's climate," Collins said. "Although this cooling won't be enough to offset global warming over
the entire Earth, it will compete with warming effects on a small scale."
Aerosols counteract at least 75% of CO2 effects

WorldNetDaily.com, 6-10-03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32992
It turns out there's a silver lining to the cloud of smog that drapes large cities around the world, as an
international team of atmospheric scientists conclude pollution protects the planet from "global
warming." The revelation, reported by New Scientist, came out of a workshop in Dahlem, Berlin,
earlier this month that was attended by the likes of Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and Swedish
meteorologist Bert Bolin, the former chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, or IPCC. "It looks like the warming today may be only about a quarter of what we
would have got without aerosols," Crutzen told New Scientist. "You could say the cooling has done us a
big favor." The IPCC and other proponents of global warming believe the past century of human
economic activities – especially the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal – have vastly increased
the amount of carbon dioxide, which traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Proponents say this
acceleration of the "greenhouse effect," has caused an estimated increase in the Earth's temperature of
0.6 degrees Celsius. Using computer models, the IPCC predicts this global warming could amount to an
increase in the earth's average temperature by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next century. The panel
has warned the long term consequences of this warming range from warmer winters and hotter summers
to the melting of the polar icecaps and a rise in mean sea level that will inundate coastal cities and cause
devastating droughts, floods, violent storms and spark outbreaks of cholera and malaria. According to
New Scientist, IPCC scientists have long suspected aerosols, particles from burning rainforests, crop
waste and fossil fuels that block sunlight counteract the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions by
about 25 percent. Now the news out of the Berlin workshop is the aerosols thwart 75 percent of the
warming effect. That would mean they prevented the planet from becoming almost two degrees warmer
than it is now. Scientists examined direct measurements of the cooling effect of aerosols reported in the
May issue of Science by Theodore Anderson of the University of Washington in Seattle. Earlier
calculations only had been inferred from "missing" global warming predicted by climate models.
167
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Reductions of Aerosols have lead to full fledged global warming effects

In recent years, there has been significant reduction in particulate pollution, especially in the developed
world. The outcome has been partly due to replacement of old industrial plant by newer, more efficient
technology, but there has also been considerable public pressure on political decision-makers to ‘clean
up’ the air. Enforcement of tough emission controls requires technological progress, and can even lead
to job creation, so that particulate pollution control measures have been easy for the public to accept.
On the other hand, reduction of GHGs is a long-term goal (longer than the period between elections!)
and success will entail significant behaviour modification by luxury-loving consumers in the developed
world, an unattractive prospect for political decision-makers. It is therefore possible that well-meaning
efforts in reducing visible atmospheric pollution such as aerosols will allow the full global warming
impact of greenhouse gas emissions to be felt.
Aerosols counteract global warming but when reduced, global warming accelerates.
Christian Ruckstuhl, May 2008, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich,
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0812/2008GL034228/
A strong reduction in anthropogenic aerosol concentrations since the 1980s is not surprising given the
tremendous efforts made to cut air pollutant emissions. In its recent 25 year report entitled “Clearing the
Air”, Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) [2004] reported a 60% reduction in annual
SO2 emissions in Europe from 1986 to 2000. Concentrations measured at rural sites in Switzerland and
Germany [European Monitoring Evaluation Programme, 2004] show that amongst other gases and
particles, SO2 decreased by 80 to 90 % mainly during the first part of the 1990s. But LRTAP also
reported a strong increase in SO2 emissions before 1980. These facts and our measurements, as well as
recent reports on aerosol reduction over western continents [Streets et al., 2006] and the oceans
[Mishchenko et al., 2007] show that solar dimming and the subsequent brightening – or rather solar
recovery – is very likely related to changes in anthropogenic aerosols. With respect to the temperature
evolution in central Europe, increasing aerosols were apparently effective in masking greenhouse
warming after the 1950s [Wild et al., 2007], whereas the observed direct solar forcing due to the strong
aerosol decline since the mid-1980s has reinforced greenhouse warming, although the reduction of
absorbing aerosols (such as black carbon) might have dampened the reinforcement. [18] Our analyses
show that AOD in the lower troposphere over mainland Europe has drastically decreased since 1986,
and it is virtually certain that this is due to the strong reduction in anthropogenic aerosol emissions.
MODTRAN™ simulations have adequately confirmed the relationship between decreasing AOD and
increasing SDRcf [Ruckstuhl, 2008]. Surface radiation measurements show that solar brightening is
more related to direct aerosol effects under cloud-free skies than to indirect aerosol cloud effects. The
fact that indirect aerosol cloud effects remain small despite the 60% decline in aerosol concentrations is
very surprising. However, it is possible that part of the cloud mediated aerosol effect has been
compensated by increasing cloudiness due to changing large-scale atmospheric circulation. With
respect to the impact on climate or surface temperature, the forcing due to the direct aerosol effect
under cloud-free skies is about five times larger than the total net forcing TNR cloud due to changing
cloudiness, which to a large part is compensated by longwave cloud effects and results in a week
climate forcing of Overall, the aerosol and cloud induced radiative surface climate forcing over
mainland Europe has since the 1980s, and has very likely strongly contributed to the recent rapid
warming in Europe.
168
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Aerosols create more, reflective cloud cover

But that is not all. Aerosols provide the condensation nuclei for most cloud droplets and studies have
shown that aerosols of human origin increase the density of cloud droplets, but result in smaller-sized
droplets. The small cloud droplets do not form into raindrops as readily as do the larger natural droplets.
Studies comparing clouds over pollution tracks with adjacent less-polluted zones have shown that
clouds in both zones were of similar size and contained similar amounts of water, but average droplet
size in the polluted clouds was much smaller; when precipitation was observed outside pollution tracks,
there was lower or nil precipitation within them (Ramanathan, et al, 2001). It is also true that clouds of
smaller droplets have higher albedo or reflectivity, leading to further reductions in global irradiance.
169
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: SO2 HURTS PLANTS
Global dimming increases photosynthesis leading to healthier plants

David Adam, (“Goodbye Sunshine,” staff writer for the Gaurdian, Farquhar
(mentioned in article) is a climate scientist at the Australian National University in
Canberra, Dec 18, 2003,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/18/science.research1).
More importantly, what impact could global dimming have? If the effect continues then it's certainly bad
news for solar power, as darker, cloudier skies will reduce its meagre efficiency still further. The effect on
photosynthesis, and so on plant and tree growth, is more complicated and will probably be different in
various parts of the world. In equatorial regions and parts of the southern hemisphere regularly flooded
with light, photosynthesis is likely to be limited by carbon dioxide or water, not sunshine, and light levels
would have to fall much further to force a change. In fact, in some cases photosynthesis could
paradoxically increase slightly with global dimming as the broken, diffuse light that emerges from clouds
can penetrate deep into forest canopies more easily than direct beams of sunlight from a clear blue sky.
Aerosols cause plants to take in more CO2

The impact of global dimming on agriculture is largely via photosynthesis and the principal limitation
on this process in full sunlight is the concentration of CO2. Most plant canopies usually consist of
several leaf layers in which the incoming solar radiation decreases exponentially from layer to layer;
therefore low light levels at which photosynthesis is light-limited are common within crop canopies.
However, shade within vegetation canopies is greatly reduced on cloudy and/or very hazy days,
compared to clear sunny days. On sunny days the rays of the sun shine directly on the plants, but when
it is hazy or cloudy much or all of the incoming radiation is bounced off cloud droplets or atmospheric
particles, forming what is called the diffuse fraction of solar radiance. Vegetation is sensitive to changes
in the diffuse fraction, and Roderick et al (2001) concluded that an unexpected decline in atmospheric
CO2 observed following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 was, at least in art, caused by increased
vegetation uptake of CO2 as a response to enhancement of the diffuse fraction by volcanic aerosols.
Because aerosols in the atmosphere increase the diffuse fraction, it may seem that they would help to
enhance plant productivity, but light is not the only limiting factor: there is also water.
170
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***AFF AT: SO2 DA***
171
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: SO2 SOLVES WARMING
Global dimming already killed hundreds of thousands and may kill billions more- causes droughts
David Sington (studied natural science at Cambridge, works for BBC, awarded the
Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism, In 2000, he was made an
Honorary member of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 1/13/ 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm, “Why the sun seems to be
dimming”).
Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be
disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts
in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s. There are
disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population. "My
main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor
Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California,
San Diego. "We are talking about billions of people."
172
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Global dimming prevents adequate rainfall- has led to millions of deaths and starvation
Horizon (BBC program- “Global Dimming,” Jan 15, 2005, PROF
VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: Professor of Applied Ocean Sciences,
Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Director, Center for
Clouds, Chemistry & Climate (C4), Chief Scientist, Central Equatorial Pacific
Experiment,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml).
RAMANATHAN: Basically the Global Dimming we saw in the North Indian Ocean, it was contributed
on the one hand by the particles themselves shielding the ocean from the sunlight, on the other hand
making the clouds brighter. So this insidious soup, consisting of soot, sulphates, nitrates, ash and what
have you, was having a double whammy on the Global Dimming. NARRATOR: And when he looked
at satellite images, Ramanathan found the same thing was happening all over the world. Over India.
Over China, and extending into the Pacific. Over Western Europe... extending into Africa. Over the
British Isles. But it was when scientists started to investigate the effects of Global Dimming that they
made the most disturbing discovery of all. Those more reflective clouds could alter the pattern of the
world's rainfall. With tragic consequences. NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER:
Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a
biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers here is the closest thing to hell on
earth. NARRATOR: The 1984 Ethiopian famine shocked the world. It was partly caused by a decade's
long drought right across sub-Saharan Africa - a region known as the Sahel. For year after year the
summer rains failed. At the time some scientists blamed overgrazing and poor land management. But
now there's evidence that the real culprit was Global Dimming. The Sahel's lifeblood has always been a
seasonal monsoon. For most of the year it is completely dry. But every summer, the heat of the sun
warms the oceans north of the equator. This draws the rain belt that forms over the equator northwards,
bringing rain to the Sahel. But for twenty years in the 1970s and 80s the tropical rain belt consistently
failed to shift northwards - and the African monsoon failed. For climate scientists like Leon Rotstayn
the disappearance of the rains had long been a puzzle. He could see that pollution from Europe and
North America blew right across the Atlantic, but all the climate models suggested it should have little
effect on the monsoon. But then Rotstayn decided to find out what would happen if he took the Maldive
findings into account. DR LEON ROTSTAYN (CSIRO Atmospheric Research): What we found in our
model was that when we allowed the pollution from Europe and North America to affect the properties
of the clouds in the northern hemisphere the clouds reflected more sunlight back to space and this
cooled the oceans of the northern hemisphere. And to our surprise the result of this was that the tropical
rain bands moved southwards tracking away from the more polluted northern hemisphere towards the
southern hemisphere. NARRATOR: Polluted clouds stopped the heat of the sun getting through. That
heat was needed to draw the tropical rains northwards. So the life giving rain belt never made it to the
Sahel. DR LEON ROTSTAYN: So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in
the 1970s and the 1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting
the properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere. NARRATOR: Rotstayn
has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what
came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa,
and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store.
PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The Sahel is just one example of the monsoon system.
Let me take you to anther part of the world. Asia, where the same monsoon brings rainfall to three point
six billion people, roughly half the world's population. My main concern is this air pollution and the
Global Dimming will also have a detrimental impact on this Asian monsoon. We are not talking about
few millions of people we are talking about few billions of people. NARRATOR: For Ramanathan the
implications are clear. PROF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: There is no choice here we have
to cut down air pollution, if not eliminate it altogether.
173
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
SO2 cooling can’t keep up with global warming

Kaufman, Y.J et al (USRA resident scientist at NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, 1991, “Fossil
Fuel and Biomass Burning Effect on Climate—Heating or Cooling?” Journal of Climate, 4, 578–588,
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-
0442(1991)004%3C0578%3AFFABBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1).
Emission from burning offossil fuels and biomass (associated with deforestation) generates a radiative
forcing on the atmosphere and a possible climate change. Emitted trace gases heat the atmosphere
through their greenhouse effect, while particulates formed from emitted S02 cause cooling by
increasing cloud albedos through alteration of droplet size distributions. This paper reviews the
characteristics of the cooling effect and applies Twomey's theory to check whether the radiative balance
favors heating or cooling for the cases of fossil fuel and biomass burning. It is also shown that although
coal and oil emit 120 times as many CO2 molecules as S02 molecules, each S02 molecule is 50-1 100
times more effective in cooling the atmosphere (through the effect of aerosol particles on cloud albedo)
than a CO2 molecule is in heating it. Note that this ratio accounts for the large difference in the aerosol
(3-10 days) and CO2 (7-100 years) lifetimes. It is concluded, that the cooling effect from coal and oil
burning may presently range from 0.4 to 8 times the heating effect. Within this large uncertainty, it is
presently more likely that fossil fuel burning causes cooling of the atmosphere rather than heating.
Biomass burning associated with deforestation, on the other hand, is more likely to cause heating of the
atmosphere than cooling since its aerosol cooling effect is only half that from fossil fuel burning and its
heating effect is twice as large. Future increases in coal and oil burning, and the resultant increase in
concentration of cloud condensation nuclei, may saturate the cooling effect, allowing the heating effect
to dominate. For a doubling in the CO2 concentration due to fossil fuel burning, the cooling effect is
expected to be 0.1 to 0.3 of the heating effect.
174
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
SO2 HURTS OZONE
Aerosols destruct the ozone furthering global warming

NASA Facts Online (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html, August 1996)
Aerosols also can act as sites for chemical reactions to take place (heterogeneous chemistry). The most
significant of these reactions are those that lead to the destruction of stratospheric ozone. During winter
in the polar regions, aerosols grow to form polar stratospheric clouds. The large surface areas of these
cloud particles provide sites for chemical reactions to take place. These reactions lead to the formation
of large amounts of reactive chlorine and, ultimately, to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere.
Evidence now exists that shows similar changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations occur after major
volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, where tons of volcanic aerosols are blown into the
atmosphere (Fig. 1).
175
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
SO2 CAUSES ACID RAIN
SO2 and NO causes acid rain harming the environment and even causing death
US EPA (2007, http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/peg/acidrain.html, “Reducing Acid Rain: Plain English Guide
to the Clean Air Act”).
You have probably heard of "acid rain." But you may not have heard of other forms of acid
precipitation such as acid snow, acid fog or mist, or dry forms of acidic pollution such as acid gas and
acid dust. All of these can be formed in the atmosphere and fall to Earth causing human health
problems, hazy skies, environmental problems and property damage. Acid precipitation is produced
when certain types of air pollutants mix with the moisture in the air to form an acid. These acids then
fall to Earth as rain, snow, or fog. Even when the weather is dry, acid pollutants may fall to Earth in
gases or particles. How Acid Rain is Formed Burning fuels release acid pollutants. These pollutants are
carried far from their sources by wind. Depending on the weather, the acid pollutants fall to Earth in
wet form (acid rain, snow, mist or fog) or in dry form (acid gases or dusts). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the principal pollutants that cause acid precipitation. SO2 and NOx
emissions released to the air react with water vapor and other chemicals to form acids that fall back to
Earth. Power plants burning coal and heavy oil produce over two-thirds of the annual SO2 emissions in
the United States. The majority of NOx (about 50 percent) comes from cars, buses, trucks, and other
forms of transportation. About 40 percent of NOx emissions are from power plants. The rest is emitted
from various sources like industrial and commercial boilers. Heavy rainstorms and melting snow can
cause temporary increases in acidity in lakes and streams, primarily in the eastern United States. The
temporary increases may last for days or even weeks, causing harm to fish and other aquatic life. The
air pollutants that cause acid rain can do more than damage the environment-they can damage our
health. High levels of SO2 in the air aggravate various lung problems in people with asthma and can
cause breathing difficulties in children and the elderly. In some instances, breathing high levels of SO2
can even damage lung tissue and cause premature death.
176
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
IMPACT ACID RAIN [FORESTS]
Acid Rain seriously harms forests, even killing them

USEPA (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html, “Effects of Acid Rain- Forests,” June 8th
2007).
Over the years, scientists, foresters, and others have noted a slowed growth of some forests. Leaves and
needles turn brown and fall off when they should be green and healthy. In extreme cases, individual
trees or entire areas of the forest simply die off without an obvious reason. After much analysis,
researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth, injury, or death of forests. Acid rain has
been implicated in forest and soil degradation in many areas of the eastern U.S., particularly high
elevation forests of the Appalachian Mountains from Maine to Georgia that include areas such as the
Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountain National Parks. Of course, acid rain is not the only cause of
such conditions. Other factors contribute to the overall stress of these areas, including air pollutants,
insects, disease, drought, or very cold weather. In most cases, in fact, the impacts of acid rain on trees
are due to the combined effects of acid rain and these other environmental stressors. After many years
of collecting information on the chemistry and biology of forests, researchers are beginning to
understand how acid rain works on the forest soil, trees, and other plants. Acid Rain on the Forest Floor
A spring shower in the forest washes leaves and falls through the trees to the forest floor below. Some
trickles over the ground and runs into streams, rivers, or lakes, and some of the water soaks into the soil.
That soil may neutralize some or all of the acidity of the acid rainwater. This ability is called buffering
capacity, and without it, soils become more acidic. Differences in soil buffering capacity are an
important reason why some areas that receive acid rain show a lot of damage, while other areas that
receive about the same amount of acid rain do not appear to be harmed at all. The ability of forest soils
to resist, or buffer, acidity depends on the thickness and composition of the soil, as well as the type of
bedrock beneath the forest floor. Midwestern states like Nebraska and Indiana have soils that are well
buffered. Places in the mountainous northeast, like New York's Adirondack and Catskill Mountains,
have thin soils with low buffering capacity. How Acid Rain Harms Trees Acid rain does not usually
kill trees directly. Instead, it is more likely to weaken trees by damaging their leaves, limiting the
nutrients available to them, or exposing them to toxic substances slowly released from the soil. Quite
often, injury or death of trees is a result of these effects of acid rain in combination with one or more
additional threats. Scientists know that acidic water dissolves the nutrients and helpful minerals in the
soil and then washes them away before trees and other plants can use them to grow. At the same time,
acid rain causes the release of substances that are toxic to trees and plants, such as aluminum, into the
soil. Scientists believe that this combination of loss of soil nutrients and increase of toxic aluminum
may be one way that acid rain harms trees. Such substances also wash away in the runoff and are
carried into streams, rivers, and lakes. More of these substances are released from the soil when the
rainfall is more acidic. However, trees can be damaged by acid rain even if the soil is well buffered.
Forests in high mountain regions often are exposed to greater amounts of acid than other forests
because they tend to be surrounded by acidic clouds and fog that are more acidic than rainfall. Scientists
believe that when leaves are frequently bathed in this acid fog, essential nutrients in their leaves and
needles are stripped away. This loss of nutrients in their foliage makes trees more susceptible to damage
by other environmental factors, particularly cold winter weather.
177
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***C02***
178
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC C02 AG DA
A. Unique Link – C02 is the lifeblood of plants – it increases their water use efficiency, enhances
stomatas, allows for plants and animals to live in uninhabitable places, prevents soil erosion,
solves all sorts of environmental stress, and solves worldwide starvation
All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 37]
9/10/03
In a broad review of the scientific literature, Idso (2001) describes a number of biological consequences of
elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The best known of these important impacts is probably CO2's
aerial fertilization effect, which works its wonders on plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical
pathways of photosynthesis (C3, C4 and CAM). In the case of herbaceous plants, this phenomenon
typically boosts their productivities by about a third in response to a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2
content, while it enhances the growth of woody plants by 50% or more (see our website's Plant Growth
Data section). Next comes plant water use efficiency, which may be defined as the amount of organic
matter produced per unit of water transpired to the atmosphere. This parameter is directly enhanced by
the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, as well as by its anti-transpirant effect, which
is produced by CO2-induced decreases in the number density and degree of openness of leaf stomatal
apertures that occur at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here, too, CO2-induced percentage
increases as large as, or even larger than, those exhibited by plant productivity are commonplace. One of
the important ramifications of this CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency is the fact that it
enables plants to grow and reproduce in areas that were previously too dry for them. With consequent
increases in ground cover in these regions, the adverse effects of wind- and water-induced soil erosion are
also reduced. Hence, there is a tendency for desertification to be reversed and for vast tracts of previously
unproductive land to become supportive of more abundant animal life, both above- and below-ground, in
what could appropriately be called a "greening of the earth." In addition to helping vegetation overcome the
stress of limited water supplies, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 help plants to better cope with other
environmental stresses, such as low soil fertility, low light intensity, high soil and water salinity, high air
temperature, various oxidative stresses and the stress of herbivory. When confronted with the specter of
global warming, for example, many experiments have revealed that concomitant enrichment of the air with
CO2 tends to increase the temperature at which plants function at their optimum, often making them even
better suited to the warmer environment than they were to the cooler environment to which they were
originally adapted. Under the most stressful of such conditions, in fact, extra CO2 sometimes is the
deciding factor in determining whether a plant lives or dies. These benefits of atmospheric CO2
enrichment apply to both agricultural and natural ecosystems; and as Wittwer (1995) has noted, "the rising
level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food
production and total biological output in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water,
energy, minerals, and fertilizer." This phenomenon is thus a means, he says, "of inadvertently increasing
the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active ecosystems," and that "the effects
know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally."
179
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
1NC C02 AG DA
B. Impacts –
1. Decrease in crops yields cause resource wars, mass starvation, atrocity, and World War III.
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some
powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies,
unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized
countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with
significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to
accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide
problem — and could easily lead to a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to
analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its
own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic. There is another
part of the world with the same good soil, within the same latitudinal band, which we can use for a quick
comparison. Canada lacks Europe's winter warmth and rainfall, because it has no equivalent of the North
Atlantic Current to preheat its eastbound weather systems. Canada's agriculture supports about 28 million
people. If Europe had weather like Canada's, it could feed only one out of twenty-three present-day
Europeans. Any abrupt switch in climate would also disrupt food-supply routes. The only reason that two
percent of our population can feed the other 98 percent is that we have a well-developed system of
transportation and middlemen — but it is not very robust. The system allows for large urban populations in
the best of times, but not in the case of widespread disruptions. Natural disasters such as hurricanes and
earthquakes are less troubling than abrupt coolings for two reasons: they're short (the recovery period starts
the next day) and they're local or regional (unaffected citizens can help the overwhelmed). There is,
increasingly, international cooperation in response to catastrophe — but no country is going to be able to
rely on a stored agricultural surplus for even a year, and any country will be reluctant to give away part of
its surplus. In an abrupt cooling the problem would get worse for decades, and much of the earth would be
affected. A meteor strike that killed most of the population in a month would not be as serious as an abrupt
cooling that eventually killed just as many. With the population crash spread out over a decade, there would
be ample opportunity for civilization's institutions to be torn apart and for hatreds to build, as armies tried
to grab remaining resources simply to feed the people in their own countries. The effects of an abrupt cold
last for centuries. They might not be the end of Homo sapiens — written knowledge and elementary
education might well endure — but the world after such a population crash would certainly be full of
despotic governments that hated their neighbors because of recent atrocities. Recovery would be very slow.
A slightly exaggerated version of our present know-something-do-nothing state of affairs is know-nothing-
do-nothing: a reduction in science-as-usual, further limiting our chances of discovering a way out. History
is full of withdrawals from knowledge-seeking, whether for reasons of fundamentalism, fatalism, or
"government lite" economics. This scenario does not require that the shortsighted be in charge, only that
they have enough influence to put the relevant science agencies on starvation budgets and to send
recommendations back for yet another commission report due five years hence.
2. C02 increases the ability of plants to act as sinks which solves warming
10/15/03
In light of these observations, plus the fact that Saxe et al. (1998) have determined that a doubling of the
air's CO2 content leads to more than a doubling of the biomass production of coniferous species, it
logically follows that the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is increasing carbon
sequestration rates in the soils upon which conifers grow and, hence, is producing a significant negative
feedback phenomenon that slows the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, which would be assumed by
many to be reducing the rate of global warming.
180
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [GENERAL]

CO2 can double international crop yields while counter acting the negative effects of pollutants
CO2 science magazine, staff writer, October 2001, [“Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could
Dramatically Increase Agricultural Production by Thwarting the Adverse Effects of Ozone Pollution,
www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n43edit.htm // e.berggren]
In a recent study of the effects of ozone pollution in the Punjab region of Pakistan, Wahid et al. (2001)
periodically applied a powerful ozone protectant to soybean plants growing in three different locations
in the general vicinity of the city of Lahore - a suburban site, a remote rural site, and a rural roadside
site - throughout two different growing seasons (one immediately post-monsoon and one the
following spring or pre-monsoon). The results were truly astounding. At the suburban site,
application of the ozone protectant increased the weight of seeds produced per plant by 47% in the
post-monsoon season and by 113% in the pre-monsoon season. At the remote rural site, the
corresponding yield increases were 94% and 182%; and at the rural roadside site, they were
170% and 285%. Averaged across all three sites and both seasons of the year, the mean increase in
yield caused by countering the deleterious effects of this one major air pollutant was nearly 150%.
Due to their somewhat surprising finding that "the impacts of ozone on the yield of soybean are larger
in the rural areas around Lahore than in suburban areas of the city," the authors concluded "there may
be substantial impacts of oxidants on crop yield across large areas of the Punjab." In addition, they
noted that earlier studies had revealed similar large ozone-induced losses in the productivity of local
cultivars of wheat and rice. Hence, it is clear that whatever could be done to reduce these massive
crop losses - or, ideally, eliminate them altogether - would be a godsend to the people of Pakistan and
the inhabitants of many other areas of the globe. Fortunately, such a savior is silently working its
wonders throughout the entire world. That of which we speak, of course, is the ongoing rise in the
air's CO2 content, which counteracts the negative effects of ozone - and those of many other air
pollutants (Allen, 1990; Idso and Idso, 1994) - by restricting the noxious molecule's entry into plant
leaves via induced reduction of leaf stomatal apertures (Reid and Fiscus, 1998), and by ameliorating
its adverse biochemical activities when it does penetrate vegetative tissues (Reid et al., 1998). In a
number of studies of these beneficial consequences of atmospheric CO2 enrichment for the crop
studied by Wahid et al., i.e., soybeans, it has been found that a nominal doubling of the air's CO2
concentration is sufficient to greatly reduce - and in some cases completely eliminate - the yield-
reducing effects of ozone pollution (Heagle et al., 1998a and 1998b; Miller et al., 1998; Reid and
Fiscus, 1998; Reid et al., 1998). The same conclusion follows from the results of several studies that
have looked at wheat in this regard (Heagle et al., 2000; McKee et al., 2000; Pleijel et al., 2000;
Tiedemann and Firsching, 2000). In fact, the work of Volin et al. (1998) suggests that these CO2-
induced benefits will likely be experienced by all plants. As the researchers directly state in the title
of their paper: "species respond similarly regardless of photosynthetic pathway or plant functional
group." Think about the implications of these findings. A doubling of the air's CO2 content could
well double agricultural production in many areas of the world by merely eliminating the adverse
effects of but one air pollutant, i.e., ozone. Then, consider the fact that by the mid-point of the current
century, we will likely face a food production crisis of unimaginable proportions (see our Editorials of
21 February 2001 and 13 June 2001). Finally, ask yourself what the Precautionary Principle has to
say about this state of affairs (see our Editorial of 4 July 2001). We conducted such an exercise in our
review of the paper of Hudak et al. (1999), concluding that perhaps our new mantra should be: Free
the Biosphere! Let the air's CO2 content rise. And we still feel that way. CO2 is the elixir of life.
It is one of the primary raw materials - the other being water - out of which plants construct their
tissues; and it is essential to their existence and our existence. Without more of it in the air, our
species - as well as most of the rest of the planet's animal life - will not survive the 21st century intact.
The biosphere will continue to exist, but not as we know it; for most of its wild diversity of life will
have been extinguished by mankind's mad rush to appropriate ever more land and water to grow the
food required to feed itself (Tilman et al., 2001).
181
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC

Unchecked CO2 emissions will be barely suffiecent to meet the growing food demand
Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President of CO2 science magazine and climatologist, 7-4-01, [“Carbon Dioxide
and Global Environmental Change: The Proper Roles of Reason and Religion in Developing Policies
Related to Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htm
//e.berggren]
So what extra measures could humanity take to meet this "greatest global challenge?" This is the
question Idso and Idso (2000) address, concluding that if the air’s CO2 concentration is allowed to
rise unimpeded by overt actions designed to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the extra plant
productivity provided by the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be just
barely sufficient to make up for the shortfall in agricultural production that would still remain fifty
years from now in spite of everything else man could possibly do to increase the global supply of
food.
CO2 increase agricultural production – fertalizes plants, lengthens growing seasons, and increases
precipitaion – decreasing food prices
Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution/ Standford University, 9-8-00, [Prepared for for
the conference on global climate change, “It is the best of Climates; It will be the worst of Climates?”,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/ClEffects.pdf //e.berggren]
In many parts of the world, warmer weather should mean longer growing seasons. Should the world
warm, the hotter climate would enhance evaporation from the seas and lead probably to more
precipitation worldwide. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 would fertilize
plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of
higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia,
Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields but also that the
added boost from enriched CO2 fertilization would enhance output by 15 percent (NCPO 1989). The
United States Department of Agriculture in a cautious report reviewed the likely influence of global
warming and concluded that the overall effect on world food production would be slightly positive
and that agricultural prices would be likely to decrease.
182
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC

CO2 enrichment stimulates plants to grow faster and bigger producing larger yields.
Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President of CO2 science magazine and climatologist, 7-4-01, [“Carbon Dioxide
and Global Environmental Change: The Proper Roles of Reason and Religion in Developing Policies
Related to Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htm
//e.berggren]
With respect to plant life, we encounter a somewhat different situation: we need not worry about any
direct deleterious effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, for there are none! Right from the very
first whiff of extra CO2, nearly all of earth’s plants respond by doing everything they do better than
they do under current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They typically grow bigger and faster,
producing more and larger leaves, more and larger roots, more and larger flowers, more and larger
seeds, grains and fruit, and on and on, as is demonstrated by the many biological Journal Reviews
posted on our web site that describe direct experimental investigations of these subjects. In addition,
there are literally thousands – and that is no exaggeration – of other such studies not highlighted on
our web site that show the very same things. These facts have become so well established over the
past several decades that many scientists are now directing their attention to investigating the
propensity for atmospheric CO2 enrichment to not only induce plants to produce more biomass, but to
promote the production of greater concentrations of health-promoting and medicinal substances
within that biomass, as noted in our reviews of the papers of Idso et al. (2000) and Idso and Idso
(2001). This effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment could well provide a number of health benefits to
humans and animals alike, as the foods they eat become more nutritious and provide greater
protection against a number of degenerative diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and
immune system decline. In fact, it is possible that the people of the earth and its animal life may
already be benefiting from these potential CO2-induced improvements in their diets, as noted in our
editorial of 20 June 2001.
Doubling CO2 would boost agriculture growth by over 50%

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

Thomas Gale Moore, ]Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution/ Standford University, no month 1998, Climate
of fear pg. 114// e.berggren]
As Professors Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza put it (1984, 16), ‘‘One of the few variables that would seem
to be shared is timing: early experiments at plant domestication occurred in southwest Asia, east Asia, and
Central America during the period between 8000 B.C. and 5500 B.C.’’ The coincidence of the invention of
agriculture with a general warming of the climate, an increase in rainfall, and a rise in carbon dioxide
levels, all of which would have made plant growth more vigorous and more plentiful, cannot be accidental.
183
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
Warming increases agricultural outputs

IPCC , Habiba Gitay(reporter) et al. Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Working
Group II: Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation, Chapter 5: Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services,
http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg2/216.htm //e.berggren]
Is there an amount of climate change to which the global food production system can adapt with little
harm but beyond which it is likely to impose serious hardship? An answer can be sketched only with
very low confidence at this time because of the combination of uncertainties noted above. As noted in
Section 5.3.2, prices are the best indicator of the balance between global food supply and demand.
They determine the access of a majority of the world's populations to an adequate diet. Two of three
global studies reviewed here project that real agricultural output prices will decline with a mean
global temperature increase of as much as 2.5 degrees C, especially if accompanied by modest
increase in precipitation. Another study (Parry et al, 1999) projects that output prices will rise with or
without climate change, and even a global mean temperature increase of -1degree C (projected by
2020) causes prices to rise relative to the case with no climate change. When studies from the SAR
are included with these more recent ones, there is general agreement that a mean global temperature
rise of more than 2.5 degrees C could increase prices (Reilly et al, 1996; Adams et al, 1998; Parry et
al, 1999), with one exception (Darwin et al, 1995). Thus with very low confidence, it is concluded
from these studies that a global temperature rise of greater than 2.5 degrees C is likely to exceed the
capacity of the global food production system to adapt without price increases. However, results are
too mixed to support a defensible conclusion regarding the vulnerability of the global balance of
agricultural supply and demand to smaller amounts of warming than 2.5 degrees C.
CO2 enrichment stimulates crop growth and makes them more easily sustainable
Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously
he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and
recipiant of The Authur S. Flemming award for innovative research, 9-5-07, “Global Warming and
Chinese Food Security”, http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N36/B1.php //[E.Berggren]
The authors used "the A2 (medium-high GHG emission pathway) and B2 (medium-low) climate
change scenarios produced by the Regional Climate Model PRECIS, the crop model CERES, and
socio-economic scenarios described by IPCC SRES, to simulate the average yield changes per hectare
of three main grain crops (rice, wheat, and maize) at 50 km x 50 km scale" for the entire country of
China. What was learned: The four researchers from the Institute of Environment and Sustainable
Development in Agriculture of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing report
finding that "the yield per hectare for the three crops would fall consistently as temperature rises
beyond 2.5°C." However, they also found that "when the CO2 fertilization effect was included in the
simulation, there were no adverse impacts [our italics] on China's food production under the projected
range of temperature rise (0.9-3.9°C)." What it means: if air temperatures continue to rise throughout
the next few decades - for whatever reason - it would appear to be imperative that the air's CO2
concentration continue to rise right along with them; for only under such conditions will China, as
well as most of the rest of the nations of the world, be able to adequately feed the larger numbers of
people that will reside within their boundaries just a few decades hence, without usurping
unconscionable amounts of land and freshwater resources from what could be called wild nature,
which actions would inevitably lead to the extinctions of innumerable species of both plants and
animals.
184
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
High levels of CO2 are needed to sustain and increase rice production for a growing population
CO2 Science.org, 1-14-04, “Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment: Boosting Rice Yields of Asia”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V7/N2/B2.php // [E.Berggren]
"On the basis of both area and tonnage harvested," according to the authors, "Oryza sativa L. (rice) is
the most important crop in Asia, providing a significant proportion of the people's dietary needs
(Alexandratos, 1995)." Hence, they say that "in view of the expected growth in Asia's population,
there is a need to determine how the predicted increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will affect
rice yield." What was done: In order to determine the interactive effects of elevated CO2 and nitrogen
(N) availability on the grain yield of rice crops grown under temperate flooded paddy conditions, Kim
et al. grew rice crops from the seedling stage to maturity at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of
ambient and ambient plus 200 ppm using FACE technology and three levels of applied nitrogen --
low (LN, 4 g N m-2), medium (MN, 8 and 9 g N m-2), and high (HN, 15 g N m-2) -- for three
cropping seasons (1998-2000). What was learned: The authors report that "the yield response to
elevated CO2 in crops supplied with MN (+14.6%) or HN (+15.2%) was about twice that of crops
supplied with LN (+7.4%)," confirming the importance of N availability to the response of rice to
atmospheric CO2 enrichment previously determined by Kim et al. (2001) and Kobaysahi et al. (2001).
What it means: In terms of the more common increase in CO2 concentration used to express plant
responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, i.e., 300 ppm, the results of Kim et al. suggest we could
likely expect something on the order of a 22% increase in rice yield for the MN treatment, which they
say is "similar to that recommended to local farmers." Such a yield increase, courtesy of the ongoing
rise in the air's CO2 content, would go a long way towards helping the people of Asia meet the future
dietary needs of their expanding population.
Increasing CO2 is necessary to grow adequate amounts of food for the expanding global population –
absent CO2 increase “wild nature” goes extinct.
recipiant of The Authur S. Flemming award for innovative research, Keith E. Idso is Vice President of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Received his B.S. in Agriculture with a major
in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his M.S. from the same institution with a major in
Agronomy and Plant Genetics, and Craig D. Idso is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 5-28-08, “The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment”, http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N22/EDIT.php// [E.Berggren]
For comparative purposes, the researchers had also included one C3 species in their study -- Hordeum
spontaneum K. Koch -- and they report that it "showed a near-doubling in biomass compared with
[the] 40% increase in the C4 species under growth treatments equivalent to the postglacial CO2 rise."
In light of these several findings, it can be appreciated that the civilizations of the past, which could
not have existed without agriculture, were largely made possible by the increase in the air's CO2
content that accompanied deglaciation, and that the peoples of the earth today are likewise indebted to
this phenomenon, as well as the additional 100 ppm of CO2 the atmosphere has subsequently
acquired. With an eye to the future, we have long contended that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2
content will similarly play a pivotal role in enabling us to grow the food we will need to sustain
our still-expanding global population in the year 2050 without usurping all of the planet's
remaining freshwater resources and much of its untapped arable land, which latter actions would
likely lead to our driving most of what yet remains of " wild nature" to extinction. Rising CO2 has
served both us and the rest of the biosphere well in the past; and it will do the same in the future ...
unless we turn and fight against it.
185
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and live in drier climates – with out more CO2 the
earth will be in jeopardy
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers and other multiple
peer reviewed science journals, June 7, 2008, [“In praise of CO2; With less heat and less carbon dioxide,
the planet could become less hospitable and less green”, L/N //e.berggren]
Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent studies, point to the warming of the planet
and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota
with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the
building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life.
As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists
who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger
and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The
extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-
century." Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of
CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may
have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life
sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the
hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming
Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland
during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again. This
blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a
growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past
few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been
releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed -- CO2 is released from oceans
as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool -- will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With
less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in
areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and
NPP.
186
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [PEER REVIEWED]

159 Peer-reviewed scientific journanls conclude that CO2 increases agriculture growth
Sherwood Idso , Pres. Center for Study of CO2 and Global Change, former Res. Phys. With U.S. Dept of
Ag's Agr Research Service at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology,
Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith Idso,
Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while
instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig Idso, Chairman
Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, July 2002,
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n42edit.htm // e.berggren]
In a recent analysis of 159 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published between 1983 and 2000,
dealing with the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the reproductive growth characteristics of
several domesticated and wild plants, Jablonski et al. (2002) calculated some interesting mean
responses. For increases in the air's CO2 concentration ranging from approximately 150 to 450 ppm
(rough average of 300 ppm), they found that, across all species studied, the extra CO2 supplied to the
plants resulted in more flowers (+19%), more fruits (+18%), more seeds (+16%), greater individual
seed mass (+4%), greater total seed mass (+25%, equivalent to yield), and greater total mass (+31%).
187
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [WATER EFFICIENCY]

CO2 increases plants’ ability to retain more water and for longer periods of time – allowing them to
grow in periods of drought
Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, june 2004,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N25/EDIT.php //e.berggen]
Another important finding of the group of Colorado researchers was, in their words, that when
averaged over the study period, "leaf water potential was enhanced 24-30% under elevated CO2 in the
major warm- and cool-season grass species of the SGS (Bouteloua gracilis, C4, 28.5%; Pascopyrum
smithii, C3, 24.7%; Stipa comata, C3, 30.4%)." They say these results are similar to those of "studies
involving other C3 and C4 grass species (Owensby et al., 1993; Jackson et al., 1994)," and that the
enhanced leaf water potential - "which reflects improved plant water status and increased drought
tolerance (Tyree and Alexander, 1993)" - may lead to increased leaf turgor and allow the grasses "to
continue growth further into periods of drought." Hence, it is not surprising that, averaged over the
five years of the study, Nelson et al. found that "water-use efficiency (g aboveground biomass
harvested / kg water consumed) was 43% higher in elevated than ambient CO2 plots."
CO2 increases water efficiency in plants and allows them to flourish with minimal water supply
CO2 Science.org, 10-7-07, “Drought Stress Effects on Wheat and the Mitigating Effect of CO2”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N41/B1.php //[E.Berggren]
The authors grew spring wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Minaret) in open-top chambers on an
experimental field of the Federal Agricultural Research Center in Braunschweig, Germany, in two
different growing seasons at either current or future (current + 280 ppm) atmospheric CO2
concentrations and under sufficient-water-supply (WET) or drought-stress (DRY) conditions, the
latter of which was imposed just after the crop first-node stage was reached (approximately 35 days
after emergence) by halving the subsequent water supplied to the plants. What was learned:
Manderscheid and Weigel found that, "in both years, biomass and grain yield were decreased by
drought and increased by CO2 enrichment," with the positive CO2 effect being greater under drought
conditions. "Averaged over both years," as they describe it, "CO2 enrichment increased biomass and
grain yield under WET conditions by <=10% and under DRY conditions by >=44%." In addition,
they likewise determined that the CO2-induced increase in crop water-use efficiency was 20% in the
sufficient-water-supply treatment and 43% in the drought-stress treatment. What it means: Based on
their findings, the two German researchers concluded that "negative effects on wheat yield resulting
from increased water shortage, as predicted from global climate models for the future [our italics],
may be mitigated by the higher CO2 concentration and yield may be decreased to a lesser extent if all
other environmental conditions remain the same." But the truth is even better than that. As recently
noted by Wentz et al. (2007), for example, one of the most important environmental conditions
pertaining to this conclusion is clearly not "remaining the same," for as stated in the mini-abstract of
the latter researchers' paper in Science's table of contents, "humidity and precipitation unexpectedly
increased at the same rate in response to global warming during the past 20 years, yielding more
rainfall than predicted by models [our italics]." As a result, we can realistically expect future wheat
yields to be significantly enhanced by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content throughout the coming
decades of continued fossil fuel utilization.
188
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [SOLVES DROUGHT RESISTANCY]

Data shows that warming increases drought resistancy
Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, 7-31-02,
“Responses of Agricultural Crops to Free-Air CO2 Enrichment”,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N31/EDIT.php // e.berggren]
In discussing these several observations, Kimball et al. note that "growth stimulations were as large or
larger under water-stress compared to well-watered conditions." They also note that "roots were
generally stimulated more than shoots," and that "woody perennials had larger growth responses to
elevated CO2, while at the same time their reductions in stomatal conductance were smaller." Also,
although "growth stimulations of non-legumes were reduced at low-soil nitrogen," they note that
"elevated CO2 strongly stimulated the growth of the clover legume both at ample and under low
nitrogen conditions." All of the above observations are consistent with what has been observed in
other types of CO2 enrichment experiments over the years, with one significant exception. The CO2-
induced decreases in stomatal conductance observed in the FACE studies are about 50% greater than
those observed in prior non-FACE experiments, which suggests that the water use efficiency of these
particular crops - and perhaps other plants as well - may be increased considerably more by the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content (perhaps by as much as 50% more) than what had previously
been thought likely. In conclusion, we can safely say that the wealth of FACE data that has been
obtained since 1989 has only served to strengthen our positive view of the historical and still-ongoing
rise in the air's CO2 content. Earth's biosphere, of which we are an integral part, has already benefited
immensely from the 100-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration brought to us as an
unanticipated consequence of the Industrial Revolution; and we and all of nature will benefit still
more from increases yet to come.
189
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [PHOTOSYNTHESIS]

CO2 stimulates plant growth and photosynthesic responses to rising temperature.
Board of Center for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, june 2003,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/extinction/mr1ch2.php //e.berggren]
Possibly helping warmer temperatures to produce this unique biological phenomenon during the
Tertiary were the higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations of that period (Volk, 1987), as has been
suggested by Idso (1989). It is a well known fact, for example, that elevated concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 significantly stimulate plant growth rates (Kimball, 1983) – especially those of trees
(Saxe et al., 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001) – and that they also greatly enhance their water use
efficiencies (Feng, 1999). Even more important, however, is how atmospheric CO2 enrichment alters
plant photosynthetic and growth responses to rising temperatures, as we discuss in the following
section.
190
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [POLLUTION RESISTANCE]
CO2 has a positive effect on plants making them grow faster and larger, resistant to
temperature extremes and to injury from air pollutants.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Professor of Horticulture and Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University.
1992 “Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants” http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would
benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. You read that correctly.
Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it.
Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into
food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise
above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger
because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other
benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress,
better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more
nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation. This good news about carbon
dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible global climate changes.
191
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 KEY TO PLANTS [ADAPTATION]
CO2 stimulates plant growth, enables them to growth faster and larger even in dryer climates.
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. and professor of climate change, Fall 2007, “Environmental Effects of
Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf//E.Berggren]
The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect.
Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in
drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and
diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.
Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth. Does a catastrophic amplification of
these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data
that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an
amplification. Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a
branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence—actual measurements of Earth’s
temperature and climate—shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven
decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were
actually decreasing. While levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so
and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been
benign.
192
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 SOLVES SPECIES EXTINTION

Its try or die either increase CO2 for agriculture productivity or watch the extinction of millions of
unique species.
instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, September 4, 2002,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php // e.berggren]
In conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-thirds of all species of plants and animals on
the face of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, if world agricultural output is not
dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence will occur simply because we will need more
land to produce what is required to sustain us and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase,
because we will simply take that land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of
scientists who have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in agricultural productivity
is not possible, even with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, however, Idso and Idso (2000) have shown that we should be
able - but just barely - to meet our expanding food needs without bringing down the curtain on the
world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist this reality is truly incredible. More CO2 means
life for the planet; less CO2 means death ... and not just the death of individuals, but the death of
species. And to allow, nay, cause the extinction of untold millions of unique and irreplaceable species
has got to rank close to the top of all conceivable immoralities.
193
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
2NC AG OUTWEIGHS WARMING

The Agricultural crisis dwarfs any possible impact of global warming and is more probable
Dr. Craig D. Idso, President co2 science magazine and climatologist and Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President
and climatologist, 6-13-01, [“Two Crises of Unbelievable Magnitude: Can We Prevent One Without
Exacerbating the Other?”, http://co2science.org//articles/V4/N24/EDIT.php //e.berggren]
Two potentially devastating environmental crises loom ominously on the horizon. One is catastrophic
global warming, which many people claim will occur by the end of the next century. The other is the
need to divert essentially all usable non-saline water on the face of the earth to the agricultural
enterprises that will be required to meet the food and fiber needs of humanity's growing numbers in
but half a century (Wallace, 2000; Tilman et al., 2001). This necessary expansion of agriculture will
also require the land that currently supports a full third of all tropical and temperate forests, savannas
and grasslands, according to Tilman, et al., who also correctly state that the destruction of that
important natural habitat will lead to the extinction of untold numbers of plant and animal species.
How do the magnitudes of the two crises compare? Tilman et al. suggest that the coming
agriculturally-driven crisis is likely to rival that of predicted climate change, placing the two disasters
on pretty much an equal footing. Wallace, however, is unequivocal in his contention that the
agricultural crisis dwarfs the climate crisis. "There can be," he says, "no greater global challenge
today on which physical and social scientists can work together than the goal of producing the food
required for future generations." It is our judgment that the conclusion of Wallace is the more robust
of the two, based on the simple fact that the agriculturally-driven crisis is almost certain to occur,
whereas there is still doubt about the climate crisis. We also believe that Tilman et al. would probably
not dispute this contention; for it is their own conclusion that "even the best available technologies,
fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems," meaning the future scarcity of food,
fiber, land and water described above. This conclusion as to the unavoidability of the agricultural
crisis is further buttressed by the fact that Tilman et al.'s analysis even assumed a reasonable rate of
advancement in technological expertise, as we also assumed in an earlier analysis of the identical
problem that arrived at essentially the same conclusion (Idso and Idso, 2000).
194
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – IMPACT [BILLIONS DIE STARVATION]
Billions will starve without more food

Jerusalem Post 11/15/01
Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP, said: "Billions of people across the tropics depend on
crops such as rice, maize and wheat for their very survival. These new findings indicate that large
numbers are facing acute hunger and malnutrition unless the world acts to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases." "The population of Asia is expected to increase by 44 percent in
the next 50 years and yields must at least match that growth rate if famine is to be avoided. Currently
more than half the people in South East Asia have a calorie intake that is inadequate for an active life,
and ten million children die annually from diseases related to malnutrition.
195
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT –SINKS
Recent studies show that increased CO2 content increases plants’ ability to develop necessary carbon
sinks.
recipiant of The Authur S. Flemming award for innovative research, Keith E. Idso is Vice President of the
Agronomy and Plant Genetics, 1-4-08, http://co2science.org//articles/V5/N3/COM.php // e.berggren]
Woody plant encroachment upon arid and semiarid grasslands and savannas has been an ubiquitous
natural phenomenon experienced throughout the entire world over the course of the past century or
more (Idso, 1995), driven - at least partially, many believe - by the contemporaneous rise in the air's
CO2 concentration (Knapp and Soule, 1998, Soule and Knapp, 1999). Is it possible this phenomenon
may be responsible for sequestering much of the planet's so-called missing carbon, an unidentified but
growing repository of organic matter needed to explain the less-than-predicted rate-of-rise of the air's
CO2 content that is calculated on the basis of known sources and sinks of this important greenhouse
gas? A recent study sheds new light on this critical subject, suggesting the answer is yes.
Working in the La Copita Research Area southwest of Alice, Texas, Hibbard et al. (2001) analyzed
several chemical and physical properties of the top ten centimeters of soils in remnant herbaceous
areas and patches of woody vegetation in various stages of invasive development. Compared to soils
beneath herbaceous vegetation, they found that the soils beneath the tree/shrub areas had much greater
concentrations of both carbon (C) and nitrogen (N); and a companion study of soil C and N across
woody patches ranging in age from 10 to 110 years indicated that these variables had experienced a
linear increase through time. What was the source of these C and N increases? In a word, roots. The
authors write they "were surprised by the magnitude of root biomass in surficial soils of woody
patches, which greatly exceeded that of herbaceous patches and which greatly exceeded that of foliar
litter inputs." Citing a number of studies of rates of root turnover in herbaceous and woody-plant
ecosystems, they concluded that "the role of belowground inputs in fueling changes in surficial soil C
and N stocks ... accompanying shifts from grass to woody plant domination may therefore be more
substantial than previously appreciated." How much more substantial? In broaching this question, the
authors began by noting that "the contrasts between woody and herbaceous patches reported here are
conservative in that they do not include an assessment of whole plant C and N stocks," i.e., root
biomass below ten centimeters depth and woody biomass aboveground. With respect to the first of
these factors, they cite several studies that have detected greater soil C concentrations beneath woody
vs. herbaceous vegetation to depths of 100 to 400 centimeters. With respect to the second factor, they
likewise cite evidence suggesting that "plant C mass has increased tenfold with the conversion of
grassland to savanna woodland over the past 100 years." So what do these findings imply about the
world as a whole? The authors note that since "woody plant expansion into drylands has been
geographically widespread over the past century," and since "40% of the terrestrial biosphere consists
of arid and semiarid savanna, shrubland, and grassland ecosystems, this type of vegetation change
may be of significance to the global C and N cycle." To fully quantify the significance of this
phenomenon, however, they say we must obtain better information on "the historic or modern rate,
areal extent, and pattern of woody plant expansion in the world's drylands." Vigorous pursuit of this
information via remote sensing techniques that show promise of quantifying grass vs. woody plant
biomass in grasslands and savannas, coupled with ever-evolving ecosystem modeling techniques, may
soon provide the answers we seek. From what we already know, however, it's a good bet that
Hibbard, Archer, Schimel and Valentine have laid the necessary groundwork for resolving the
dilemma of the world's missing carbon. It's likely to be found in the soils and standing biomass of
woody plants that have invaded earth's grasslands and savannas over the period of rising atmospheric
CO2 concentration that has accompanied the progression of civilization since the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution.
196
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT –SINKS
Data in New York revealed that trees absorb and store greenhouse gasses removing pollution from
the air.
Science Daily Magazine, sudy and report on works cited for carbon sequestration, 5-7-07, [“Right
Mix Of Trees Fights Global Warming Environmental Scientists Find Tree Combo For Carbon
Sequestration”, http://209.85.215.104/search?
q=cache:sAMnVURIYyoJ:www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0504-
right_mix_of_trees_fights_global_warming.htm+carbon+sequestration+global+warming&hl=en&ct
=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a //e.Berggren]
Cities in the United States have lost more than 20 percent of their trees in 10 years. Richard Smardon,
Ph.D., is an Environmental Planner at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in
Syracuse, New York, attributes the disappearing trees to more construction around the country. Dr.
Smardon says one huge benefit of trees is that they store so much carbon, which is good for the
environment. He explains, "The more carbon we store in the tree, the less goes into the atmosphere."
Dr. Smardon and forester Allan Drew, Ph.D., have found the perfect mix of trees for Syracuse, New
York, a combination that packs a hefty environmental punch. Dr. Drew says they are working on
changing one city at a time. He told Ivanhoe, "We are making a conscious effort to produce
communities that have better air quality and better health for the people that live there." In a year-
round venture, Dr. Smardon and Dr. Drew found 31 trees that are high performers in the region, like
the sycamore. Their goal is to get people to protect and plant those trees in their neighborhoods, so
everyone can make a change. Dr. Smardon says it's easy, "It's like using solar cells on your roof or
driving a hybrid car. It's something the individual can do so they know they are making a difference."
Trees absorb and store greenhouse gases. A USDA study shows the trees in New York City alone
remove 1,800 metric tons of air pollution from the local atmosphere. They provide shade, which also
reduces how much energy we use.
197
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT –SINKS
The rising temperatures are allowing plants to store and take more carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gasses creating a negative feedback.
Keith E. Idso is Vice President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Received his B.S. in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his
M.S. from the same institution with a major in Agronomy and Plant Genetics, and Craig D. Idso is the
founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,
2004, http://co2science.org/articles/V4/N2/COM.php // E.Berggren]
The amount of carbon stored above and beneath a unit area of land is basically a function of two
biochemical processes, photosynthesis and respiration. During photosynthesis, plants remove CO2
from the atmosphere and utilize it to construct their tissues, where it is safely retained until it is
respired back to the atmosphere. Thus, if the total amount of photosynthesis occurring over a given
area of land is greater than the total amount of respiration occurring above and beneath its surface,
that area of land is said to be a carbon sink. Conversely, if the amount of photosynthesis is less than
the amount of respiration, the area is said to be a carbon source. For many years, theoretical models of
ecosystem dynamics suggested that global warming would reduce both the magnitude and number of
terrestrial carbon sinks by increasing ecosystem respiration more than it increased ecosystem
photosynthesis. If true, this result would dash all hopes of mitigating CO2-induced global warming
via biological carbon sequestration. However, like model-based predictions of climate change, there
are a number of problems with this prediction as well. The primary problem is the simple fact that
most observational evidence does not support the model predictions of reduced soil carbon storage
under elevated temperatures. Fitter et al. (1999), for example, evaluated the effect of temperature on
plant decomposition and soil carbon storage, finding that upland grass ecosystem soils artificially
heated by nearly 3°C increased both root production and root death by equivalent amounts. Hence,
they concluded that in these ecosystems, elevated temperatures "will have no direct effect on the soil
carbon store." Similarly, Johnson et al. (2000) warmed Arctic tundra ecosystems by nearly 6°C for
eight full years and still found no significant effect of that major temperature increase on ecosystem
respiration. Furthermore, Liski et al. (1999) showed that carbon storage in soils of both high- and
low-productivity boreal forests in Finland actually increased with warmer temperatures along a
natural temperature gradient. Why the big discrepancy between model predictions and reality?
According to a recent paper in the Annals of Botany, there are two potential explanations: (1)
ecosystem modelers are over-estimating the temperature dependency of soil respiration, and (2)
warming may increase the rate of certain physico-chemical processes that transfer organic carbon to
more stable soil organic matter pools, thereby enabling the protected carbon to avoid or more strongly
resist decomposition (Thornley and Cannell, 2001). That the first of these explanations is viable is
demonstrated by the results of the studies just described. The second explanation is also reasonable.
Thornley and Cannell hypothesize, for example, that the pertinent physico-chemical processes require
a certain amount of activation energy to attach organic materials onto soil minerals or bring them
together into aggregates that are less subject to decomposition; and they suggest that higher
temperatures can provide that energy. Taking their hypothesis one step further, Thornley and Cannell
developed a dynamic soil model in which they demonstrate that if their thinking is correct, "long-term
soil carbon storage will appear to be insensitive to a rise in temperature, even if the respiration rates of
all [soil carbon] pools respond to temperature as assumed by [most models]," which is, in fact, what
experimental and real-world data clearly indicate to be the case. The upshot of these several
observations is that global warming does not cause terrestrial carbon sinks to release additional CO2
to the atmosphere and thereby exacerbate the warming, as was fervently believed up until the last few
years. In fact, it is much more likely that rising temperatures may do just the opposite, inducing
a negative feedback phenomenon that enables greater amounts of carbon to be sequestered,
which would tend to decrease the rate of CO2-induced warming. Clearly, the biosphere is well
adapted to responding to environmental challenges; and this one is no exception. When the going gets
hot, the earth knows how to keep its cool.
198
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WEEDS
Studies prove C02 doesn’t increase C3 or C4 weeds it affords non-weeds greater protection against
weeds and increases their competitiveness against them
6/9/04
Dukes (2002) grew model serpentine grasslands common to California, USA, in competition with the
invasive forb Centaurea solstitialis at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm for one year,
determining that elevated CO2 increased the biomass proportion of this weedy species in the community by
a mere 1.2%, while total community biomass increased by 28%. Similarly, Gavazzi et al. (2000) grew
loblolly pine seedlings for four months in competition with both C3 and C4 weeds at atmospheric CO2
concentrations of 260 and 660 ppm, reporting that elevated CO2 increased pine biomass by 22% while
eliciting no response at all from either type of weed. Likewise, in a study of pasture ecosystems near
Montreal, Canada, Taylor and Potvin (1997) found that elevated CO2 concentrations did not influence the
number of native species returning after their removal (to simulate disturbance), even in the face of the
introduced presence of the C3 weed Chenopodium album, which normally competes quite effectively with
several slower-growing crops in ambient air. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment did not impact the
growth of this weed in any measurable way. Ziska et al. (1999) also studied the C3 weed C. album, along
with the C4 weed Amaranthus retroflexus, in glasshouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of
360 and 720 ppm. They determined that elevated CO2 significantly increased the photosynthetic rate and
total dry weight of the C3 weed, but that it had no effect at all on the C4 weed. Also, they found that the
growth response of the C3 weed to a doubling of the air's CO2 content was approximately 51%, which is
about the same as the average 52% growth response tabulated by Idso (1992), and that obtained by Poorter
(1993) for rapidly-growing wild C3 species (54%), which finding suggests there is no enhanced dominance
of the C3 weed over other C3 plants in a CO2-enriched environment. Wayne et al. (1999) studied another
agricultural weed, field mustard (Brassica kaber), which was sewn in pots at six densities, placed in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm, and sequentially harvested during the growing
season. Early in stand development, elevated CO2 increased aboveground weed biomass in a density-
dependent manner; with the greatest stimulation of 141% occurring at the lowest density (corresponding to
20 plants per square meter) and the smallest stimulation of 59% occurring at the highest density
(corresponding to 652 plants per square meter). However, as stands matured, the density-dependence of
the CO2-induced growth response disappeared, and CO2-enriched plants exhibited an average
aboveground biomass that was 34% greater than that of ambiently-grown plants across a broad range of
plant densities. Moreover, this final growth stimulation was similar to that of most other herbaceous plants
exposed to atmospheric CO2 enrichment (30 to 50% biomass increases for a doubling of the air's CO2
content), once again evidencing that atmospheric CO2 enrichment confers no undue advantage upon weeds
at the expense of other plants. In a study of a weed that affects both plants and animals, Caporn et al.
(1999) examined bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), which poses a serious weed problem and potential threat
to human health in the United Kingdom and other regions, growing specimens for 19 months in controlled
environment chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 370 and 570 ppm and normal or
high levels of soil fertility. They found that the high CO2 treatment consistently increased rates of net
photosynthesis by 30 to 70%, depending on soil fertility and time of year. However, elevated CO2 did not
increase total plant dry mass or the dry mass of any plant organ, including rhizomes, roots and fronds. In
fact, the only significant effect of elevated CO2 on bracken growth was observed in the normal nutrient
regime, where elevated CO2 actually reduced mean frond area. Finally, in a study involving two parasitic
species (Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica), Watling and Press (1997) reported that total parasitic
biomass per host plant at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 700 ppm was 65% less than it was in
ambient air. And in a related study, Dale and Press (1999) observed that the presence of a parasitic plant
(Orobanche minor) reduced its host's biomass by 47% in ambient air of 360 ppm CO2, while it only
reduced it by 20% in air of 550 ppm CO2. These several studies suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's
CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants. In fact,
it may well provide non-weeds greater protection against weed-induced decreases in their productivity
and growth. Thus, future increases in the air's CO2 content may actually increase the competitiveness of
non-weeds over weeds.
199
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: WEEDS
CO2 increases contribute to the invasiveness of plants allowing them to combat weeds, also
population growth in weeds drop with warming increases.
CO2 Science.org, 4-2-08, “Invasive Species in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer World”,
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N14/B2.php//[E.Berggren]
The authors write that "it is generally believed that characteristics that contribute to the invasiveness
of a plant, namely broad environmental tolerance, high relative growth rate and high fecundity, are the
very traits that would be favored in a warmer, high-CO2 world," and they note that "previous research
has demonstrated substantial impacts of elevated CO2 on selected invasive species, mostly indicating
that elevated CO2 does increase weed invasion success, particularly when the invasive species [are]
C3 plants." What was done: Among other things, Williams et al. investigated this hypothesis at the
Tasmanian Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (TasFACE) facility, which is located in a native lowland
grassland in the southern midlands region of Tasmania, Australia, where they studied the impacts of
an imposed 170-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and a 2°C rise in air temperature
over the period stretching from the spring of 2003 to the summer of 2006, during which time they
documented annual seed production, seedling emergence, seedling survival and adult survival of four
abundant perennial species, including the two most dominant invading weeds: Hypochaeris radicata
L. and Leontodon taraxacoides (Vill.) Merat, which are members of the Asteraceae family. What was
learned: The six researchers determined there were no significant CO2-induced differences in the
population growth rates of either weed species; but they found that the population growth rates of
both of them "were substantially reduced by warming." What it means: Williams et al. concluded
from their findings that "global warming may be a more important determinant of the success of
invasive species than CO2 concentration," and they say their results suggest that both of the invading
weed species they studied in Tasmania "are likely to be excluded [our italics] from the grassland
community by increasing temperatures."
200
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
AT: SOIL ERROSION
Warming would reduce the ability of enchutraid worms to promote carbon loss from soil – allowing
the soil to absorb more carbon for longer periods of time.
recipiant of The Authur S. Flemming award for innovative research, Keith E . Idso is Vice President of the
Agronomy and Plant Genetics, 2003, “Global Warming: Can It Be Slowed by Worms?”
http://co2science.org/articles/V5/N18/COM.php [E.Berggren]
In an intriguing research paper published in Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Cole et al. (2002) remind
us that "it has been predicted that global warming will influence the productivity of ecosystems
indirectly by increasing soil biological activity, and hence organic matter decomposition." They also
note that "this release of CO2 is expected to be greatest from the organic soils and peatlands of
wetland, tundra and boreal zones." Getting even more specific, they report that "in the peatlands of
northern England, which are classified as blanket peat, it has been suggested that the potential effects
of global warming on carbon and nutrient dynamics will be related to the activities of dominant soil
fauna, and especially enchytraeid worms." So what did the researchers find? First of all, and contrary
to their hypothesis, elevated temperature reduced the ability of the enchytraeid worms to enhance the
loss of carbon from the microcosms. At the normal ambient temperature, for example, the presence of
the worms enhanced DOC loss by 16%, while at the elevated temperature expected for a doubling of
the air's CO2 content they had no effect on DOC. In addition, Cole et al. noted that "warming may
cause drying at the soil surface, forcing enchytraeids to burrow to deeper subsurface horizons."
Hence, since the worms are known to have little influence on soil carbon dynamics below a depth of 4
cm (Cole et al., 2000), the scientists concluded that this additional consequence of warming would
further reduce the ability of enchytraeids to enhance carbon loss from blanket peatlands. In summing
up their findings, Cole et al. say "the soil biotic response to warming in this study was negative." That
is, it was of such a nature that it resulted in a reduced loss of carbon to the atmosphere, which
would tend to slow the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, demonstrating once again that
nature is well equipped to maintain the mean upper temperature of the planet's surface at a
level conducive to the continued existence of life.
201
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
***AFF AT: CO2 AG DA***
202
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
CO2 CAUSES WEEDS
Increased CO2 alters vital growth patterns in weeds – These alterations inherently make them more
combustable and will spark wide-spread wild fires on a scale never seen.
Tom Christopher, studied and frequently writes about horticulture for the New York times, June 29,
2008, [works cited from Lewis Ziska, a –weed ecologist with the Agriculture Research Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’, L/N//E.Berggren]
The spread of cheatgrass has been widely attributed to the degradation of native grasslands by
overgrazing -- cattle prefer and selectively eat the native grasses -- and more especially to its
exceptional combustibility. Periodic fires are an integral part of the rangeland ecology, but when the
rangeland is still dominated by native grasses, fires occur in some areas at average intervals of every
60 to 110 years. In areas overrun by cheatgrass, however, fire sweeps through every three to five
years. While cheatgrass can tolerate such frequent burns, the native flora cannot. Cheatgrass's
combustibility is inherent in the plant's pattern of growth. Sprouting in the fall, it resumes growth at
winter's end to mature and set seed in early summer, whereupon the plant dies, leaving a tuft of dry,
highly flammable leaves through the following dry season. Ziska and his colleagues discovered,
though, that the weed's flammability seems to have been greatly augmented by the increases in
atmospheric CO2 that occurred during the period of cheatgrass's spread through the West. The
scientists grew the plant at four concentrations of CO2: at 270 p.p.m. (the ambient level at the
beginning of the 19th century, before the Industrial Revolution), at 320 p.p.m. (a 1960s level), 370
p.p.m. (a 1990s level) and 420 p.p.m. (the approximate level predicted for 2020 in all the climate-
change panel's estimates). What they found was that an increase of CO2 equivalent to that occurring
from 1800 until today raised the total mass of material (the biomass) each cheatgrass plant produced
by almost 70 percent. In addition, the composition of the cheatgrass changed as the CO2 level
increased, the tissues becoming more carbon-rich so that the plant leaves and stems are less
susceptible to decay. In a natural setting, this would mean that the dead material would persist longer,
adding yet more fuel for wildfire. More fuel, with a longer life -- Ziska says that the rise in
greenhouse gases we have already achieved may have played a decisive role in the spread of a weed
that has already transformed the ecology of the Western United States. The situation seems likely to
worsen too. The cheatgrass that Ziska grew at the CO2 level equal to that projected for 2020 increased
the plant's biomass by another 18 percent above current levels. Global climate change, it seems, will
further stoke the rangeland wildfires.
The immediate impact of forest fires hurt biodiversity, crush corporations, deplete water, and erode soil
World Wildlife Foundation 9/12/06
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_fires/index.cfm
The immediate impact of forest fires can be devastating to human communities and forest ecosystems
alike. Fires can alter the structure and composition of forests, opening up areas to invasion by fast-
colonizing alien species and threaten biological diversity. Buildings, crops and plantations are destroyed
and lives can be lost. For companies, fire can mean the destruction of assets; for communities, besides loss
of an important resource base, fire can also lead to environmental degradation through impacts on water
cycles, soil fertility and biodiversity; and for farmers, fire may mean the loss of crops or even livelihoods.
203
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 CAUSES WEEDS
Weeds benefit more from CO2 enrichment – also leads to them becoming more resistant to
herbicides and harder and more expensive to control.
Tom Christopher, studied and frequently writes about horticulture for the New York times, June 29,
2008, [works cited from Lewis Ziska, a –weed ecologist with the Agriculture Research Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’, L/N//E.Berggren]
Ziska, together with Bunce, has been testing the effects of changing CO2 concentrations on a range of
crop and weed species. Wending his way through a basement full of pumps, filters and boxlike
aluminum growth chambers, Ziska showed himself to be a connoisseur of atmospheres. Peering at the
instrument panel outside one growth chamber, he noted a CO2 concentration of 310 p.p.m. ''That's a
1957 atmosphere, the year of my birth,'' he said. What he and his colleagues have found, he said, is
that weeds benefit far more than crop plants from the changes in CO2 and that the implications
of this for agriculture and public health are grave. Tests with common agricultural weeds like
Canada thistle and quack grass found them more resistant to herbicides when grown in higher
concentrations of CO2, making them harder to control. Ziska hypothesizes that this may be a result of
faster growth; the weeds mature more rapidly, leaving behind more quickly the seedling stage during
which they are most vulnerable. This promises to be an expensive problem for farmers, who will have
to spend more on chemicals and other anti-weed measures to protect their crops. (Herbicides already
cost farmers more than $10 billion annually worldwide.)
Higher CO2 levels make weeds and poison ivy grow stronger. Weeds produce twice as much pollen
and poison ivy is more virulent.
The New York Times, Tom Christopher, horticultural and environmental topics 6/29/08 “Can Weeds Help
Solve the Climate Crisis?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29weeds-t.html?
pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=magazine
But enhancing CO2 levels, Ziska has found, not only augments the growth rate of many common
weeds, increasing their size and bulk; it also changes their chemical composition. When he grew
ragweed plants in an atmosphere with 600 p.p.m. of CO2 (the level projected for the end of this century
in that same climate-change panel “B2 scenario”), they produced twice as much pollen as
plants grown in an atmosphere with 370 p.p.m. (the ambient level in the year 1998). This is bad news
for allergy sufferers, especially since the pollen harvested from the CO2-enriched chamber proved far
richer in the protein that causes the allergic reaction. Poison ivy has also demonstrated not only more
vigorous growth at higher levels of CO2 but also a more virulent form of urushiol, the oil in its tissue
that provokes a rash.
Weeds benefiting from increased CO2 will change the ecology and landscapes of much of the eastern
US in the next 3 decades. It has already started.
Subsequent speakers got down to cases. Andrew McDonald, an agricultural scientist at Cornell
University, had used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s high projections for CO2 levels
at the middle and end of the century to create an atlas of potential weed migrations in cornfields in the
Eastern United States. If these projections prove accurate, Kentucky, by the end of the next one to three
decades, should have a climate (and weed flora) resembling that of present-day North Carolina; by
century’s end, it will have shifted to a regime more like that of Louisiana. Delaware, over the same
period, will be transformed to something first like North Carolina and then Georgia, while Pennsylvania
will metamorphose into West Virginia and then North Carolina. Florida will become something
unprecedented in this country. Field observations indicate that these transformations are
already under way: another speaker pointed out that kudzu, “the weed that ate the South,” has
already migrated up to central Illinois and by 2015 could be extending its tendrils into Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula.
204
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
C02 CAUSES CHEATGRASS
Cheatgrass, a weed benefitting from the increase in CO2 has displaced food, reduced livestock, and
deterred wildlife.
According to Ziska, the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution may have already had a major impact on the growth of at least one supremely costly weed.
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), a native of central Asia, is believed to have been introduced into
the United States accidentally, as seeds in soil used to ballast ships or as a contaminant in
agricultural seed, in the mid-1800s. Since then, its ability to flourish in dry habitats and its
prolific seed production (a single plant can bear as many as 5,000 seeds) has helped it to
overrun 100 million acres of Western rangeland, an area larger than the state of Wyoming. In
doing so, cheatgrass has displaced more nutritious native grasses, reducing the quantity of livestock a
given acreage can support. Cheatgrass has also diminished the land’s value to wildlife, which also finds
the introduced plant unpalatable.
205
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
EXT – CO2 CAUSES CHEATGRASS
Cheatgrass is combustible starting fires 20 times more often than areas without the weed. Its increase
in combustibility is directly linked to increased CO2.
The spread of cheatgrass has been widely attributed to the degradation of native grasslands by
overgrazing — cattle prefer and selectively eat the native grasses — and more especially to its
exceptional combustibility. Periodic fires are an integral part of the rangeland ecology, but when the
rangeland is still dominated by native grasses, fires occur in some areas at average intervals of every 60
to 110 years. In areas overrun by cheatgrass, however, fire sweeps through every three to five years.
While cheatgrass can tolerate such frequent burns, the native flora cannot. Cheatgrass’s
combustibility is inherent in the plant’s pattern of growth. Sprouting in the fall, it resumes
growth at winter’s end to mature and set seed in early summer, whereupon the plant dies,
leaving a tuft of dry, highly flammable leaves through the following dry season. Ziska and his
colleagues discovered, though, that the weed’s flammability seems to have been greatly augmented
by the increases in atmospheric CO2 that occurred during the period of cheatgrass’s spread through the
West.
Cheatgrass has changed western United States ecology as a result of increased CO2 and is projected
to start even more wildfires than it already does.
More fuel, with a longer life — Ziska says that the rise in greenhouse gases we have already
achieved may have played a decisive role in the spread of a weed that has already transformed the
ecology of the Western United States. The situation seems likely to worsen too. The cheatgrass that
Ziska grew at the CO2 level equal to that projected for 2020 increased the plant’s biomass by another
18 percent above current levels. Global climate change, it seems, will further stoke the rangeland
wildfires.
206
DDI 2008
WARMING GENERIC
C02 HURTS PLANT PROTEIN
CO2 decreases the protein is foods such as potatoes, barley, wheat, and rice. This is devastating to
poor countries.
The Lempert Report (Food, Nutrition and Science) 2/25/08. “The Affect of Rising CO2 Levels on Food
Nutritional Content” http://www.foodnutritionscience.com/index.cfm/do/monsanto.article/articleId/125.cfm
Last month, our Florida report demonstrated how rising temperatures on the Earth’s surface could be
negatively affecting the quality of certain crops. Now, a Southwestern University study confirms this
notion. According to the study, rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere could decrease the
nutritional value of many major food crops in the years to come. “Various studies had
reported that CO2 has a large effect on crop protein concentration, or that it had little or no effect. The
value of a meta-analysis such as ours is that rather than focusing on the results of one or a few
experiments, ours comprehensively addresses the totality of the research literature. In this case, the
literature as a whole clearly shows decreases in protein concentrations for several important crops,”
says Taub. The Southwestern study found that crops grown in atmospheres containing elevated levels of
carbon dioxide had significantly lower protein concentrations. Potatoes showed a 14% decrease in
protein, barley showed a 15.3% decrease, rice was down 9.9%, wheat down 9.8%, and soybeans
showed reductions of 1.4%. Crops grown at higher temperatures have a shortened life cycle, and that
affects quality. Changes in taste can be frustrating to retailers and consumers, but changes in
nutritional content can be devastating – especially to poorer communities.
207

8 Generic Green Stein Warming

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

8 Generic Green Stein Warming

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DDI 2008

***AFF climate science***............................................................................................................................5

ext -- warming hurts coral...........................................................................................................................59

At: SO2 solves warming.............................................................................................................................172

***AFF CLIMATE SCIENCE***

WARMING NOW [GENERAL]

GHG and warming are increasing in the Status Quo

WARMING NOW [PERCIPITATION]

Warming is occurring- Precipitation models prove

WARMING NOW [10 DEGREES]

Fossil Fuel use enables 10 degree temperature rises

WARMING NOW [AVERAGE TEMPERATURE]

Warming is unequivocal- global average temperature

WARMING NOW [SEA LEVEL]

Warming Now- Sea level rise and melting ice

RUNAWAY WARMING NOW

Warming rates are increasing; action is key

RUNAWAY WARMING NOW

Global warming rate is accelerating

Warming rates are increasing

RUNAWAY WARMING NOW

Global warming and CO2 rate is increasing

RUNAWAY WARMING BAD

Abrupt climate change exacerbates all gradual climate problems

Runaway warming will occur, inhibiting adaptation

Prefer recent models –modeling capabilities have advanced

Although models disagree about details, there are no fundamental inconsistencies

AT: MODELS FAIL [CHAOS THEORY]

Models Are Accurate- chaos theory applies to weather not climate

BALLOONS AND SATELLITES RELIABLE

Balloon and satellite models are 95% reliable

AT: URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT

The Urban heat island effect is negligible

POSITIVE FEEDBACKS OUTWEIGH NEGATIVE ONES

Positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks- makes warming 2 times stronger

POSITIVE FEEDBACK [MOC]

MOC disruption act as a positive warming feedback

POSITIVE FEEDBACK [VAPOR]

Positive Feedback- Water vapor traps heat

POSITIVE FEEDBACK [ALBEDO]

Melted ice advances warming 10 fold- bare ground absorbs heat

POSITIVE FEEDBACK [PERMAFROST]

Melting ice releases permafrost-contributing 70% to atmospheric carbon

POSITIVE FEEDBACK [AT: CLOUDS]

Global warming exists and is man-made.

Models show severe atmospheric effects from human created substances.

Anthropogenic warming- cant be explained by models

Anthropogenic warming occurring

Anthropogenic Warming occuring- global models prove

Models show severe atmospheric effects from human created substances.

C02 CAUSES WARMING

CO2 has a definite impact on global warming.

IPCC’s overwhelmingly qualified—represents a global scientific consensus

***WARMING BAD IMPACTS***

WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION

Global warming leads to extinction!

Global warming causes extinction due to methane-filled clathrates

WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION

WARMING CAUSES WAR [GENERAL]

EXT – WARMING CAUSES WAR [GENERAL]

Climate induced resource shortages escalate to war

Global warming causes nuclear conflict

EXT – WARMING CAUSES WAR [GENERAL]

AFF climate science............................................................................................................................5

AFF CLIMATE SCIENCE

WARMING BAD IMPACTS