Download 2. Global warming is occurring

West Coast Publishing
1
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Impacts and Impact Takeouts
Warming Bad- It’s Real ..............................................................................................................................................2
Warming Bad- It’s Anthropogenic .............................................................................................................................3
Warming Bad- Happens Quickly ................................................................................................................................5
Warming Bad- Positive Feedbacks Prove ..................................................................................................................6
Warming Bad- CO2 Levels Prove ...............................................................................................................................7
Warming Bad- Qualified Sources ...............................................................................................................................9
Warming Bad- Extinction .........................................................................................................................................11
Warming Bad- Extinction .........................................................................................................................................13
Warming Bad- Sea Level Rise...................................................................................................................................15
Warming Bad- Global Conflict .................................................................................................................................16
Warming Bad- Water Wars ......................................................................................................................................18
Warming Bad- State Failure .....................................................................................................................................19
Warming Bad- Disease Spread.................................................................................................................................20
Warming Bad- Severe Storms ..................................................................................................................................22
Warming Bad- Global Economy ...............................................................................................................................23
Warming Bad- Kills Agriculture ................................................................................................................................25
A2: Warming- Biased Sources ..................................................................................................................................26
A2: Warming- IPCC Biased .......................................................................................................................................28
A2: Warming- Anti-Warming Sources Qualified ......................................................................................................29
A2: Warming- Not Happening .................................................................................................................................30
A2: Warming- Negative Feedbacks Solve ................................................................................................................32
A2: Warming- Not Anthropogenic ...........................................................................................................................34
A2: Warming- CO2 Not Responsible ........................................................................................................................36
A2: Warming- Climate Modeling Not Reliable .........................................................................................................37
A2: Warming- Their Evidence is Flawed ..................................................................................................................38
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Collapse the Economy .........................................................................................................39
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Ice Age ......................................................................................................................40
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Water Wars...............................................................................................................41
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Extinction ..................................................................................................................42
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Kill Oceans ...........................................................................................................................43
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Disease ......................................................................................................................44
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Storms.......................................................................................................................45
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Sea Level Rise ...........................................................................................................46
A2: Warming- Ozone Depletion Inevitable ..............................................................................................................47
A2: Warming- No Impact to Ozone Depletion .........................................................................................................48
West Coast Publishing
2
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- It’s Real
1. The world’s pre-eminent scientists have confirmed warming is occurring and it is human induced
Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2, 2007, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/authoritative-report-confirms-0008.html
After six years of assessing climate science research from around the world, the United Nation's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has solidified the scientific understanding that key heat-trapping gases in the
atmosphere "have increased markedly as a result of human activities," and the "net effect of human activities
since 1750 has been one of warming." The report states that evidence of the climate's warming "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 mean sea level." "This report reaffirms that our emissions are the primary cause
of global warming," said Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science and Policy at UCS. "The good news is that by taking
action today to dramatically reduce our emissions, we can avoid much of the warming projected in this report."
The new IPCC Working Group I Summary for Policymakers synthesizes the current understanding of climate change
and projects future climate change using the most comprehensive set of well-established global climate models.
The report is the first of three major studies that comprise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, with input from more than
1,200 authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries. Subsequent reports will
evaluate global warming consequences and options for reducing future warming. The report confirms that the
current level of carbon dioxide, a critical heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, "exceeds by far the natural range
over the last 650,000 years." Since the dawn of the industrial era, carbon dioxide and other key heat-trapping
gases have increased at a rate that is "very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years."
2. Global warming is occurring
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 17, 2007, accessed May 16, 2008,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf, p. 2.
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}
Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1).
3. The preponderance of evidence shows warming is happening and is anthropogenic
Hans Baer, Lecturer in the School of Anthropology, Geography, and Environmental Studies and the Centre for
Health and Society at the University of Melbourne, April 2008, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, p. 59.
Global warming is no longer a fringe theory but has quickly evolved into a mainstream issue that even George W.
Bush and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard could no longer ignore. Given that newly-elected Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd has committed his government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the United States will have the
dubious status of being the only developed country to have not ratified this agreement. Global average surface
temperatures rose 0.6—0.7''C during the 20* century; 2005, depending upon the source consulted, was either the
hottest year or the second hottest year since temperatures began to be systematically recorded in the midnineteenth century; 40 per cent of the Arctic icecap has retreated during the past several decades; and glaciers
around the world have been rapidly retreating. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
consisting of some 2,500 climate scientists around the world, recently issued a preliminary report. This report
projected that the average global temperature will rise by about 3°C, at the present rate of greenhouse gas
emissions, by 2100. While climate scientists long debated whether global warming was primarily a natural
phenomenon or a human-created one, the vast majority now agree that it has been further induced by the
emission of various greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which has increased from 280 parts per million
at the time of the Industrial Revolution to about 379 parts per million in 2003.
West Coast Publishing
3
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- It’s Anthropogenic
1. Warming is human induced
Diana Liverman, Professor at the School of Geography at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment,
February 2008, Global Environmental Change, p. 4
Working Group I (WGI, IPCC, 2007) highlighted the unequivocal evidence that the world is warming and the
attribution of much of this observed warming (and some other climate changes) to greenhouse gas emissions. In
terms of observed impacts the WGII conclusions with the greatest levels of confidence (nine in ten chance) are
that recent warming is affecting terrestrial biological systems with polar and upward shifts in the range of many
species and earlier timing of vegetation growth and animal breeding in spring (Chapter 1). These conclusions are
based on meta-analytical studies of hundreds of ecosystem observations and are synthesised in a map (SPM-1)
that shows the percent of ecosystem (together with other physical) changes in different world regions since 1970
consistent with a warming. This map clearly shows a bias to Europe (where more than 95% of the data series were
generated) and the urgent need for studies in the southern hemisphere and Polar Regions. A rather laboured
argument suggests that these impacts can be attributed to anthropogenic warming because they are consistent
with WGI attribution of global temperature to increase emissions and with the direction of change expected as a
response to warming, because of spatial agreement between observed impacts and because of a modest number
of modelling studies that show better simulations of climate impacts with anthropogenic forcing than without.
2. Warming is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 17, 2007, accessed May 16, 2008,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf, p. 5
Global atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, methane (CH 4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a
result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning
many thousands of years. {2.2} Atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed
by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO 2 concentrations are due primarily to
fossil fuel use, with land-use change pro- viding another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that
the observed increase in CH 4 concentration is pre- dominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH 4 growth
rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with to- tal emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural
sources) be- ing nearly constant during this period. The increase in N 2O concentration is primarily due to
agriculture. {2.2} There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of
warming.6 {2.2} Most of the observed increase in global average tempera- tures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentra- tions.7 It is likely that there has been
significant anthro- pogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)
(Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
3. Studies show C02 is responsible for warming
Joseph Florence, staff researcher for Earth Policy Institute, July 2007, USA Today, p. 61
Elevated temperatures primarily are due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly
carbon dioxide (C02) from the burning of fossil fuels. Once released, C02 traps heat that would otherwise escape
back into space--and these carbon dioxide emissions have been on the rise since the start of the Industrial
Revolution in 1760. Two recent reports demonstrate the exceptional levels of current global temperature and
atmospheric C02. Using records stored in ice, tree rings, and fossils, scientists have estimated that the Northern
Hemisphere is warmer now than at any time in the past 1,200 years. Another study revealed that atmospheric
levels of C02 and methane, yet a different greenhouse gas, are higher today than at any time in the A last 650,000
years.
4. Cosmic rays are not the cause of warming
T. Sloan, Lecturer in Physics at University of Lancaster and A.W. Wolfendale, Lecturer in Physics at Durham
University, 2007, accessed May 14, 2008, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.4294
It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with 'the cosmic ray
intensity' are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If
true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So
far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more
West Coast Publishing
4
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We
estimate that less than 15% of the II-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the
warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.
West Coast Publishing
5
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Happens Quickly
1. Models underestimate the risk of rapid warming
Erika Engelhaupt, staff writer, July 1, 2007, Environmental Science & Technology, p. 4488.
Following the latest projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new research
shows that models in the report underestimate some changes that are already under way. Sea ice is melting and
sea level is rising faster than models had predicted, and one brake on warming, the uptake of CO2 by oceans,
appears not to be working as well as scientists had thought. Results published in Geophysi- cal Research Letters
(2007, 34, L09501) in May show that ice-free summers could be even more like- ly this century than estimated in
February’s IPCC report. Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center led a group that analyzed nearly
60 years of sea ice records from satellites, ships, and airplanes, concluding that ice has disappeared at an average
rate of 7.8% per decade since 1953, com- pared with 2.5% per decade in computer simulations. And the Southern
Ocean is not exactly doing its part, taking up less CO2—5–30% less per de- cade—than expected, according to a
study published online May 17 in Science (2007, doi 10.1126/sci- ence.1136188). Models hadn’t ac- counted for
increased winds that push currents to bring deep car- bon to the surface, where it perco- lates back into the
atmosphere. Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatolo- gist at Potsdam University (Ger- many), points out that models tend
to underestimate sea level rise, too. “As climatologists, we’re often under fire because of our pessi- mistic
message, and we’re accused of overestimating the problem,” he says. “But I think the evidence points to the
opposite—we may have been underestimating it.”
2. Models are too conservative in estimating the rate of warming
Erika Engelhaupt, staff writer, July 1, 2007, Environmental Science & Technology, p. 4488.
But Rahmstorf says that model- ers might unwittingly make mod- els more conservative by applying “one-sided
filters”, weeding out models that clearly overestimate the changes seen so far, but hang- ing onto ones “where
everything is too well behaved and stable.” In January, Rahmstorf pub- lished sea-level-rise predictions in Science,
noting that the actual rise tracks the uppermost lim- its of 2001 IPCC projections. De- spite the previous
underestimate, this year’s IPCC report gave even smaller sea-level-rise projections, partly because authors omitted
any estimate of accelerating ice flow. “There’s absolutely no reason to assume sea level rise is going to be lower
than previously thought,” Rahmstorf says. The underestimates started to become clear last year, when Eric Rignot
of NASA’s Jet Propul- sion Laboratory used new satel- lite techniques to track a decline in Greenland’s ice. Within
months, satellite results showed the Antarc- tic ice sheet losing mass, too. Be- fore those data came out, scientists
had assumed polar ice sheets were in balance for lack of better infor- mation. In 2001, the IPCC said that loss of ice
sheets, leading to faster sea level rise, was “very unlikely during the 21st century.” The latest IPCC report abandons
that posi- tion, concluding that the Antarctic ice sheet is already contributing to sea level rise.
3. Rapid climate change is impending
Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, May/June 2008, Orion Magazine, accessed May
14, 2008, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2956/
All of which means it’s time to face a fundamental truth: the majority of the world’s climate scientists have been
totally wrong. They’ve failed us completely. Not concerning the basics of global warming. Of course the climate is
changing. Of course humans are driving the process through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. No, what
the scientists have been wrong about—and I mean really, really wrong—is the speed at which it’s all occurring. Our
climate system isn’t just “changing.” It’s not just “warming.” It’s snapping, violently, into a whole new regime right
before our eyes. A fantastic spasm of altered weather patterns is crashing down upon our heads right now. The
only question left for America is this: can we snap along with the climate? Can we, as the world’s biggest polluter,
create a grassroots political uprising that emerges as abruptly as a snap of the fingers? A movement that demands
the clean-energy revolution in the time we have left to save ourselves? I think we can do it. I hope we can do it.
Indeed, the recent political “snap” in Australia, where a devastating and unprecedented drought made climate
change a central voting issue and so helped topple a Bush-like government of deniers, should give us
encouragement. But time is running out fast for a similar transformation here.
West Coast Publishing
6
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Positive Feedbacks Prove
1. Positive feedbacks mean warming will be fast and violent
Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, May/June 2008, Orion Magazine, accessed May
14, 2008, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2956/
Actually it’s the so-called feedback loops that have tripped up scientists so badly, causing the experts to wildly
misjudge the speed of the climate crash. Having never witnessed a planet overheat before, no one quite
anticipated the geometric rate of change. To cite one example, when that brilliantly white Arctic ice melts to blue
ocean, it takes with it a huge measure of solar reflectivity, which increases sunlight absorption and feeds more
warmth back into the system, amplifying everything dramatically. And as northern forests across Canada continue
to die en masse due to warming, they switch from being net absorbers of CO2 to net emitters when forest
decomposition sets in. And as tundra melts all across Siberia, it releases long-buried methane, a greenhouse gas
twenty times more powerful than even CO2. And so on and so on and so on. Like the ear-splitting shriek when a
microphone gets too close to its amplifier, literally dozens of major feedback loops are screeching into place
worldwide, all at the same time, ushering in the era of runaway climate change. “Only in the past five years, as
researchers have learned more about the way our planet works, have some come to the conclusion that changes
probably won’t be as smooth or as gradual as [previously] imagined,” writes Fred Pearce in his new book With
Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. “We are in all probability already
embarked on a roller coaster ride of lurching and sometimes brutal change.”
2. Positive feedbacks risk runaway warming
Michael McCarthy, Environment editor, May 18, 2007, accessed May 14, 2008,
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/%20michael-mccarthy-positive-feedback-may-advancegloba%20l-warming-449320.html
The fear of some climate scientists is that just such a positive feedback might occur with global warming, in which
the warming itself precipitates changes in the earth's natural systems, which themselves cause additional warming,
which then causes further changes and so on, in an unstoppable acceleration. This fear is well founded, because
records of ancient climates deduced from cores driven deep into the polar ice show that this has happened in the
past. Previous episodes of global warming at the end of ice ages have indeed developed a runaway character, with
enormous temperature rises of as much as 10C in 50 years. There are a string of potential feedbacks associated
with climate change, nearly all of them likely to intensify the process. One, for example, concerns the melting of
the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean, which climate models suggest will be gone by 2080 - or could even be gone
considerably earlier than that.
3. Positive feedback leads to rapid warming
James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
October 2007, accessed May 12, 2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf
Please allow one final comment. The 6°C sensitivity (for doubled CO2) is valid for a specified change of greenhouse
gases as the climate forcing. That is relevant for human-made change of atmospheric composition, and this
sensitivity yields the correct answer for long-term climate change if actual greenhouse gas changes are used as the
forcing mechanism. However, climate model scenarios for the future usually incorporate human-made emissions
of greenhouse gases. Atmospheric greenhouse gas amounts may be affected by feedbacks, which thus alter
expected climate change. Greenhouse gas feedbacks are not idle speculation. Paleoclimate records reveal times in
the Earth’s history when global warming resulted in release of large amounts of methane to the atmosphere.
Potential sources of methane include methane hydrates ‘frozen’ in ocean sediments and tundra, which release
methane in thawing. Recent Arctic warming is causing release of methane from permafrost (Christensen et al.
2004; Walter et al. 2006), but not to a degree that has prevented near stabilization of atmospheric methane
amount over the past several years.
West Coast Publishing
7
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- CO2 Levels Prove
1. Atmospheric C02 levels are near a dangerous tipping point
James Hansen, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, June 2007, accessed May 14,
2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/canweavert.pdf
Recent analyses indicate that the amount of atmospheric CO2 required to cause dangerous climate change is at
most 450 ppm, and likely less than that. Reductions of non-CO2 climate forcings can provide only moderate, albeit
important, adjustments to the CO2 limit. Realization of how close the planet is to ‘tipping points’ with
unacceptable consequences, especially ice sheet disintegration with sea level rise out of humanity’s control, has a
bright side. It implies an imperative: we must find a way to keep the CO2 amount so low that it will also avert
other detrimental effects that had begun to seem inevitable, e.g., ocean acidification, loss of most alpine glaciers
and thus the water supply for millions of people, and shifting of climatic zones with consequent extermination of
species.
2. The Earth is on the brink of a climate tipping point
James Hansen, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, June 2007, accessed May 14,
2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/canweavert.pdf
Crystallizing scientific data and analyses reveal that the Earth is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping
points of the system with potential for irreversible deleterious effects. This information derives in part from
paleoclimate data, i.e., the record of how climate changed in the past, as well as from measurements being made
now by satellites and in the field. The Earth’s history shows that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings.
Positive feedbacks predominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge
natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings, and
positive feedbacks. Now humans are applying a far stronger forcing much more rapidly, as we put back into the
atmosphere, in a geologic heartbeat, fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years. Positive feedbacks are
beginning to occur, on a range of time scales.
3. C02 levels are near a tipping point—changing course is key to human survival
James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
2008, 2008-2009 State of the Wild, p. 7-8.
Our home planet is dangerously near a tipping point at which human-made greenhouse gases reach a level where
major climate changes can proceed mostly under their own momen- tum. Warming will shift cli- matic zones by
intensifying the hydrologic cycle, affect- ing freshwater availability and human health. We will see repeat- ed
coastal tragedies associated with storms and continuously rising sea lev- els. The implications are profound, and
the only resolution is for humans to move to a fundamentally different energy pathway within a decade. Otherwise, it will be too late for one-third of the world’s animal and plant species and millions of the most vulnerable
members of our own species. We may be able to preserve the re- markable planet on which civilization developed,
but it will not be easy: spe- cial interests are resistant to change and have inordinate power in our gov- ernments,
especially in the United States. Understanding the nature and causes of climate change is essential to crafting
solutions to our current crisis.
4. Now is the crucial time to address climate change
James Hansen, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, June 2007, accessed May 14,
2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/canweavert.pdf
We have solved or are solving those pollution problems, at least in developed countries. But we did not address
them until they hit us with full force. That approach, to wait and see and fix the problems post facto,
unfortunately, will not work in the case of global climate change. On the contrary, the inertia of the climate
system, the fact that much of the climate change due to gases already in the air is still ‘in the pipeline’, and the
time required for economically-sensible phase-out of existing technologies together have a profound implication.
They imply that ignoring the climate problem at this time, for even another decade, would serve to lock in future
catastrophic climatic change and impacts that will unfold during the remainder of this century and beyond
(references A and B).
West Coast Publishing
8
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
West Coast Publishing
9
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Qualified Sources
1. The scientific consensus is that warming is occurring and is human induced
Naomi Oreskes, Professor in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at
San Diego, December 2004, Science, p. 5702.
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also
alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive
disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action,
primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC
states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human
activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or
scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all
major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued
similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human
activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report
explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union
(7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent
years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling
2. The IPCC is extremely credible
Union of Concerned Scientists, August 24, 2007, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html
AR4 will be the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130
countries are contributing to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors
have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft
documents. AR4 will comprise three sections, or working groups, that deal with the scientific basis of global
warming (Working Group I), its consequences (Working Group II), and options for slowing the trend (Working
Group III). The IPCC will release summaries of the three working group documents over the course of 2007,
culminating in the publication of the final “synthesis report” at the end of the year. The inclusive process by which
IPCC assessments are developed and accepted by its members ensures exceptional scientific credibility. As such,
AR4 has the potential to play a key role in informing decision makers as they shape climate policies over the next
several years.
3. All reputable scientific organizations in the U.S. agree with the warming hypothesis
Naomi Oreskes, Professor in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at
San Diego, Climate Change What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, 2007, p. 68.
In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise
bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion. One is the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001), which
originated from a White House request. Here is how it opens: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s
atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures
to rise” (National Academy of Sciences 2001, 1). The report explicitly addresses whether the IPCC assessment is a
fair summary of professional scientific thinking and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed
warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” (National National Academy of Sciences
2001, 3). Other U.S. scientific groups agree.
West Coast Publishing
10
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
West Coast Publishing
11
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Extinction
1. Unchecked climate change will make most of the Earth uninhabitable
Mary Wood, Professor of Law, Morse Center for Law and Politics Resident Scholar, University of Oregon School of
Law, 2007, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, p. 583-584.
If we do nothing to curb carbon emissions, we will commit ourselves to a future that most Americans cannot even
imagine. Jim Hansen, the leading climate scientist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
presents the ten degree Fahrenheit scenario: it will send fifty percent or more species into extinction. That is
equivalent to the mass extinction that occurred fifty-five million years ago. In his words, "Life will survive, but it will
do so on a transformed planet." A mere five-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase may cause an eighty foot rise
in sea level. Hansen points out: "In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be under water.
Fifty million people in the U.S. live below that sea level. "' I could go on detailing on how climate crisis will affect
the lives of every human on Earth. What I have mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg—a phrase on its way out.
British commentator Mark Lynas, au- thor of High Tide, summarizes the Earth's situation this way: "Let me put it
simply: if we go on emitting greenhouse gases at anything like the current rate, most of the surface of the globe
will be rendered uninhab- itable within the lifetimes of most readers of this article."*
2. Warming will cause global instability and trigger U.S. isolationism
David Stipp, staff writer, February 9, 2004, Fortune, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm
For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt change. A century of cold, dry, windy
weather across the Northern Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill--its severity fell
between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The event is thought to have been triggered by a
conveyor collapse after a time of rising temperatures not unlike today's global warming. Suppose it recurred,
beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020: At first the changes are easily mistaken
for normal weather variation--allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little importance and leaving
policymakers and the public paralyzed with uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is
happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of North America
and Asia and up to six degrees in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North
Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is today.) Massive droughts have begun in key
agricultural regions. The average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and its climate has
become more like Siberia's. Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way
to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making
coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are
breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south. Megadroughts afflict the U.S.,
especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing
widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to
its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It
magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America. Turning inward, the U.S.
effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back
starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands--waves of boat people pose especially
grim problems.
3. Abrupt climate change risks nuclear conflict
Peter Schwartz et al, former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, October 2003, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.gbn.com/
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
West Coast Publishing
12
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
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.
West Coast Publishing
13
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Extinction
1. Rapid climate change could drive most species to extinction
James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
October 2007, accessed May 12, 2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf
There are millions of species of plants and animals on Earth. These species depend upon each other in a tangled
web of interactions that humans are only beginning to fathom. Each species lives, and can survive, only within a
specific climatic zone. When climate changes, species migrate in an attempt to stay within their climatic niche.
However, large rapid climate change can drive most of the species on the planet to extinction. Geologic records
indicate that mass extinctions, with loss of more than half of existing species, occurred several times in the Earth’s
history. New species developed, but that process required hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years. If we
destroy a large portion of the species of creation, those that have existed on Earth in recent millennia, the Earth
will be a far more desolate planet for as many generations of humanity as we can imagine.
2. Global warming is the pre-eminent threat to global biodiversity
Jay Malcolm et al, Professor of Forestry at the University of Toronto, April 2006, Conservation Biology, p. 538.
Global warming is a key threat to biodiversity, but few researchers have assessed the magnitude of this threat at
the global scale. We used major vegetation types ( biomes) as proxies for natural habitats and, based on projected
future biome distributions under doubled-CO2 climates, calculated changes in habitat areas and associated
extinctions of endemic plant and vertebrate species in biodiversity hotspots. Because of numerous uncertainties in
this approach, we undertook a sensitivity analysis of multiple factors that included (1) two global vegetation
models, (2) different numbers of biome classes in our biome classification schemes, (3) different assumptions
about whether species distributions were biome specific or not, and (4) different migration capabilities. Extinctions
were calculated using both species-area and endemic-area relationships. In addition, average required migration
rates were calculated for each hotspot assuming a doubled-CO2 climate in 100 years. Projected percent extinctions
ranged from <1 to 43% of the endemic biota (average 11.6%), with biome specificity having the greatest influence
on the estimates, followed by the global vegetation model and then by migration and biome classification
assumptions. Bootstrap comparisons indicated that effects on hotpots as a group were not significantly different
from effects on random same-biome collections of grid cells with respect to biome change or migration rates; in
some scenarios, however, hotspots exhibited relatively high biome change and low migration rates. Especially
vulnerable hotspots were the Cape Floristic Region, Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Mediterranean Basin, Southwest
Australia, and Tropical Andes, where plant extinctions per hotspot sometimes exceeded 2000 species. Under the
assumption that projected habitat changes were attained in 100 years, estimated global-warming-induced rates of
species extinctions in tropical hotspots in some cases exceeded those due to deforestation, supporting suggestions
that global warming is one of the most serious threats to the planet’s biodiversity.
3. Warming risks widespread species extinction
Alan Pounds et al, with the Golden Toad Laboratory for Conservation, January 12, 2006, Nature, p. 161.
Humans are altering the Earth's climate and thus the workings of living systems, including pathogens and their
hosts. Among the predicted outcomes is the extinction of many species, but detecting such an effect is difficult
against a backdrop of other changes, especially habitat destruction. One approach is to focus on organisms for
which current rates of extinction exceed those expected from habitat loss. Amphibians are a case in point.
Thousands of species have declined, and hundreds are on the brink of extinction or have already vanished. The
Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) lists 427 species as "critically endangered", including 122 species that are
"possibly extinct". A majority of the former, and nearly all of the latter, have declined even in seemingly
undisturbed environments. The causes have remained unclear, in part because of their complexity. Although
pathogens are implicated, their relationship to environmental change is poorly understood. Here we test the
"climate-linked epidemic hypothesis", which predicts declines in unusually warm years but does not assume a
particular disease or chain of events. Recent studies have considered this idea1, yet data have not permitted a
geographically broad test that examines landscape alteration, global warming and climate fluctuations on the
timescale of El Niño. Suffering widespread extinctions often despite habitat protection, harlequin frogs (Atelopus)
afford such a test. A new database, produced by 75 researchers, documents the case in unprecedented detail,
owing to the nature of these members of the toad family (Bufonidae). Brightly coloured and active during the day
West Coast Publishing
14
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
near streams, most are readily observed and identified. For the first time, data indicate when each of numerous
species was seen for the last time.
West Coast Publishing
15
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Sea Level Rise
1. Sea level rise from warming will be 1000 times worse than Katrina
James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
October 2007, accessed May 12, 2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf, p. 3.
The most threatening tipping point in the climate system is the potential instability of large ice sheets, especially
West Antarctica and Greenland. If disintegration of these ice sheets passes their tipping points, dynamical collapse
of the West Antarctic ice sheet and part of the Greenland ice sheet could proceed out of our control. The ice sheet
tipping point is especially dangerous because West Antarctica alone contains enough water to cause about 20 feet
(6 meters) of sea level rise. Hundreds of millions of people live less than 20 feet above sea level. Thus the number
of people affected would be 1000 times greater than in the New Orleans Katrina disaster. Although Iowa would
not be directly affected by sea level rise, repercussions would be worldwide.
2. Warming will cause devastating sea level rise
James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
October 2007, accessed May 12, 2008, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf
Modern societies have constructed enormous infrastructure on today’s coastlines. More than a billion people live
within 25 meter elevation of sea level. This includes practically the entire nation of Bangladesh, almost 300 million
Chinese, and large populations in India and Egypt, as well as many historical cities in the developed world,
including major European cities, many cities in the Far East, all major East Coast cities in the United States, among
hundreds of other cities in the world. Q. How much will sea level rise if global temperature increases several
degrees? A. Our best guide for the eventual long-term sea level change is the Earth’s history. The last time the
Earth was 2-3°C warmer than today, about 3 million years ago, sea level was about 25 meters higher. The last time
the planet was 5°C warmer, just prior to the glaciation of Antarctica about 35 million years ago, there were no
large ice sheets on the planet. Given today’s ocean basins, if the ice sheets melt entirely, sea level will rise about
70 meters (about 230 feet).
3. Sea level rise will destroy whole nations and their cultures
Stefan Lovgren, writer for National Geographic News, April 26, 2004, National Geographic, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html
However, the biggest danger, many experts warn, is that global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically.
Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). But that's nothing compared
to what would happen if, for example, Greenland's massive ice sheet were to melt. "The consequences would be
catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of
Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that
have existed for thousands of years."
4. Sea level rise will be twice as high as previously estimated
ScienceDaily, February 12, 2008, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172517.htm
A comprehensive new study authored by University at Buffalo scientists and their colleagues for the first time
documents in detail the dynamics of parts of Greenland's ice sheet, important data that have long been missing
from the ice sheet models on which projections about sea level rise and global warming are based. The research
also demonstrates how remote sensing and digital imaging techniques can produce rich datasets without field data
in some cases. Traditionally, ice sheet models are very simplified, according to Beata Csatho, Ph.D., assistant
professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences and lead author of the paper.* "Ice sheet models
usually don't include all the complexity of ice dynamics that can happen in nature," said Csatho. "This research will
give ice sheet modelers more precise, more detailed data." The implications of these richer datasets may be
dramatic, Csatho said, especially as they impact climate projections and sea-level rise estimates, such as those
made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "If current climate models from
the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be
twice as high as what they are currently projecting," she said.
West Coast Publishing
16
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Global Conflict
1. Warming will cause resource conflict around the globe
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 355.
By any reckoning, global climate change poses a threat to world security writ large. Because it will imperil food
production around the world and could render many heavily populated areas uninhabitable, it has the potential to
endan- ger the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of mil- lions of people. So far, most experts’ warnings have
naturally tended to focus on the large-scale, non- traditional security implications of global warming: mass
starvation resulting from persistent drought, humanitarian disasters caused by severe hurricane and typhoon
activity, the inundation of coastal cit- ies, and so on. Just as likely, however, is an increase in more familiar security
threats: war, insurgency, ethnic conflict, state collapse, and civil violence. The Nobel committee affirmed as much
in Octo- ber when it awarded the Peace Prize to former Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change for their efforts to raise aware- ness about global warming. The prize committee cited “increased
danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.” Climate change will increase the risk of conflict
because it is almost certain to diminish the supply of vital resources—notably food, water, and arable land—in
areas of the planet that already are suffer- ing from resource scarcity, thus increasing the risk that desperate
groups will fight among themselves for whatever remains of the means of survival. In wealthier societies, such
conflicts can be mitigated by food and housing subsidies provided by the central governments and by robust
schemes for relocation and reconstruction. In poorer countries, where little or no such capacity exists, the conflicts
are more likely to be decided by ethnic or religious militias and the power of the gun.
2. Climate change will cause violent conflicts
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 355.
Violent conflict over vital resources has, of course, been a characteristic of the human condition since very ancient
times. Archaeological remains and the oldest written records attest to the fact that early human communities
fought for control over prime growing areas, hunting zones, timber stands, and so on. A growing body of evidence
also sug- gests that severe climate changes—for example, the “little Ice Age” of circa ad 1300–1700—have tended
to increase the risk of resource-related conflict. Ste- ven A. LeBlanc of the Peabody Museum of Archae- ology and
Ethnology at Harvard has noted, for example, that conflict among the Anasazi people of the American Southwest
appears to have increased substantially with the cooling trend (and reduced food output) of the early 1300s, as
indicated by the abandonment of exposed valley-floor settlements in favor of more defensible cliff dwellings.
3. Warming risks food scarcity and conflict across Africa
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 356-357.
The pivotal relationship between climate change and the coping capacity of affected states will be especially
pronounced in Africa. That continent is expected to suffer disproportionately from the direst effects of global
warming—especially from prolonged drought and water scarcity—and it pos- sesses the least capacity to mitigate
these impacts. According to Working Group II, as early as 2020, between 75 million and 250 million Africans are
expected to face increased water scarcity as a result of climate change; by the 2050s, this number is projected to
range between 350 and 600 mil- lion people. Because food production in Africa is already stretched to the limit,
the decline in water availability will reduce crop yields and greatly increase the risk of hunger and malnutrition.
According to the Working Group II report, yields from rain-fed agriculture in some African coun- tries could be
reduced by as much as half by 2020. Increased rural unrest and conflicts over land are a likely result.
4. Climate change will trigger North-South conflict
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 357-358.
Add climate change to the equation, and the picture becomes much, much worse. While most of the world’s
regions are likely to experience a reduction in the supply of at least some critical resources, it is true that a few
could see limited gains from global warming. Some countries in the far north, for example, could benefit from
more rainfall and longer growing seasons, allowing for increased food output. Russia also hopes to ben- efit from
the melting of the Arctic ice cap, which theoretically would allow oil and natural gas drill- ing in areas now covered
year-round by thick ice. But even if these hypothetical advantages are not outweighed by other, less desirable
consequences of global warming, any perception of a widening chasm between the “winners” and “losers” of cli-
West Coast Publishing
17
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
mate change—when the overwhelming majority of the world’s population is likely to fall in the latter category—
could direct angry and potentially lethal attention toward the former.
West Coast Publishing
18
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Water Wars
1. Warming will cause global water wars
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 358.
Global climate change is also likely to increase the risk of conflict over vital supplies of fresh water. Although states
have rarely gone to war over dis- puted water supplies in recent times, they have often threatened to do so, and
the risk factors appear to be growing. Water scarcity and stress are already a significant problem in many parts of
the world, and are expected to become more so as a result of population growth, urbanization, and industrialization. Furthermore, many of the countries with the greatest exposure to water scarcity are highly dependent on
river sys- tems that arise outside their territory and pass through nations with which they have poor or unfriendly
relations. Egypt, for example, is almost entirely dependent for its fresh water on the Nile, which arises in Central
Africa (in the case of the White Nile) and Ethiopia (in the case of the Blue Nile). Iraq and Syria both depend for
much of their water on the Tigris and Euphrates, which originate in Turkey. Israel relies on the Jordan River, which
originates, in part, in Lebanon and Syria.
West Coast Publishing
19
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- State Failure
1. Warming will cause state failure
Michael Klare, professor at Hampshire College, November 2007, Current History, p. 359-360.
Climate change will contribute to the propen- sity for weak states to collapse and give rise to militia rule and ethnic
conflict for a variety of reasons. Consider any nation in the tropical or sub-temperate regions that depends for a
sig- nificant share of its gross domestic product on farming, herding, forestry, and fishing, and that encompasses
within its population more than one major ethnic, religious, or linguistic community. As indicated in the report of
Working Group II, global warming is likely to harm some if not all of these livelihoods, though not to the same
extent and not all at once. Also, some outlying parts of the country may become virtually uninhabitable, forcing
people to migrate to the major city (or cit- ies), often the capital or major port; or to areas more fortunate, which
may be occupied by peo- ple of a different ethnicity (or religion, language group, and so forth). The decline in
farming, fishing, and other livelihoods will contribute to a reduction in gdp, diminishing the revenues of the central
government and thus its ability to shoul- der additional burdens. Meanwhile, the move- ment of desperate
refugees to the cities or other areas will produce an enormous need for relief services and exacerbate inter-group
tensions. All this would be a Herculean challenge for even the most affluent and capable governments, as the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed Americans. For poor, weak, and divided gov- ernments, the challenge could
well prove insur- mountable. As states collapse under the strain, what might be called the “Mogadishu effect” will
kick in. Armed groups will coalesce around clans, tribes, village ties, and so on, as each group strives to ensure its
own survival, at whatever price in bullets and blood. It is in precisely these circum- stances, moreover, that
extremist movements take root. With food and housing in short supply and city streets clogged with refugees, it is
easy for a demagogue to blame another group or tribe for his own group’s misfortunes and to call for vio- lent
action to redress grievances.
2. Warming is a bigger threat than terrorism
CNN.com, February 6, 2004, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/05/canada.environment.reut/index.html
Global warming poses a greater long-term threat to humanity than terrorism because it could force hundreds of
millions from their homes and trigger an economic catastrophe, Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson
said. "Current preoccupation is with terrorism, but in the long term climate change will outweigh terrorism as an
issue for the international community," he said. "Terrorism will come and go, it has in the past...and it's very
important. But climate change is going to make some very fundamental changes to human existence on the
planet."
West Coast Publishing
20
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Disease Spread
1. Warming leads to global spread of infectious disease
Hans Baer, Lecturer in the School of Anthropology, Geography, and Environmental Studies and the Centre for
Health and Society at the University of Melbourne, April 2008, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, p. 60.
Global warming appears to be the primary impetus behind the spread of infectious- borne diseases to
environments north and south of the equator and heat waves that threaten the lives and health of vulnerable
populations, such as the elderly and the sick. Global warming has been implicated in the resurgence of a number of
epidemics, including malaria in various parts of the world, cholera in Latin America in 1991, pneumonic plague in
India in 1994, and hantavirus epidemic in the Southwest of the United States, also in 1994. Air pollution linked to
longer, warmer summers particularly affects those suffering from respiratory problems, such as asthma. Given the
health consequences of global warming, we can speak of the diseases of global warming (Singer and Baer 2007:
190-193). These would not necessarily be new diseases, although they might include any 'tropical' disease (e.g.
malaria and dengue fever) that spreads to new places and peoples because of global warming, as well as the
detrimental health effects of failing food security due to desertification of pastoral areas and flooding of
agricultural lands.
2. Global warming will undermine public health globally
Jonathan Patz, Professor of Environmental Studies & Population Health Sciences, University of WisconsinMadison, April 10, 2008, Congressional Testimony before the Committee on Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions
Global warming is unlike many other health threats with which we have confronted because unlike 'single agent'
toxins or microbes, climate change affects multiple pathways of harmful exposures to our health. Climate change
can affect human health either from direct heatwaves and severe storms to ground level smog /ozone pollution
and airborne allergens, as well as many climate- sensitive infectious diseases. Disease risks originating outside the
US must also be considered because we live in a very globalized world. Many poor nations of the world are
expected to suffer even more health consequences due to climate change compared to the U.S. With global trade
and transport, however, disease flare-ups in any part of the world can potentially reach the U.S. Additionally,
climate extremes, e.g. droughts and storms, can further stress environmental resources by destabilizing economies
and potentially creating security risks both internally and to other nations.
3. Warming will cause massive spread of infectious disease
MSNBC, November 14, 2006, accessed May 14, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15717706/
A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, health experts reported Tuesday, citing surges in
Kenya, China and Europe of such diseases as malaria, heart ailments and dengue fever. “Climate affects some of
the most important diseases afflicting the world,” said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of the World Health
Organization. “The impacts may already be significant.” Kristie L. Ebi, an American public health consultant for the
agency, warned “climate change could overwhelm public health services.”
4. Warming will cause spread of water borne disease
Robert T. Watson et al, Chief Scientist for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development at the World
Bank, August 2005, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, p. 838.
Water-borne disease Water-borne diseases have long been considered to be a major public health problem
throughout the world, especially in developing countries. In general, these include such serious diseases as
cholera, cyclospora, cryptosporidiosis, campylobac- ter and leptospirosis. One of the effects of climate change is
the increased incidence of local extreme weather episodes, includ- ing extreme precipitation events. For these,
observations in the United States over the last 100 years indicate that precipitation events with more than two
inches of rain in 24 hours have increased by about 20% (Karl and Knight24). Studies of precipitation in the 18
hydrological regions in the United States show a strong correlation between the incidence of the out- break of
water-borne disease and the occurrence of extreme levels of precipitation (in the upper 10-percentile and within a
two month time lag) (Curriero et al.25). By way of illustration, one notorious such episode was the
cryptosporidium outbreak in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993 (Fox and Lytle26), with more than 400 000
cases reported, contributing to more than 100 fatalities. This outbreak was preceded by the heaviest rainfall in
that area for 50 years, resulting in a large discharge of waste and storm overflow water. As this sort of episode is
West Coast Publishing
21
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
likely to increase during the expected continued climate change in the decades ahead, it is sobering that one study
for an agricultural region in the United States showed that over 60% of livestock operations tested positive for
crypto oocysts (the dormant form of cryptosporidium) in manure (Graczyk et al.27).
West Coast Publishing
22
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Severe Storms
1. Global warming will cause severe storms
Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCC), 2007, Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing
Countries, p. 8.
As a result of global warming, the type, frequency and intensity of extreme events, such as tropical cyclones
(including hurricanes and typhoons), floods, droughts and heavy precipitation events, are expected to rise even
with relatively small average temperature increases. Changes in some types of extreme events have already been
observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events
(Meehl et al. 2007).
2. Warming will increase tropical storm frequency and intensity
Matthew Zinn, Environmental Law Fellow, California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, University of
California, Berkeley, 2007, Ecological Law Quarterly, p. 78-79
Widespread speculation about the possible role of climate change followed closely in the wake of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in 2005. Although it is impossible to link any individual storm to climate change, atmospheric
scientists have predicted a general increase in tropical storm intensity linked to climate change-induced warming
of tropical waters. Consistent with that prediction, the 2005 hurricane season set a flurry of new records: fifteen
hurricanes (previous record was twelve), twenty-eight named storms (previous record was twenty-one), four
Category Five hurricanes (previous record was two), four major hurricanes touching down in the United States
(previous record was three), and five storm names "retired" in a single season due to their extensive damage and
loss of life. As Katrina and Rita powerfully demonstrated, severe storms damage the natural and human
environment in coastal areas with high winds and storm surges. An increase in storm intensity caused by climate
change can be expected to increase that damage by producing large storms more frequently. Worse still, sea level
rise caused by climate change would exacerbate the risks of increased storm severity. Rising sea levels increase the
relative height, and thus damage, of storm surges. Moreover, although coastal wetlands can moderate the damage
inflicted by storm surges and floodwaters by absorbing rising water and dissipating the surge's destructive energy,
because of their low elevation and proximity to the existing shoreline, they will be some of the first sites
submerged by rising seas.
3. Warming will cause a spike in destructive tropical storms
Richard Anthes et al, with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, May 2006, Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, p. 626.
However, while there are obvious large and natural oscillations, in our view the growing body of evidence suggests
a direct and growing trend in several important aspects of tropical cyclones, such as intensity, rainfall, and sea
level, all of which can be attributed to global warming. Aspects of the associa- tion between global warming and
tropical cyclones and other extreme atmospheric events are uncertain, in part because climate change is
continuous, yet irregular. However, in a warmer, moister world with higher SSTs, higher sea level, altered
atmospheric and oceanic circulations, and increased societal vulnerability, it would be surprising if there were no
significant changes in tropical cyclone characteris- tics and their impacts on society. Indeed, the broad agreement
between theoretical and modeling studies, together with the strong evidence from observational analysis,
suggests that not only will tropical cyclone intensity increase with anthropogenic warming, but that this process
has already commenced. The precautionary principle argues for further scientific study and better planning and
adaptation. Research is needed to enhance understanding and long-term projections, to improve forecasting and
warnings of tropical cyclones worldwide, and to better assess vulnerability. Based on what is already known and
can be projected into the future, it would be prudent to improve planning and carry out mitigation mea- sures such
as trying to minimize possible losses through enhanced building codes, restrictions on where to build, and
improving infrastructure to cope with winds and floods, even if some of the more extreme scenarios do not
eventuate.
West Coast Publishing
23
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Global Economy
1. Unchecked warming will crush the global economy
Chris Abbott, Programme Coordinator and Researcher at Oxford Research Group, January 2008, accessed May 15,
2008, http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/uncertainfuture.pdf, p. 6.
With most of the world’s cities, and of course ports, located on coasts or river deltas, there is a clear threat from
these rising sea levels and extreme weather events to human life and property and other key infrastructure such as
communication, transport and energy supply networks. Even those coun- tries not directly affected in this way, will
have commercial and military assets overseas and citizens living abroad that may come under threat. The
economic impact alone of such losses could be enormous. In fact, The Stern Reviewpublished by the British
Treasury at the end of 2006 concluded that if the more dramatic predictions come to pass, then inaction on
climate change could cost the world economy more than 20% of global GDP each year (whereas the costs of
effective action could be limited to just 1% of global GDP each year).
2. Unmitigated warming will cause economic collapse
Sydney Morning Herald, May 5, 2008, accessed May 14, 2008, http://www.smh.com.au/news/globalwarming/climate-change-could-end-boom-times--garnaut/2008/05/05/1209839549830.html
Global warming could have the same economic effect as the Great Depression if handled poorly, government
climate change adviser Ross Garnaut says. Professor Garnaut has written an article saying that poor design or
slowness in implementing climate change-easing policies could spell the end of what he calls the Platinum Age. The
economist's article, published in the Australian National University's biannual Asian-Pacific Economic Literature,
says the shock of unexpectedly large climate change impacts on fragile political systems could bring about sharp
downturns in economies.
3. Preventing warming is key to prevent a new great depression
Juliet Eilperin, staff writer, October 31, 2006, The Washington Post, p. A18.
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.
4. Warming risks economic devastation
Simon Dietz et al, Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment and Centre for Environmental
Policy and Governance, London School of Economics and Political Science, August/October 2007, Global
Environmental Change, p. 311.
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that there can be ‘‘no doubt’’ the economic risks
of business-as-usual (BAU) climate change are ‘‘very severe’’ [Stern, 2006. The Economics of Climate Change. HM
Treasury, London, p. 188]. The total cost of climate change was estimated to be equivalent to a one-off,
permanent 5–20% loss in global mean per-capita consumption today. And the marginal damage cost of a tonne of
carbon emitted today was estimated to be around $312 [p. 344]. Both of these estimates are higher than most
reported in the previous literature. Subsequently, a number of critiques have appeared, arguing that discounting is
the principal explanation for this discrepancy. Discounting is important, but in this paper we emphasise that how
one approaches the economics of risk and uncertainty, and how one attempts to model the very closely related
issue of low-probability/high-damage scenarios (which we connect to the recent discussion of ‘dangerous’ climate
change), can matter just as much. We demonstrate these arguments empirically, using the same models applied in
the Stern Review. Together, the issues of risk and uncertainty on the one hand, and ‘dangerous’ climate change on
the other, raise very strongly questions about the limits of a welfare-economic approach, where the loss of natural
capital might be irreversible and impossible to compensate. Thus we also critically reflect on the state-of-the-art in
integrated assessment modelling. There will always be an imperative to carry out integrated assessment
modelling, bringing together scientific ‘fact’ and value judgement systematically. But we agree with those
cautioning against a literal interpretation of current estimates. Ironically, the Stern Review is one of those voices. A
West Coast Publishing
24
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
fixation with cost-benefit analysis misses the point that arguments for stabilisation should, and are, built on
broader foundations.
West Coast Publishing
25
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
Warming Bad- Kills Agriculture
1. Warming will be a net negative for global agriculture
Alex Evansis, Non-resident Fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, April 2008,
accessed May 14, 2008, http://www.crin.org/docs/chat.pdf
The fourth, and perhaps most fundamental, factor is climate change. Overall, the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) projects that global food production could rise if local average temperatures increase by between 1
and 3 degrees Celsius, but could decrease above this range. Crucially, however, this is before extreme weather
events are taken into account; and the IPCC judges that extreme weather, rather than temperature, is likely to
make the biggest difference to food security. Glacial melting will affect agriculture as well: the IPCC estimates, for
example, that many Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, with cata-strophic results for Chinese and Indian
agriculture during the dry season. Its assessment is also that ‘climate change increases the number of people at
risk of hunger’, and will lead to an increase of between 40 million and 170 million in the number of
undernourished people.
2. Warming will undermine agriculture globally
Heidi Fritschel, with the International Food Policy Research Institute, December 2006, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/newsletters/ifpriforum/if17.pdfp. 9.
Because it is linked so closely to natural resources and climate conditions, agriculture will keenly feel the effects of
climate change through changes in both temperature and precipitation, and thus the availability of water for
growing food. Scientists predict that the interiors of major continents will warm more quickly than the oceans. In
addition, current weather extremes are likely to be exacerbated. It is likely that wet areas of the world will get
even wetter, and dry areas will get drier.Thus, for example, monsoons in South Asia will intensify, while arid
regions of Africa will become drier. Mark Rosegrant, director of IFPRI’s Environment and Production Technology
Division, points out,“Agriculture is the largest consumer of water globally, and as climate change alters the
quantity and reliability of water supplies, it could threaten the welfare of millions of poor farmers.”
3. Rapid warming will destroy agricultural output
Peter Schwartz, former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and Doug Randall, from the Monitor Group's
Global Business Network, October 2003, accessed May 15, 2008,
http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3
Fid%3D28566
Climatically, the gradual change view of the future assumes that agriculture will continue to thrive and growing
seasons will lengthen. Northern Europe, Russia, and North America will prosper agriculturally while southern
Europe, Africa, and Central and South America will suffer from increased dryness, heat, water shortages, and
reduced production. Overall, global food production under many typical climate scenarios increases. This view of
climate change may be a dangerous act of self- deception, as increasingly we are facing weather related disasters -more hurricanes, monsoons, floods, and dry-spells – in regions around the world. Weather-related events have an
enormous impact on society, as they influence food supply, conditions in cities and communities, as well as access
to clean water and energy. For example, a recent report by the Climate Action Network of Australia projects that
climate change is likely to reduce rainfall in the rangelands, which could lead to a 15 per cent drop in grass
productivity. This, in turn, could lead to reductions in the average weight of cattle by 12 per cent, significantly
reducing beef supply. Under such conditions, dairy cows are projected to produce 30% less milk, and new pests are
likely to spread in fruit-growing areas. Additionally, such conditions are projected to lead to 10% less water for
drinking. Based on model projections of coming change conditions such as these could occur in several food
producing regions around the world at the same time within the next 15-30years, challenging the notion that
society’s ability to adapt will make climate change manageable.
West Coast Publishing
26
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Biased Sources
1. Global warming scientists are biased
Jerome C. Arnett Jr., M.D. member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel, Summer 2007, Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 64.
“Global warming” is a fraud that has been perpetrated by unethical environmentalists, by activists with no
credentials, by climate scientists using wildly inaccurate computer models, by govern- ment bureaucracies, and by
irresponsible liberal news media. It has become a religion, and scientists who question it have even received death
threats. One reason for this may be that the climate research establishment, along with the entire field of
epidemiology, has become heavily dependent on billions of dollars a year in government research grants.
Hundreds of new climate research projects have been undertaken, and dozens of new scientific journals have been
created to publish the results. Absent the global warming scare, many environmental groups, as well as whole
divisions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), would be decimated.
2. Warming alarmists are biased
Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, 2004, Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, p. 231.
According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Deputy Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
James Mahoney, taxpayers have already disbursed $20 billion at the scientific community for global warming work
since 1990. That money would not have arrived if AAAS promoted either the notion that climate change was likely
modest or claimed that we knew enough about it that little further research is needed. Rather, it has demonstrably
done the opposite in Science, arguably the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. Science publishes a
section called “Compass” that includes perspectives and commentaries, which are subject to peer review. Since
2000, roughly 75 of those commentaries have been consistent with the view that global warming is a serious
problem requiring a massive solution. Not one has emphasized the obvious truth, detailed throughout this book,
that warming in the next 50 and 100 years is already known to a rather small range of error and that it is likely to
be very modest. But the bias is obvious and understandable. It is what climate scientists expect. Their lobby exists
to support research that supports the paradigm that is increasingly commingled with the political process. Britain's
Nature is similar, with five recent “opinion” pieces editorializing about the perils of warming and the need to do
something about it, plus one “editorial” and one “insight” on the same. Nothing whatsoever on the other side.
Again, nothing here is illogical, nor is it particularly nefarious. Rather, it is predictably human. What is illogical is a
belief that science and scientists would behave in any other way given the nature of science and the world in
which it is enmeshed.
3. Peer reviewed pro-warming papers are still bunk
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. vi.
Another reason for the IPCC’s unreliability is the naive acceptance by policymakers of ‘peer- reviewed’ literature as
necessarily authoritative. It has become the case that refereeing standards for many climate-change papers are
inadequate, often because of the use of an ‘invisible college’ of reviewers of like inclination to a paper’s authors.
[Wegman et al. 2006] (For example, some leading IPCC promoters surround themselves with as many as two dozen
coauthors when publishing research papers.) Policy should be set upon a background of demonstrable science, not
upon simple (and often mistaken) assertions that, because a paper was refereed, its conclusions must be accepted.
4. Global warming scaremongering is empirically unfounded hype
Warren Anderson et al, Research Analyst at the Business & Media Institute, May 17, 2006, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
The media have warned about impending climate doom four dif- ferent times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t
decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling. As the noise from the contro- versy has increased, it has
drowned out any debate. Journalists have taken advocacy positions, often ignoring climate change skeptics
entirely. One CBS reporter even compared skeptics of manmade global warming to Holocaust deniers. The Society
of Environmental Journalists Spring 2006 SEJournal included a now-common media position, arguing against
West Coast Publishing
27
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
balance. But that sense of certainty ignores the industry’s history of hyping climate change – from cooling to
warming, back to cooling and warming once again.
West Coast Publishing
28
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- IPCC Biased
1. The IPCC is grossly biased
Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, February 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. iii.
The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the
control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely
ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant
alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human
influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the nowdiscredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate
contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.
2. IPCC is biased
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. iv.
The history of the IPCC has been described in several publications. What is not emphasized, however, is the fact
that it was an activist enterprise from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify control of the emission of
greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Consequently, its scientific reports have focused solely on evidence
that might point toward human-induced climate change. The role of the IPCC “is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced
worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation” (emphasis added) [IPCC 2008].
3. The IPCC is not a reliable source
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. v.
From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting
the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position. In particular,
a small group of activists wrote the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC
reports [McKitrick et al. 2007]. While we are often told about the thousands of scientists on whose work the
Assessment reports are based, the vast majority of these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions
expressed by the IPCC. Those are produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to,
line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is
reviewed and published.
4. IPCC is unreliable for three reasons
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. vi.
Why have the IPCC reports been marred by controversy and so frequently contradicted by subsequent research?
Certainly its agenda to find evidence of a human role in climate change is a major reason; its organization as a
government entity beholden to political agendas is another major reason; and the large professional and financial
rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who are willing to bend scientific facts to match those agendas is yet
a third major reason.
West Coast Publishing
29
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Anti-Warming Sources Qualified
1. Fred Singer is a qualified source
Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, February 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. iii.
Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first
director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical
leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for
Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues.
2. Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide evidence is valid regardless of funding sources
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, September 2006,
accessed May 14, 2008,
http://web.archive.org/web/20070713041156/http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N3
9/EDIT.jsp
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true;
and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we
typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and
comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual
scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing
and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and
twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that.
So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly
reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom
storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we
take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel
that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones
that "misrepresent the science of climate change."
3. Claims of bias because of funding are just an attempt to bury irrefutable arguments
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, October 27, 2007, accessed May
13, 2007, http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money
from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are
totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and
meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash
awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards
for global warming optimists. Instead, we have to endure scorn from several outspoken peers in the scientific
community, some of whom are successful at thwarting our publication of scientific articles and government
funding of our research proposals. As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we
skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are
no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong.
Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and increasing numbers of scientists are now speaking out about their
doubts concerning mankind's role in recent global warmth.
West Coast Publishing
30
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Not Happening
1. Warming is not occurring
Jerome C. Arnett Jr., M.D. member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel, Summer 2007, Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 64.
The six major theoretical computer climate models used to predict warming are inaccurate. They disagree among
them- selves by 400 percent. Not one of them agrees with the temperatures observed. • Temperatures were much
warmer 1,000 years ago. • Water vapor, not CO , is the most important greenhouse gas, and solar activity acting
via clouds best explains the climate cycles. • The CO changes don’t cause the warming periods, but instead follow
the warmings by 800 years. • Nearly every wild species alive today has been around for more than 1 million years
and thus has survived 600 global warming cycles, some much warmer than the present. • The Arctic and Antarctic
continents are not warming as predicted, but instead are cooling.
2. New evidence shows there is little risk of warming
Phil Gentry, staff writer, 8-9-2007, accessed May 14 2008, http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more
heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a
decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in
UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. "All leading climate models
forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would
amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback.
What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback.
As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the
atmosphere to outer space."
3. The earth is not warming
Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso, from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6,
2007, accessed May 13, 2008, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
In concluding this portion of our critique of Hansen's testimony, we note that the mean surface air temperature of
the earth is currently nowhere near as high as it was a million years ago. Neither are current temperatures as high
as the peak temperatures of the prior four interglacials, nor are they as high as they were during the central
portion of the current interglacial. In fact, it's not even as warm now as it was a paltry 900 years ago, when the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration was 100 ppm less than it is today, which sure doesn't say much for the warming
power of CO2 nor for the storyline promoted in Hansen's testimony.
4. Negative feedbacks check warming
Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso, from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6,
2007, accessed May 13, 2008, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
(6) Hansen says "doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a global climate forcing similar
in magnitude to that for a 2% increase of solar irradiance." All else being equal, this statement may not be far off
the mark. However, it does not consider all of the negative biological feedbacks that the warming produced by the
initial forcing might kick into motion, which could cause the long-term effective magnitude of the primary forcing
to be significantly less than its initial value. Neither does it consider the cooling effects produced by increases in
various biological processes that may be induced solely by the growth-enhancing effects of the increase in the air's
CO2 content, which do not even require an impetus for warming in order to be put into play. An example of the
first of these ameliorative phenomena involves dimethylsulfide or DMS, which is derived from its algal precursor
dimethylsulphoniopropionate. Very briefly, and rather simplistically, in response to an initial increase in
temperature (caused by an increase in the air's CO2 content, for example), the climate-stabilizing mechanism
begins with a warming-induced increase in the productivity of certain marine microalgae or phytoplankton, which
leads to a greater production of oceanic DMS and its release to the atmosphere, which boosts the number of gasto-particle conversions occurring there, increasing the atmosphere's population of cloud condensation nuclei and,
ultimately, the albedos of marine stratus and altostratus clouds, via a narrowing of the cloud droplet spectrum and
a decrease in the mean radius of the cloud droplets, both of which phenomena tend to counter the initial impetus
West Coast Publishing
31
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
for warming and thereby decrease the "all-else-being-equal" effect of the increase in the air's CO2 concentration,
as originally suggested by Charlson et al. (1987).
West Coast Publishing
32
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Negative Feedbacks Solve
s1. Rates of C02 increase are overestimated
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 23.
The IPCC grossly exaggerates the long-term (though not the short-term) increase in emissions from poor countries.
It does so by converting Gross Domestic Product estimates for wealthy and poor countries into a common currency
(U.S. dollars) using market exchange rates instead of purchasing power parity. This method overstates the baseline
income disparity. Because the IPCC projects that poor nations will catch up to or even surpass wealthy nations in
per-capita income by the end of the century, the inflated disparity in starting positions means much greater
economic activity must take place, and more greenhouse gas emissions would be released into the atmosphere.
2. Declining methane has rolled back the risk of warming
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Consider the incredibly important fact (which we discuss in the Atmospheric Methane Concentrations section of
our critique) that the historical increase in the atmosphere's methane concentration first slowed and then ceased
to rise any further at the end of the 20th century. Then, consider the fact that the contribution of methane to
anthropogenic climate forcing, to quote Dlugokencky et al. (2003), "is about half that from CO2 when direct and
indirect components to its forcing are summed." Taken together, these two facts refute Hansen's claim; for the
sudden disappearance of a climate forcing equivalent to 50% of that caused by the historic yearly increase in
atmospheric CO2 concentration is vastly more than humanity could ever hope to bring to pass over the next
decade and even far beyond. But might not methane growth resume? We don't know ... and neither does Hansen!
But if it were to resume, we believe it would likely not return to the rate of growth it exhibited previously. But it
could! These are things we just don't know; and they demonstrate that one cannot make the kinds of emphatic
declarations and calls-to-arms that Hansen makes throughout his far-from-dispassionate testimony. In explaining
our opinion of the matter - which is that significant further increases in the atmosphere's methane concentration
are highly unlikely - we note that since the data presented by Khalil et al. (2007) show the mean global methane
concentration to have been rising ever more slowly, in the mean, over the past quarter-century (to where it is now
not rising at all), it seems to us to be rather unlikely that this well-established trend would suddenly experience the
radical change that would be required to return it to the mean rate-of-rise it exhibited prior to its tapering off in
the early 1980s. If anything, it seems more likely to us that the atmosphere's methane concentration might soon
begin to decline, for the reason described in our discussion of Simpson et al.'s (2002) data in the Atmospheric
Methane Concentrations section of our critique, as well as because of humanity's continuing efforts to prevent
methane losses to the atmosphere at various places between its many points of extraction from the earth and its
many points of usage. (12) Hansen says "the planet is on the verge of dramatic climate change." Not so, we
contend; for even if it had been "on the verge" - which is highly debatable - the recent stabilization of the
atmosphere's methane concentration would have likely returned it from the precipice. And if the atmosphere's
methane concentration actually begins to decline fairly soon - which scenario appears quite plausible - it would
remove the planet even further from "the verge."
3. Decreased methane solves the risk of drastic warming
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Another of Hansen's claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are
"skyrocketing," for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to
approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized
several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development - which was totally unanticipated by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied
to even be occurring when it was first observed - effectively repudiates Hansen's contentions about the need to
act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more
than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere's radiative
West Coast Publishing
33
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of
earth's climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it.
West Coast Publishing
34
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Not Anthropogenic
1. C02 does not cause warming
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 4.
! The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels is weak and inconclusive. The IPCC cites
correlation of global mean temperature with increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in
the twentieth century to support its conclusion. The argument sounds plausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas and its
levels are increasing. However, the correlation is poor and, in any case, would not prove causation. The climate
cooled from 1940-1975 while CO2 was rising rapidly (Figures 4a,b). Moreover, there has been no warming trend
apparent, especially in global data from satellites, since about 2001, despite a continuing rapid rise in CO2
emissions. The UK Met Office issued a 10-year forecast in August 2007 in which they predict further warming is
unlikely before 2009. However, they suggest at least half the years between 2009 and 2014 will be warmer than
the present record set in 1998 [Met Office 2007].
2. Warming is not human caused
Arthur Robinson et. al, founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, Fall 2007, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 5.
Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observe temperatures. Solar activity correlates
quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use
is not measurably warming the earth Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar
warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only
phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human
hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena The over all experimental record is self-consistent. The Earth has
been warming as it re covers from the Little Ice Age at an average rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations
within this temperature trend include periods of more rapid in crease and also periods of temperature decrease.
These fluctuations correlate well with concomitant fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor
the fluctuations within the trends correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level and glacier length reveal three
intermediate uptrends and two down - trends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically
benign and result from natural processes.
3. Warming is not anthropogenic
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 27.
! This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant.
Our argument is based on the well- established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published
by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperaturetrend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models. It is significant that the IPCC has
never made such a comparison, or it would have discovered the same result – namely that the current warming is
primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion (on AGW) on
circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny.
4. Warming is not anthropogenic
Thomas Sieger Derr, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Smith College, August/September 2007, First
Things, p. 17-18.
So what's going on? There is a significant body of scientific opinion that finds the sun to be the principal climate
driver. The sun's output is variable and complex, more and less intense at different periods. A German team has
shown an almost perfect correlation between air temperatures and solar cycles for the past 150 years. A Danish
team likewise has constructed a multi-era match of solar activity (measured by sunspots) to glob- al temperatures.
Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University, a mathematical astrophysicist and past president of the Royal Astronomical
Society, also correlates sunspot activity with changes in the earth's climate. Because solar activity is cyclical, he
expects that a downturn is coming and will usher in a cooUng climate for earth in, maybe, three decades. Actually,
global average temper- ature seems to have plateaued since 2000, though it is probably too soon to expect the
downturn to have begun. Still, Richard Lindzen, a distinguished atmos- pheric physicist at MIT and a leading
West Coast Publishing
35
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
doubter that human activity is driving warming, thinks the odds are about 50 percent that the earth will be cooler
in twenty years—due to natural cycles.
West Coast Publishing
36
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- CO2 Not Responsible
1. C02 is not the primary contributor to warming
John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center National Space Science and Technology Center,
University of Alabama in Huntsville, November 14, 2007, Congressional Testimony before the Committee on
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Many studies have shown that the nighttime low has warmed more rapidly than the daytime high in most regions.
The cause of this nighttime warming however is more consistent with the effects of human development of the
surface and consequent influence on the near surface air (e.g. urbanization, farming, aerosol pollution) rather than
greenhouse warming. The reasoning is as follows. The nighttime temperature over land occurs generally in a
shallow, cold "boundary layer", disconnected from the deep and warmer atmosphere aloft. As it so happens, the
deep atmosphere does not experience large temperature changes from day to night, yet the deep atmosphere is
where the impacts of greenhouse gases are thought to be most pronounced over time. The nighttime boundary
layer forms in a delicate balance of physical processes (radiation, heat and moisture fluxes, turbulence, etc.) that
can be disrupted by minor changes in the surface characteristics such as urbanization, farming or radiative forcing
such as from clouds, aerosols or greenhouse gases (Pielke Sr. et al. 2007, Christy et al. 2006, Walters et al. 2007). If
the formation of the boundary layer is disrupted, the warmer air from above is mixed downward at night, leading
to an appearance over time of an increasing temperature trend. However, this trend is not due to a warmer deep
atmosphere, but to a mixing of that already-warmer air down to the surface more often than before. Global
climate models, due to their coarse resolution, do not in general capture these nighttime boundary layer processes
(Walters et al. 2007). Thus, while surface temperatures may show warming, these studies suggest it is not due to a
global accumulation of heat (as depicted in climate models) but only to a very local redistribution of heat near the
surface.
2. C02 does not cause warming
Arthur Robinson et. al, founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, Fall 2007, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 2-3.
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the
greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more
poorly understood. While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases
such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has
had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
3. Greenhouse gases are not the reason for warming
John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center National Space Science and Technology Center,
University of Alabama in Huntsville, November 14, 2007, Congressional Testimony before the Committee on
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
The basic point here is that it appears that a significant portion of the rising surface temperatures over land, as
depicted in the mean surface temperature - most of which is due to nighttime increases - are not related to
enhanced greenhouse gases but to development of the surface around locations where thermometers reside. This
is another example of the type of research that requires further analysis with more detailed observations and
theory, and which has the potential to alter views of the causes of some of the temperature changes now assumed
to be linked to greenhouse gas increases.
4. Solar wind is the primary cause of warming
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 13.
There now is little doubt that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of climate change on a decadal time scale.
Once the IPCC comes to terms with this finding, it will have to concede that solar variability provides a better
explanation for 20th Century warming than GH effects. Indeed, solar variability may explain the pre-1940 warming
and subsequent cooling period, the MWP and LIA – and other quasi-periodic climate oscillation with a period of
roughly 1,500 years, going back a million years or more [Singer and Avery 2007].
West Coast Publishing
37
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Climate Modeling Not Reliable
1. Climate models are unreliable
Craig Idso et. al, chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. May
2008, accessed May 13, 2008, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N20/EDIT.php
Zhou et al. report that: (1) "the GCE rainfall spectrum includes a greater proportion of heavy rains than PR
(Precipitation Radar) or TMI (TRMM Microwave Imager) observations," (2) "the GCE model produces excessive
condensed water loading in the column, especially the amount of graupel as indicated by both TMI and PR
observations," (3) "the model also cannot simulate the bright band and the sharp decrease of radar reflectivity
above the freezing level in stratiform rain as seen from PR," (4) "the model has much higher domain-averaged OLR
(outgoing longwave radiation) due to smaller total cloud fraction," (5) "the model has a more skewed distribution
of OLR and effective cloud top than CERES observations, indicating that the model's cloud field is insufficient in
area extent," (6) "the GCE is ... not very efficient in stratiform rain conditions because of the large amounts of
slowly falling snow and graupel that are simulated," and finally, in summation, that (7) "large differences between
model and observations exist in the rain spectrum and the vertical hydrometeor profiles that contribute to the
associated cloud field." In light of these several significant findings, it is clear that CRMs still have a long way to go
before they are ready for "prime time" in the complex quest to properly assess the roles of various types of clouds
and forms of precipitation in the future evolution of earth's climate in response to variations in numerous
anthropogenic and background forcings. This evaluation is not meant to denigrate the CRMs in any way; it is
merely done to indicate that the climate modeling enterprise is not yet at the stage where implicit faith should be
placed in what it currently suggests about earth's climatic response to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
2. Climate modeling is flawed
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 5.
Current climate models can give a Climate Sensitivity (CS) of 1.5º to 11.5º C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2
[Stainforth et al. 2005; Kiehl 2007]. The wide variability is derived mainly from choosing different physical
parameters that enter into the formation and disappearance of clouds. For example, the values for CS, as given by
Stainforth, involve varying just six parameters out of some 100 listed in a paper by Murphy et al. [2004]. The values
of these parameters, many relating to clouds and precipitation, are simply chosen by ‘expert opinion.’ In an
empirical approach, Schwartz [2007] derives a climate sensitivity that is near the lowest value quoted by the IPCC,
as does Shaviv [2005] by using a different empirical method. Cloud feedbacks can be either positive (high clouds)
or negative (low clouds) and are widely considered to be the largest source of uncertainty in determining CS [Cess
1990, 1996]. Spencer and Braswell [2007] find that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback could be
significantly biased in a positive direction. The IPCC undervalues the forcing arising from changes in solar activity
(solar wind and its magnetic effects) – likely much more important than the forcing from CO2. Uncertainties for
aerosols, which tend to cool the climate and oppose the GH effect, are even greater, as the IPCC recognizes in a
table on page 32 of the AR4 report (Figure 5).
3. Data is insufficient for meaningful modeling
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 9.
Objections to the surface data are too numerous to elaborate here in detail [see Lo, Yang, Pielke 2007; McKitrick
and Michaels 2004, 2007]. They have been vigorously criticized for failing to sufficiently control for urban heatisland effects – the fact that asphalt, buildings, air conditioning units, and other parts of urban life cause warming
of urban areas that has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. One study of temperature stations in California
found no warming in rural counties, a slight warming in suburban counties, and rapid warming in urban counties
(Figure 11). [Goodridge 1996] Another criticism of the temperature record is poor geographic distribution and
sampling. The number of stations has varied greatly over time and has decreased markedly from the 1970s,
especially in Siberia, affecting the homogeneity of the dataset (Figure 12). Ideally, the models require at least one
measuring point for each 5 degrees of latitude and longitude – 2,592 grid boxes in all. With the decline in stations,
the number of grid boxes covered also declined – from 1,200 to 600, a decline in coverage from 46 percent to 23
percent. Further, the covered grid boxes tend to be in the more populated areas.
West Coast Publishing
38
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Their Evidence is Flawed
1. Ice sheets are not disintegrating
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
A good perspective on this issue is provided in the 16 March 2007 issue of Science by Shepherd and Wingham
(2007), who review what is known about sea-level contributions arising from wastage of the Antarctic and
Greenland Ice Sheets, focusing on the results of 14 different satellite-based estimates of the imbalances of the
polar ice sheets that have been derived since 1998. These studies have been of three major types - standard mass
budget analyses, altimetry measurements of ice-sheet volume changes, and measurements of the ice sheets'
changing gravitational attraction - and they have yielded a diversity of values, ranging from an implied sea-level
rise of 1.0 mm/year to a sea-level fall of 0.15 mm/year. Based on their evaluation of these diverse findings, the two
researchers come to the conclusion that the current "best estimate" of the contribution of polar ice wastage to
global sea level change is a rise of 0.35 millimeters per year, which over a century amounts to only 35 millimeters,
or less than an inch and a half. Yet even this small sea level rise may be unrealistically large, for although two of
Greenland's biggest outlet glaciers doubled their mass-loss rates in 2004, causing many to claim that the
Greenland Ice Sheet was responding more rapidly to global warming than expected, Howat et al. (2007) report
that the glaciers' mass-loss rates "decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates." And these observations, in their
words, "suggest that special care must be taken in how mass-balance estimates are evaluated, particularly when
extrapolating into the future, because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends."
2. Global sea levels are not rising
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Another way of thinking about Holgate's century-long sea level history is suggested by the blue curve we have fit
to it, which indicates that mean global sea level may have been rising ever more slowly with the passage of time
throughout the entire last hundred years. In any event, and whichever way one looks at Holgate's findings - as
either two linear trends or one longer continuous curve - the nine select tide gauge records indicate that the mean
rate of global sea level rise has not accelerated over the recent past. In fact, it likely has done just the opposite - in
clear contradiction of Hansen's adamant claim to the contrary. Augmenting the findings of Holgate are those of
Jevrejeva et al. (2006), who analyzed information contained in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level database
using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis. Removing 2- to 30-year quasi-periodic
oscillations, they derived nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions, which they combined to produce
the mean global sea level (gsl) and mean global sea level rate-of-rise (gsl rate) curves depicted in the figure below.
3. Ocean temperature measurements are not reliable
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 19-20.
In response to the claim that the observed rise in ocean temperatures provides an empirical solution to this
problem, we must consider the possibility that the observed temperature rise is partly an artifact of the method of
measurement. As previously observed, in the past 25 years, drifter buoys have become predominant in supplying
SST data. But they measure temperatures within a few centimeters of the surface, where solar heating is a
maximum (during the day) whereas ships (the previous method of measuring ocean temperatures) measure
temperatures a few meters below the surface, where it is colder. (See Figure 20 for an illustration of the different
measurement techniques in use.) One can readily show that combining ship data with a growing amount of buoy
data likely leads to a fictitious temperature rise [Singer 2006]. Finally, we must deal with the fact that as SST
increases, evaporation increases even more rapidly – setting effective upper limits to SST values [Priestley 1996,
Held & Soden 2006, Wentz et al. 2007]. But which temperature should one use: SST (as climate models calculate)
or the generally cooler ‘skin’? Empirically, the situation is complicated since rate of evaporation depends also on
the relative humidity of the overlying atmosphere, surface winds and sea state, and the occurrence of
precipitation.
West Coast Publishing
39
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Collapse the Economy
1. Warming will have a net positive economic impact
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 26.
Beneficial economic effects of warmer temperatures include longer growing seasons in temperate climates,
benefitting agriculture and forestry industries [Idso and Idso 2000], lower heating bills, and lower construction
costs. Mendelsohn and Neumann [1999] presented a synthesis of previous studies on the costs and benefits of
global warming, which is summarized in Figure 26. Mendelsohn and Neumann assumed an increase in
temperature of 2.5°C, a 7 percent increase in precipitation, and an increase to 530 ppm atmospheric carbon
dioxide by 2060, which they admit “may be somewhat more severe than the most recent scientific assessment in
IPCC (1996a).” They found the net impact of global warming on the U.S. economy in the year 2060, if no action
were taken to slow or stop emissions, would be positive, to the tune of $36.9 billion, or about 0.2 percent of
projected GDP. In 2001 dollars this would be about $11.5 billion. The benefits of global warming to the agricultural
and timber industries more than outweigh losses to the energy industry or damage to coastal structures.
2. Warming will not have negative economic consequences
Thomas Sieger Derr, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Smith College, August/September 2007, First
Things, p. 18-19.
You've also been told that failing to curb our green- house-gas emissions will cause irreparable economic damage
to the poorer nations, as the Stem Report insist- ed. But the report was savaged by economists. William Nordhaus
of Yale is among those who fault Stern for using a near-zero social-discount rate, which would charge current
generations for problems not likely to occur for two or three centuries hence.
3. Warming will have a net positive economic impact
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 27.
Economist Thomas Gale Moore [1998] also found that earlier estimates exaggerated the costs of warming. Moore
used historical data to calculate that if temperatures were 4.5ºF warmer in the U.S., 41,000 fewer people would
die each year from respiratory and circulation diseases. The annual benefits of global warming to the U.S., he
estimates, would exceed costs by $104.8 billion in 1990 dollars.
4. Adaptation contains the negative impacts to climate change
John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center National Space Science and Technology Center,
University of Alabama in Huntsville, November 14, 2007, Congressional Testimony before the Committee on
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Whatever trajectory the climate takes, we will of course adapt. As State Climatologist, I'm heavily involved in
defining and assessing climate-related impacts to our state and the resulting viability of our economy. Parts of my
state are coping with the lowest rainfall in 100 years. Sketchy records show a similar drought back in 1839-40. In
general terms, changes in water supply are more important than changes in temperature, so dealing with rainfall
variations is crucial for any society. When Alabama was also dry in 1988 I pinned my General Rule of Climate: "If it
happened before, it will happen again and probably worse." The point here is that by carefully examining what we
know has happened in our past, add a little insurance, we will know how to reduce the negative consequences of
events certain to occur in the future. In the case of our present drought, our farmers suffered severe losses, but
Senator Sessions has included in the Farm Bill a provision to offer farmers federal help in building environmentally
sustainable impoundments to store our abundant winter water for use in the summer and thereby alleviate the
terrible consequences. This is a perfect example of how climate observations serve as a foundation to inform us of
the important variations that occur and what we can do to adapt.
West Coast Publishing
40
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Ice Age
1. Global warming does not risk an ice age
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
So how high would the sea need to rise to "unground" the Whillans Ice Stream and wrest it from the continent? In
a study that analyzes this question in detail, Alley et al. (2007) find that "sea-level changes of a few meters are
unlikely to substantially affect ice-sheet behavior," and they conclude that a rise on the order of 100 meters might
be needed to "overwhelm the stabilizing feedback from sedimentation." In fact, Anderson (2007) states that "at
the current rate of sea-level rise, it would take several thousand years [our italics] to float the ice sheet off [its]
bed." What is more, Alley et al. say that the ice sheet's extra thickness up-glacier from the grounding-line wedge
will tend to stabilize it against "any other environmental perturbation." With respect to the range of applicability of
the findings of Anandakrishnan et al. and Alley et al., Anderson notes that "grounding-zone wedges are common
features on the continental shelf, including the Ross Sea Shelf," and that "all ice streams of the Siple Coast have an
anomalous elevation and stop at the grounding line," which leads him to conclude that "this mechanism for
stabilization of the grounding-line is likely to be widespread." Consequently, Anderson concludes that "sea-level
rise may not destabilize ice sheets as much as previously feared," which in turn suggests that sea level itself may
not rise as fast or as high as previously feared. So what do actual sea level data suggest?
2. No risk of ice age, even the IPCC agrees
Richard Kerr, staff writer, April 13, 2007, Science, p. 190.
The report also briefly considers potentially catastrophic climate events. WGI had already found that in this
century, the great "conveyor belt" of currents carrying warm water into the chilly far North Atlantic will only slow,
not collapse. So Western Europe isn't about to freeze over. In fact, it would warm under the strengthening
greenhouse. But WGII still sees likely North Atlantic-wide effects including lower seawater oxygen and changes in
fisheries.
West Coast Publishing
41
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Water Wars
1. Warming will not cause water shortages
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
(2) Hansen says "very little additional forcing is needed to cause ... an intensification of subtropical conditions that
would greatly exacerbate water shortages in the American West and many other parts of the world, and likely
render the semi-arid states from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas
increasingly drought prone and unsuitable for agriculture." With the significant enhancement of water use
efficiency that is bestowed upon the planet's vegetation by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, however which is a fact that has been demonstrated over and over in literally hundreds of laboratory and field experiments
- it is by no means assured that Hansen's contention would be correct. In fact, it could well be false - and likely is, in
our opinion - for the CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency that would accompany the rise in
atmospheric CO2 concentration would allow the same amount of crop biomass and yield to be produced while
transpiring a smaller quantity of water.
2. Water shortages are inevitable regardless of warming
Peter Rogers, Professor of Environmental Engineering at Harvard University, May/June 2008, Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, p. 203.
Rising global incomes and a concomitant increase in per capita consumption will lead inexorably to serious
consequences for the water resources in many areas of the globe, regardless of climate change. This is the old
Malthusian population versus resources debate from the early 1960s, only now we have India and China moving
into the middle classes in a big way. Keyfitz 1976�pointed out 30 years ago—that the growing middle class and its
consumption patterns are going to be the major problem for en- vironmental sustainability. How we adapt to meet
these demands will be the major struggle for the remainder of this century.
West Coast Publishing
42
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Extinction
1. Warming boosts global biodiversity
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Hansen also foresees a warming-induced "extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species," with
many at high latitudes and altitudes being "pushed off the planet." However, as demonstrated by the scientific
studies we cite, warming - especially when accompanied by an increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration typically results in an expansion of the ranges of terrestrial plants and animals, leading to increases in biodiversity
almost everywhere on the planet. Likewise, where Hansen sees nothing but "destruction of coral reefs and other
ocean life" in response to a predicted CO2-induced acidification of the world's oceans, real-world observations
suggest just the opposite.
2. Warming does not risk species extinction
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Hansen writes that "continued business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions threaten many ecosystems,"
contending - even more ominously - that "very little additional [climate] forcing is needed ... to cause the
extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species." But where is the evidence for these claims? Hansen
says that "animals and plants migrate as climate changes," and so they do, both upward in altitude and poleward
in latitude; and he states that in response to global warming, "polar species can be pushed off the planet [i.e.,
driven to extinction], as they have no place else to go," and that "life in alpine regions ... is similarly in danger of
being pushed off the planet." But again, where is the evidence to support these contentions? In searching Hansen's
testimony and his "accepted for publication" manuscript on the subject, we could find no real-world support for
this aspect of his climate-alarmist thesis. What we did find was typically of the same nature as Hansen's own
writings: claims, contentions and opinions, but no hard evidence. Such is also the case with many peer-reviewed
science journal articles that promote the same philosophy, such as those of Root et al. (2003) and Parmesan and
Yohe (2003). However, as we have indicated in a major study of the topic that is archived on our website (Idso et
al., 2003), even these studies have failed to provide any hard data in support of their egregious extrapolations.
3. Warming protects global biodiversity
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
In viewing the warm-temperature projections of the two relationships at the right-hand side of the figure, it can
additionally be seen that the transition from positive to negative net photosynthesis - which denotes a change
from life-sustaining to life-sapping conditions - likely occurs somewhere in the vicinity of 39°C in air of 325 ppm
CO2 but somewhere in the vicinity of 50°C in air of 1935 ppm CO2. Consequently, not only was the optimum
temperature for photosynthesis of bigtooth aspen greatly increased by the extra CO2 of this experiment, so too
was the lethal temperature (above which life cannot long be sustained) likewise increased, and by approximately
the same amount, i.e., 11°C. These observations, which are similar to what has been observed in many other
plants, suggest that when the atmosphere's temperature and CO2 concentration rise together (Cowling, 1999), the
vast majority of earth's plants would likely not feel a need (or only very little need) to migrate towards cooler
regions of the globe. Any warming would obviously provide them an opportunity to move into places that were
previously too cold for them, but it would not force them to move, even at the hottest extremes of their ranges;
for as the planet warmed, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders,
significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the
planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life would actually "prefer" warmer
conditions.
West Coast Publishing
43
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Kill Oceans
1. Warming is key to protect coral reefs
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
We have previously written extensively about the importance of not excluding life from such important
considerations, noting that calcification is much more than a physical-chemical process that can be accurately
described by a set of equations. Rather, we have emphasized, time and again, that coral calcification is a
biologically-driven physical-chemical process that may not yet be amenable to explicit mathematical description. In
fact, we reported several years ago (Idso et al., 2000) - based on proper citations of the scientific literature - that
"the photosynthetic activity of zooxanthellae is the chief source of energy for the energetically-expensive process
of calcification," and that considerable evidence shows that "long-term reef calcification rates generally rise in
direct proportion to increases in rates of reef primary production," which suggests that if anthropogenic-induced
increases in the transfer of CO2 from the air to the world's oceans were to lead to increases in coral symbiont
photosynthesis - as atmospheric CO2 enrichment generally does for nearly all land plants - it is likely that increases
in coral calcification rates would occur as well.
2. Studies show warming protects ocean biodiversity
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Two other scientists that investigated the subject by means of real-world data were Bessat and Buigues (2001),
who worked with a core retrieved from a massive Porites coral on the French Polynesian island of Moorea that
covered the period 1801-1990, and who said they undertook the study because they thought it "may provide
information about long-term variability in the performance of coral reefs, allowing unnatural changes to be
distinguished from natural variability." This effort revealed that a 1°C increase in water temperature increased
coral calcification rate by 4.5%, and that "instead of a 6-14% decline in calcification over the past 100 years
computed by the Kleypas group, the calcification has increased." And to further emphasize this point, they
reiterated that their results "do not confirm those predicted by the Kleypas et al. (1999) model," which is merely
an earlier version of the Orr et al. model.
3. C02 boosts growth of ocean phytoplankton
Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Craig D. Idso,
founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, June 6, 2007, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
Before concluding our discussion of this important subject, however, we briefly switch our focus from corals to
phytoplankton, beginning with a review of the work of Riebesell (2004), who notes that "doubling present-day
atmospheric CO2 concentrations is predicted to cause a 20-40% reduction in biogenic calcification of the
predominant calcifying organisms, the corals, coccolithophorids, and foraminifera." In a significant challenge to
this climate-alarmist dogma, Riebesell notes that a moderate increase in CO2 actually facilitates photosynthetic
carbon fixation of certain phytoplankton, such as the coccolithophorids, as represented by Emiliania huxleyi and
Gephyrocapsa oceanica. In fact, Riebesell writes that "CO2-sensitive taxa, such as the calcifying coccolithophorids,
should therefore benefit more [our italics] from the present increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to the noncalcifying diatoms."
West Coast Publishing
44
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Disease
1. Warming is an insignificant contributor to disease spread
Paul Reiter, director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institut Pasteur and Roger Bate, resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, April 10, 2008, Wall Street Journal, p. A14.
The concept of malaria as a "tropical" infection is nonsense. It is a disease of the poor. Alarmists in the richest
countries peddle the notion that the increase in malaria in poor countries is due to global warming and that this
will eventually cause malaria to spread to areas that were "previously malaria free." That's a misrepresentation of
the facts, and disingenuous when packaged with opposition to the cheapest and best insecticide to combat malaria
-- DDT. It is true that malaria has been increasing at an alarming rate in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the world.
Scientists ascribe this increase to many factors, including population growth, deforestation, rice cultivation in
previously uncultivated upland marshes, clustering of populations around these marshes, and large numbers of
people who have fled their homes because of civil strife. The evolution of drug- resistant parasites and insecticideresistant mosquitoes, and the cessation of mosquito-control operations are also factors. Of course, temperature is
a factor in the transmission of mosquito- borne diseases, and future incidence may be affected if the world's
climate continues to warm. But throughout history the most critical factors in the spread or eradication of disease
has been human behavior (shifting population centers, changing farming methods and the like) and living
standards. Poverty has been and remains the world's greatest killer. Serious scientists rarely engage in public
quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of
scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective. The alarmists will likely steal the show on Capitol Hill
today. But anyone truly worried about malaria in impoverished countries would do well to focus on improving
human living conditions, not the weather.
2. There is no risk of increased natural disasters
Thomas Sieger Derr, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Smith College, August/September 2007, First
Things, p. 18.
Or perhaps you've heard that storms on land and sea will increase in number and intensity, and we can expect
more Katrinas. In fact, there has actually been a downward trend in the number of the bigger, detectable
tornadoes since 1950; we detect more because better reporting picks up more small ones. New evidence shows
that hurricane intensity does not correlate with ocean temperature.
3. Warming does not risk disease spread
Thomas Sieger Derr, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Smith College, August/September 2007, First
Things, p. 18.
Maybe you've read that tropical diseases such as malaria will spread into now-temperate zones, higher latitudes,
and higher altitudes—Nairobi, for example. But Nairobi was built when malaria was already endemic there. It was
repelled with better insecticide, especially, in Africa, DDT. The current resurgence of malaria comes not from global
warming but from the ban on DDT spraying, growing resistance to drugs, and poverty.
4. Warming will not impact the spread of disease
Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, 2004, Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, p. 187.
The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. Everything else
being equal, given a small change in climate, some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede
somewhat. But to assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption. Think about technology,
antibiotics, genetic engineering and sanitation, to name a few things that sure aren't “equal” over time and
distance. Change in climate is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. What is not small is the dissonant
convergence between media hungry for dramatic news and researchers eager for a place in the paper or on TV. In
today's climate, that's a major scientific disease vector.
West Coast Publishing
45
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Storms
1. Warming will not increase severe weather
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 26.
There has been an intense debate also whether a warmer climate will lead to more severe storms and to more
frequent and/or more intense tropical cyclones. Regarding storms, claims that heavy precipitation events in the
U.S. increased between 1900 and 1990 [Karl and Knight 1998] fails to provide evidence that the increase has
anything to do with greenhouse gases or temperature, particularly since there was a slight decline in temperatures
during that period. Increases in maximum annual 24-hour precipitation amounts have not been observed in
Germany in the past 50 years [DWD, German National Weather Service], the Iberian Peninsula [Gallego et al. 2006]
or in parts of China [Wu et al. 2007].
2. Warming will decrease storms
S. Fred Singer et al, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008, accessed May 13, 2008,
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, p. 26.
It seems quite plausible that higher values of SST would produce stronger hurricanes [Emanuel 2005; Emanuel and
Mann 2006]. But historic records of Atlantic hurricanes do not bear out such a prediction [Goldenberg et al. 2001;
Landsea 2005, 2006, 2007]. Recent work by Vecchi and Soden [2007] suggests a warmer climate would lead to
increased vertical wind shear, which would impede the development of tropical cyclones (hurricanes). And
regarding mid-latitude storms, a global warming will lead to a lessening of temperature gradients between the
equator and the poles and therefore to fewer and/or less intense storms [Legates 2004, Khandekar 2005].
3. Curbing emissions will not check storm damage
Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, August 24, 2007, Wall Street Journal, p. A14.
It has become more popular than ever to reside in low-lying, coastal areas that are particularly vulnerable to
extreme weather. In Florida, more people live in Dade and Broward counties today than lived in all 109 coastal
counties from Texas through Virginia in 1930. It's obvious that more damage will occur when many more people
with much more wealth live in harm's way. No matter how you look at it, however, the prospect of $1 trillion of
weather-related damage by 2040 is frightening. But it is just as frightening that we have developed a blinkered
focus on reducing carbon emissions as a way to somehow stop the devastation of events like Hurricane Dean.
Presumably, our goal is to help humans and the planet. Cutting carbon is a very poor way of doing that. If coastal
populations kept increasing but we managed to halt climate warming, then research shows that there would still
be a 500% increase in hurricane damage in 50 years' time. On the other hand, if we let climate warming continue
but stopped more people from moving into harm's way, the increase in hurricane damage would be less than 10%.
West Coast Publishing
46
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Doesn’t Cause Sea Level Rise
1. There is no risk of serious sea level increases
Thomas Sieger Derr, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Smith College, August/September 2007, First
Things, p. 18.
As it happens, while there is edge-melting in Greenland and along the peninsula of Antarctica that stretches
toward South America, snow is accumulating in the interior of Greenland and in most of Antarctica. The warming
peninsula there is just 2 percent of the continent; the other 98 percent is cooling. The Larson B ice shelf, which
collapsed, was 1/246 the size of the West Antarctic ice shelf, which has been retreating slowly anyway for
thousands of years. As for the Gulf Stream threat, oceanographers debunk it. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. body that puts out huge periodic reports warning of climate disaster, has backed
down from its earlier estimates of sea rise, from three feet for the next century to seventeen inches—and many
scientists think even that is too high.
West Coast Publishing
47
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- Ozone Depletion Inevitable
1. Methyl Bromide is released worldwide as a result of pesticide use ensuring ozone collapse
Rita Beamish, Writer, November 28, 2005, Ventura County Star, Accessed 4/7/2009
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1128-02.htm
Other nations watch as the United States keeps permitting wide use of methyl bromide for tomatoes,
strawberries, peppers, Christmas trees and other crops, even though the U.S. signed an international treaty
banning all but the most critical uses by 2005. The chemical depletes the earth's protective ozone layer and can
harm the human neurological system, an increasing concern as people settle further into what was once just farm
country. Methyl bromide's survival demonstrates the difficulty of banishing a powerful pesticide that helps deliver
what both farmers and consumers want: abundant, pest-free and affordable produce. The Bush administration, at
the urging of agriculture and manufacturing interests, is making plans to ensure that methyl bromide remains
available at least through 2008 by seeking and winning treaty exemptions. Also, the administration will not commit
to an end date.
2. Global rocket launches will destroy the ozone layer inevitably and faster than any emissions ever could
Darin Toohey, Writer, Feb 4, 2009, Innovations Report, Accessed 4/7/2009, http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/studien/rocket_launches_regulation_prevent_ozone_depletion_130401.html
The global market for rocket launches may require more stringent regulation in order to prevent significant
damage to Earth's stratospheric ozone layer in the decades to come, according to a new study by researchers in
California and Colorado. Future ozone losses from unregulated rocket launches will eventually exceed ozone losses
due to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which stimulated the 1987 Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting
chemicals, said Martin Ross, chief study author from The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles. The study, which
includes the University of Colorado at Boulder and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, provides a market
analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and
known impacts of rocket launches. "As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket
emissions," said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. "If left
unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by
CFCs."
3. Studies show carbonyl sulfide is the major ozone depleting factor
Harvey Leifert, American Geophysical Union, May 16, 2002, NASA Online, Accessed 4/7/2009
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22397
The most abundant sulfur gas in the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere is carbonyl sulfide. While carbonyl
sulfide is formed naturally, it is also produced through a chemical reaction in the atmosphere involving carbon
disulfide, a chemical produced by a variety of industrial processes. Human-produced carbonyl sulfide has attracted
attention as a possible source of increased levels of sulfate particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere, which have
been linked to depletion of the ozone layer.
4. Bromine From Volcanoes Depletes the Ozone Layer 10X Faster than any other emissions
USGS, July 28, 2005, USGS Online, Accessed 4/7/2009 http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_07_28.html,
accessed 11/13/2005
While bromine is nearly 100 times less abundant than chlorine, it is about 10 times more effective in depleting
ozone. Volcanoes are potentially a very important source of atmospheric bromine. Other natural sources include
certain brine wells, the Dead Sea, and ocean waters.
West Coast Publishing
48
Warming Impacts and Takeouts
A2: Warming- No Impact to Ozone Depletion
1. The Ozone layer is repairing itself and is not in any danger
The Australian, 5/29/2002, Online, Accessed 4/7/2009
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4408627%5E2703,00.html
THE hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica will disappear by 2040, Japanese scientists forecast yesterday, offering
a far more hopeful timeframe than previous research predictions. Using a supercomputer to model future global
atmospheric conditions, scientists Tatsuya Nagashima and Masaaki Takahashi from Tokyo University predicted that
the next 15 years will see little or no change in the size of the ozone hole before a slow improvement begins in the
late 2030s. From that point there will be a sudden increase in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere, leading to
a full recovery by about 2040. The pair said the scientific community now accepted that legal restrictions on
chlorofluorocarbons, previously found in products such as aerosols and refrigeration products, had been effective
in undoing the decades of damage done to ozone levels, including the creation of a massive hole in the ozone layer
in the 1980s.
2. In fact, there has been no loss of ozone only shifts
Jonah Goldberg, Writer, January 13, 2003, National Review Online, Accessed 4/7/2009
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg011303.asp
We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make
little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being
effective and being honest. (Discovery, October 1989, p. 47) Despite all the press release hype about the ozone
"hole," consider the following facts. * The ozone layer is not stable; it is in a state of constant turbulence.
Variations in its thickness occur on a seasonal basis and vary according to latitude. Annual fluctuations are up to 25
percent. Greater thinning (up to about 50 percent) can occur at the south pole. Significant thinning takes place at
both poles but is greater in the Antarctic. * Incoming radiation from the sun, specifically the UV spectrum, both
creates and destroys ozone. * The so-called "hole" or thinning is characterized not by a total loss of ozone but by a
50 percent depletion which appears annually. It is not permanent, but lasts about three to five weeks and the
ozone is then reconstituted. * There is no overall loss of ozone. * Polar thinning is related to the polar vortex, a
cyclonic storm that forms each year at the end of the Antarctic winter.
3. And, any loss or gain of ozone is a result of natural cycles and not human presence
Jonah Goldberg, Writer, January 13, 2003, National Review Online, Accessed 4/7/2009
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg011303.asp
Besides extreme cold for several weeks and return of sunlight, ozone "depletion" appears to require the presence
of the chloride ion (Cl). The belief persists that the Cl comes from the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), mainly freons,
but there is no documented proof of this. Chloride is one of nature's most abundant ions, with volcanic eruptions
and oceanic storms as major sources. So how much chloride comes from CFCs? About 0.75 million tons annually.
Yet the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is 50 to 60 times this figure. If
indeed chloride is necessary to the stratospheric breakdown of ozone, what is its source? There is no documented
evidence of CFC molecules in the stratosphere. There are no measurements, only theory. Perhaps recently
launched instruments to measure the composition of the ozone layer will remedy this situation.