WarmingAdaptationThe rate of climate change prevents adaptationRomm 07 [Joseph, Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress, Aug 29, Hurricane Katrina and the Myth of Global Warming Adaptation, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/29/94352/7786]

If we won't adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans -- since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don't reverse greenhouse-gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by human-caused GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes -- and it is accelerating.Even if adaptation was possible non-linear impacts disrupt the processMazo 10 [Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 29]

This latter aspect, the rate of change, is a critical factor in terms of adapting to climate change. Although some states and societies will be better able to adapt to change than others, regardless of how resilient a given society is there will always be some point at which its efforts would be overwhelmed by the pace of change. Changes in climate - long-term wind and rainfall patterns, daily and seasonal temperature variations, and so on - will produce physical effects such as droughts, floods and increasing severity of typhoons and hurricanes, and ecological effects such as changes in the geographical range of species (including disease-causing organisms, domesticated crops and crop pests). These physical changes in turn may lead to effects such as disruption of water resources, declining crop yields and food stocks, wildfires, severe disease outbreaks, and an increase in numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons.4AnthroWarming is happening and is human induced Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project studied warming data over the past 250 years and concluded CO2 increases have rapidly increased the rate of warming past natural fluctuations prefer our evidence it cites the most recent studies and comes from a former skeptic who attempted to explain the data any other way Thats MullerCarbon dioxide accounts for 60% of the human induced GHG emissions this outweighs all other causes of warming studies of carbon composition prove this is caused by human energy consumption thats Vertessy and ClarkScientific consensus is on our sideLewandowsky and Ashley 11 [Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Studies at the University of Western Australia, and Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, June 24, 2011, The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change, http://goo.gl/u3nOC]

But despite these complexities, some aspects of climate science are thoroughly settled. We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO2, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and predict what is going to happen to the earths climate during our lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain as gravity. The consensus opinion of the worlds climate scientists is that climate change is occurring due to human CO2 emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small. Scepticism and denialism Some people will be understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered by climate scientists, they come around. These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy. Other people will disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never change their opinions. These people are deniers. The recent articles in The Conversation have put the deniers under the microscope. Some readers have asked us in the comments to address the scientific questions that the deniers bring up. This has been done. Not once. Not twice. Not ten times. Probably more like 100 or a 1000 times. Denier arguments have been dealt with by scientists, again and again and again. But like zombies, the deniers keep coming back with the same long-falsified and nonsensical arguments. The deniers have seemingly endless enthusiasm to post on blogs, write letters to editors, write opinion pieces for newspapers, and even publish books. What they rarely do is write coherent scientific papers on their theories and submit them to scientific journals. The few published papers that have been sceptical about climate change have not withstood the test of time. The phony debate on climate change So if the evidence is this strong, why is there resistance to action on climate change in Australia? At least two reasons can be cited. First, as The Conversation has revealed, there are a handful of individuals and organisations who, by avoiding peer review, have engineered a phony public debate about the science, when in fact that debate is absent from the one arena where our scientific knowledge is formed. These individuals and organisations have so far largely escaped accountability. But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show. The second reason, alas, involves systemic failures by the media. Systemic media failures arise from several presumptions about the way science works, which range from being utterly false to dangerously ill-informed to overtly malicious and mendacious. The false Lets begin with what is merely false. A tacit presumption of many in the media and the public is that climate science is a brittle house of cards that can be brought down by a single new finding or the discovery of a single error. Nothing could be further from the truth. Climate science is a cumulative enterprise built upon hundreds of years of research. The heat-trapping properties of CO were discovered in the middle of the 19th century, pre-dating even Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria.Anthropogenic emissions massively outweigh natural emissionsAmerican Geophysical Union 11 [Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, 6/14, http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf]

The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton-per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes. This ratio of anthropogenic to volcanic CO2 emissions defines the anthropogenic CO2 multiplier (ACM), an index of anthropogenic CO2 s dominance over volcanic CO2 emissions. Figure 1 shows the ACM as a time series calculated from time series data on anthropogenic CO2 emissions and Marty and Tolstikhins [1998] preferred and plausible range of emission estimates for global volcanic CO2 . The ACM values related to the preferred estimate rise gradually from about 18 in 1900 to roughly 38 in 1950; thereafter they rise rapidly to approximately 135 by 2010. This pattern mimics the pattern of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions time series. It reflects the 650% growth in anthropogenic emissions since 1900, about 550% of which has occurred since 1950. ACM plots related to the preferred estimates of global volcanic CO2 in the four other studies (not shown) exhibit the same pattern but at higher values; e.g., the 2010 ACM values based on their preferred estimates range from 167 to 233, compared to the 135 based on Marty and Tolstikhins [1998] preferred estimate.Clouds (0:16)Clouds are actually a positive feedback, not a negative oneJohnston 09 (Hamish Johnston is an editor at Physics World. Cloud feedback could accelerate global warming July 23, 2009. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jul/23/cloud-feedback-could-accelerate-global-warming//wyoccd)

Low-level clouds are involved in a positive feedback mechanism that could exacerbate global warming according to a study of cloud and temperature records from the north-eastern Pacific Ocean. Scientists in the US have found that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earths surface, leading to further warming. Understanding how climate change is affected by low-level clouds is one of the key challenges facing climate scientists. Such clouds are known to have a net cooling effect so if rising temperatures lead to more low-level clouds, this negative feedback mechanism could mitigate global warming. But if higher temperatures lead to fewer clouds, the feedback is positive and global warming could be enhanced. Observational data linking low-level cloud cover and temperature are scarce and the formation and dissipation of clouds is notoriously difficult to model and integrate into global climate simulations. Now, Amy Clement and Robert Burgman of the University of Miami and Joel Norris of the University of California-San Diego have done a statistical analysis of 55 years of cloud cover and temperature observations for the north-eastern Pacific Ocean. Their study provides the best evidence yet that low-level cloud cover decreases as temperature increases that the feedback mechanism is positive. Wrong type of clouds When temperatures are higher, Clement believes that water rises higher into the atmosphere to create upper-level clouds at the expense of low-level clouds. These higher clouds, however, have a net greenhouse effect and therefore their creation could further boost the positive feedback. The team compared their findings with feedback predictions made by 18 leading climate models. Only two models predicted a positive feedback and one of these HadGEM1 from the UKs Hadley Centre was particularly good at reproducing the observed relationships between cloud cover, atmospheric circulation and temperature. Clement believes HadGEM1 performed well because Hadley scientists have spent a lot of time looking at the lower kilometre of the atmosphere. Clement told physicsworld.com that the strength of the positive feedback is in the upper range of that predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An important consequence of this is that global warming could be worse than many scientists had anticipated. Indeed, HadGEM1 predicts a 4.4 average global temperature increase when carbon dioxide is doubled compared to the 3.1 median of the 18 models. A perfect 'laboratory' The team focused on the north-eastern Pacific Ocean because the average temperature in the region fluctuates significantly on a ten-year timescale and because comprehensive cloud-cover observations have been made over the years by satellites as well as by the many ships that sail through the region. This makes it a perfect "laboratory" for studying the relationship between clouds and temperature. Clement says that it is possible that the observed feedback is specific to the north-eastern Pacific and may be different in other parts of the world where there is significant low-level cloud cover. To test this, the team is now doing a similar study of data from the south-eastern Pacific. Matthew Collins of the Hadley Centre said that the result sheds significant light on the role of clouds and will be used to evaluate and improve the performance of climate models. However, he cautions that cloud feedback is only part of the picture and the type of clouds studied by Clement and colleagues are significant only in certain parts of the globe.Feedbacks (0:28)Feedbacks are positiveMandia 11 (Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences at Suffolk College, 1/22/2011, "Global Warming: Man or Myth?", www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html#stratospheric_cooling)

A climate forcing mechanism such as CO2 is one that will cause a change in climate. A feedback mechanism is one in which the forced change is either amplified (positive feedback) or dampened (negative feedback). A review of the literature by Bony et al. (2006) shows that there are four major climate change feedbacks. These are listed below along with the estimates of their radiative feedback in parentheses: Water Vapor (1.80 0.18 W/m2/K): Water vapor is a very important positive feedback mechanism. When the air gets warmer, the saturation vapor pressure of water increases. That means that more water vapor can be present in warmer air. Because the average relative humidity of the climate is conserved, a warmer climate means that there will be more water vapor in the air. In turn, this causes a greater greenhouse effect which amplifies the initial warming caused by increasing industrial greenhouse gases. This water vapor feedback essentially doubles the warming caused by greenhouse gas forcing. (Note: Water vapor molecules typically spend about 10 days in the atmosphere {while elevated CO2 concentrations can remain for hundreds to thousands of years} so water vapor cannot be a climate change forcing mechanism like CO2.) See: A Matter of Humidity by Dessler and Sherwood (2009) for more information. Lapse Rate (-0.84 0.26 W/m2/K): The tropospheric lapse rate (rate of change of temperature with height) affects the emission of LW radiation to space. If the troposphere warms uniformly, there is no radiative feedback whereas if there is a larger decrease in temperature with height there will be a greater greenhouse effect. An atmosphere that warms more in the lower troposphere will produce a larger positive feedback whereas an atmosphere that warms faster at higher altitudes will produce a negative feedback. Clouds (0.69 0.38 W/m2/K): Cloud feedbacks are the most uncertain but progress has been made in recent years to understand the magnitude of the cloud feedback. Clouds are effective at absorbing and emitting LW radiation and are also affective at reflecting SW radiation. The feedback from clouds is influenced by cloud amount, cloud height and vertical profile, optical depth, liquid and ice water contents, and particle sizes. (Stephens, 2005) For some climate models, cloud feedback is positive and comparable in strength to the combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback while for other models, cloud feedback is close to neutral. (Soden and Held, 2006) Surface Albedo (0.26 0.08 W/m2/K): Albedo is defined as the percentage of incoming SW radiation from the sun that is reflected. In a warmer climate, highly reflective snow and ice melt away and leave less reflective surfaces such as water and land exposed below. These lower albedo surfaces will absorb more incoming radiation than the snow and ice that were above resulting in a positive feedback. Despite the large uncertainty in the magnitude of cloud feedbacks, the overall picture of feedbacks in a warmer world is one that is positive - meaning that greenhouse gas warming will be enhanced by these mechanisms. A superb tutorial on forcing and feedbacks can be read at Chris Colose's: Re-visiting climate forcing/feedback conceptsInevitableNuccitelli says that we are not committed to surpassing 2 degrees yet. Every bit of CO2 reduces future warming slowing the rate allows us to adapt.ReforestationReforestation doesnt solve warmingCBC News 11 (June 20, Replacing crops with trees barely slows warming, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/20/science-afforestation-montenegro.html)

A key climate change reduction strategy recommended by the United Nations won't have much effect on global temperatures, according to a couple of Canadian scientists. Afforestation involves planting trees over croplands that aren't very productive in order to absorb more carbon dioxide from the air. High emissions of carbon dioxide have been linked to climate change, especially rising average global temperatures. But even if 100 per cent of the area planted with crops now was gradually replaced with forests, wherever possible, over the next 50 years, warming would only be reduced 0.45 degrees Celsius between 2081 and 2100, said a study by Vivek Arora, an Environment Canada researcher based at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, B.C., and Alvaro Montenegro, an earth sciences professor at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S. If 50 per cent of the area was afforested, warming would be reduced by just 0.25 degrees. "That says a lot about the smaller efforts," Montenegro said on Monday, a day after the research was published in Nature Geoscience. The United Nations lists afforestation as one way developing countries can earn emission reduction credits that can be sold to industrialized countries to meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Arora and Montenegro used a mathematical model of the Earth's climate, land surface and oceans to calculate the effect of replacing cropland with trees where trees could naturally grow. For example, they excluded areas like the Canadian prairies that are naturally grasslands. They found that while forests do absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, they are darker than crops, so they absorb more sunlight. That results in net warming, especially in areas further away from the equator.Weather effects prevent solvencyThompson 07 Managing Editor, OurAmazingPlanet, Masters degree in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (Andrea, Trees Won't Fix Global Warming Live Science, August 8, 2007 http://www.livescience.com/1754-trees-won-fix-global-warming.html)

The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates. Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming. The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels of the greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere to four matched plots that didn't receive any extra gas. The treated trees produced about 20 percent more biomass on average, but since water and nutrient availability differed across the plots, averages don't tell the whole story, the researchers noted. "In some areas, the growth is maybe five to 10 percent more, and in other areas it's 40 percent more," said FACE project director Ram Oren of Duke University. "So in sites that are poor in nutrients and water we see very little response. In sites that are rich in both, we see a large response." These differences are key since the weather isn't always cooperative with human needsif a drought takes hold, trees won't be able to do much in the way of carbon storage. "If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration," Oren said. Fertilizing forests to spur more carbon dioxide uptake is impractical, Oren added, because of the ramifications to the local environment and water supply. Renewables (0:39)Even if funding continues lack of innovation kills renewablesStepp 12 (Matthew, Senior Policy Analyst @ Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 5/14/2012, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/boom-and-bust-renewable-energy.php)

But even if much of this funding continues, the nascent clean tech industry is on a potential path of stagnation. In absence of long-term, significantly larger subsidies (which are politically unlikely), government support for clean energy R&D are central to developing and deploying competitive clean tech. In other words, clean tech growth nationwide (and globally) will be determined not by subsidies, but by innovation that can lead to technologies that are better and cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet, our policy choices often dont reflect this reality. According to ITIFs Energy Innovation Tracker, the U.S. is investing roughly $6 billion in clean energy R&D in FY2012 on average a third what leading experts think the U.S. should be investing. In fact, the bulk of the federal governments historic investment in clean energy nearly three quarters of the $150 billion is going to the deployment of existing technologies that are not cost-competitive with fossil fuel sources of energy. While these deployment incentives expand domestic supply chains and are spurring incremental innovations, the policies are acting like blunt force tools propping up lower-risk technologies while playing little role in incenting innovation and technologies to put clean energy on a path to subsidy independence. By not orienting the significant federal investment in clean tech towards spurring innovation while grossly underfunding R&D, the U.S. is failing to jump start and accelerate the clean tech innovations needed to create a robust, long-term sustainable industry. Even if the expiring tax incentives are extended as is, the long-term stagnation of the industry will still occur due to a lack of innovation. If we want a global clean tech revolution driven by the marketplace, we need to bring the equivalent of Moores law (the prediction that computing power would double every 24 months while costs would fall by half) to clean energy. Nothing less will work.Mass clean tech failures especially those receiving government supportInvestors Business Daily 12 (Editorial Staff, Will green-energy scandal hurt Obama chances in 2012?, Investors.com, 9/16/2012, http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021612-601508-obama-green-energy-scandal-grows-deeper.htm)

Crony Capitalism: With the election still more than eight months away, is it too soon to ask if the president can be re-elected with the green baggage piling up around him? Right now, that pile is deep and getting deeper. Obama's green energy scandal is more than Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker that squandered $535 million of Obama stimulus cash and hosted the president for a propaganda visit. It's a series of green-energy companies failing despite the administration's ceaseless promotion of the industry and the unseemly White House ties that run throughout. While the legacy media often shills for Democrats, sometimes an outlet surprises us, as the Washington Post did with this week's story outlining the shady Obama links to the clean-energy industry and implying the administration has engaged in first-class corruption. Post reporters, for instance, "found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." Named in the story is Sanjay Wagle, "venture capitalist" and "Obama fundraiser" who joined the Energy Department, which "provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle's former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested." And there's Steven Spinner, a "bundler of Obama campaign contributions who," we noted last fall, became an adviser at the Energy Department where he "pushed hard" for the Solyndra loan. Spinner is also married to a partner in the law firm that represented Solyndra. Going deeper, we find Steve Westly, identified by the Post as "an Obama fundraising bundler" who "served part time" on an Energy Department advisory board and "communicated with senior White House officials." The Post reported that Westly's firm "fared well in the agency's distribution of loans and grants. Its portfolio companies received $600 million in funding." mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast Also appearing in emails examined by the Post was David Prend, another venture capital investor with "White House access." Prend's company, Rockport Capital Partners, has been an investor in "several firms" that raked $550 million in federal money. Prend is linked, as well, to Ener1, the bankrupt electric-car battery company given a $118 million government grant. The pattern is clear. Bundle campaign cash for Obama, and get taxpayer dollars to be frittered away on trendy green projects that have no economic reason for being. It's a closed circle that goes nowhere, but Obama thinks he can ride it back to the White House.Sea LevelSea level rise is real and accelerating multiple methods of measurementBostrom 10 (Doug Bostrom, How much is sea level rising? 8/30/10) http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century. Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. Sea level rise mutually corroborates other evidence of global warming as well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments. The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places. Because the behavior of sea level is such an important diagnostic aid for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you may create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations. Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations. Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend. Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In point of fact, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations. As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed. Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic ( Rahmstorf 2010 ).Solar Cycles (0:16)Solar activity doesnt explain warming changes in radiation have little effect on actual temperatureMuller 12 [Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, 7/28/2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all]

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; weve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. SPS Alpha NowTheir solvency says its 40 years away. The cards have no warrant why we have tech nowDay 08 (Dwayne, Knights in shining armor, The Space Review, 6/9,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)

The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP and that it is not a viable solution for even the militarys limited requirements. It states that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger.Impacts (0:16)Lynas says global warming leads to extinction there will be droughts, the destruction of the entire rainforest ecosystem, wipes out agriculture endangering food supplies - makes conflict inevitable outweighs nuclear war. Even a small rise in global temperature would lead to mass starvation despite CO2 fertilization resulting in extinctionStrom 07 Robert, Professor Emeritus of planetary sciences in the Department of Planetary Sciences at the University of Arizona, 2007 (studied climate change for 15 years, the former Director of the Space Imagery Center, a NASA Regional Planetary Image Facility, Hot House, SpringerLink, p. 211-216)

THE future consequences of global warming are the least known aspect of the problem. They are based on highly complex computer models that rely on inputs that are sometimes not well known or factors that may be completely unforeseen. Most models assume certain scenarios concerning the rise in greenhouse gases. Some assume that we continue to release them at the current rate of increase while others assume that we curtail greenhouse gas release to one degree or another. Furthermore, we are in completely unknown territory. The current greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere has not been as high in at least the past 650,000 years, and the rise in temperature has not been as rapid since civilization began some 10,000 years ago. What lies ahead for us is not completely understood, but it certainly will not be good, and it could be catastrophic. We know that relatively minor climatic events have had strong adverse effects on humanity, and some of these were mentioned in previous chapters. A recent example is the strong El Nin~o event of 1997-1998 that caused weather damage around the world totaling $100 billion: major flooding events in China, massive fires in Borneo and the Amazon jungle, and extreme drought in Mexico and Central America. That event was nothing compared to what lies in store for us in the future if we do nothing to curb global warming. We currently face the greatest threat to humanity since civilization began. This is the crucial, central question, but it is very difficult to answer (Mastrandea and Schneider, 2004). An even more important question is: "At what temperature and environmental conditions is a threshold crossed that leads to an abrupt and catastrophic climate change?'' It is not possible to answer that question now, but we must be aware that in our ignorance it could happen in the not too distant future. At least the question of a critical temperature is possible to estimate from studies in the current science literature. This has been done by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany's leading climate change research institute (Hare, 2005). According to this study, global warming impacts multiply and accelerate rapidly as the average global temperature rises. We are certainly beginning to see that now. According to the study, as the average global temperature anomaly rises to 1 C within the next 25 years (it is already 0.6'C in the Northern Hemisphere), some specialized ecosystems become very stressed, and in some developing countries food production will begin a serious decline, water shortage problems will worsen, and there will be net losses in the gross domestic product (GDP). At least one study finds that because of the time lags between changes in radiative forcing we are in for a 1 C increase before equilibrating even if the radiative forcing is fixed at today's level (Wetherald et al., 2001). It is apparently when the temperature anomaly reaches 2 C that serious effects will start to come rapidly and with brute force (International Climate Change Taskforce, 2005). At the current rate of increase this is expected to happen sometime in the middle of this century. At that point there is nothing to do but try to adapt to the changes. Besides the loss of animal and plant species and the rapid exacerbation of our present problems, there are likely to be large numbers of hungry, diseased and starving people, and at least 1.5 billion people facing severe water shortages. GDP losses will be significant and the spread of diseases will be widespread (see below). We are only about 30 years away from the 440 ppm CO2 level where the eventual 2'C global average temperature is probable. When the temperature reaches 3 'C above today's level, the effects appear to become absolutely critical. At the current rate of greenhouse gas emission, that point is expected to be reached in the second half of the century. For example, it is expected that the Amazon rainforest will become irreversibly damaged leading to its collapse, and that the complete destruction of coral reefs will be widespread. As these things are already happening, this picture may be optimistic. As for humans, there will be widespread hunger and starvation with up to 5.5 billion people living in regions with large crop losses and another 3 billion people with serious water shortages. If the Amazon rainforest collapses due to severe drought it would result in decreased uptake of CO2 from the soil and vegetation of about 270 billion tons, resulting in an enormous increase in the atmospheric level of CO2. This, of course, would lead to even hotter temperatures with catastrophic results for civilization. A Regional Climate Change Index has been established that estimates the impact of global warming on various regions of the world (Giorgi, 2006). The index is based on four variables that include changes in surface temperature and precipitation in 2080-2099 compared to the period 1960-1979. All regions of the world are affected significantly, but some regions are much more vulnerable than others. The biggest impacts occur in the Mediterranean and northeastern European regions, followed by high-latitude Northern Hemisphere regions and Central America. Central America is the most affected tropical region followed by southern equatorial Africa and southeast Asia. Other prominent mid-latitude regions very vulnerable to global warming are eastern North America and central Asia. It is entirely obvious that we must start curtailing greenhouse gas emissions now, not 5 or 10 or 20 years from now. Keeping the global average temperature anomaly under 2'C will not be easy according to a recent report (Scientific Expert Group Report on Climate Change, 2007). It will require a rapid worldwide reduction in methane, and global CO2 emissions must level off to a concentration not much greater than the present amount by about 2020. Emissions would then have to decline to about a third of that level by 2100. Delaying action will only insure a grim future for our children and grandchildren. If the current generation does not drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emission, then, unfortunately, our grandchildren will get what we deserve. There are three consequences that have not been discussed in previous chapters but could have devastating impacts on humans: food production, health, and the economy. In a sense, all of these topics are interrelated, because they affect each other. Food Production Agriculture is critical to the survival of civilization. Crops feed not only us but also the domestic animals we use for food. Any disruption in food production means a disruption of the economy, government, and health. The increase in CO2 will result in some growth of crops, and rising temperatures will open new areas to crop production at higher latitudes and over longer growing seasons; however, the overall result will be decreased crop production in most parts of the world. A 1993 study of the effects of a doubling of CO2 (550 ppm) above pre-industrial levels shows that there will be substantial decreases in the world food supply (Rosenzweig et al., 1993). In their research they studied the effects of global warming on four crops (wheat, rice, protein feed, and coarse grain) using four scenarios involving various adaptations of crops to temperature change and CO2 abundance. They found that the amount of world food reduction ranged from 1 to 27%. However, the optimistic value of 1% is almost certainly much too low, because it assumed that the amount of degradation would be offset by more growth from "CO2 fertilization." We now know that this is not the case, as explained below and in Chapter 7. The most probable value is a worldwide food reduction between 16 and 27%. These scenarios are based on temperature and CO2 rises that may be too low, as discussed in Chapter 7. However, even a decrease in world food production of 16% would lead to large-scale starvation in many regions of the world. Large-scale experiments called Free-Air Concentration Enrichment have shown that the effects of higher CO2 levels on crop growth is about 50% less than experiments in enclosure studies (Long et al., 2006). This shows that the projections that conclude that rising CO2 will fully offset the losses due to higher temperatures are wrong. The downside of climate change will far outweigh the benefits of increased CO2 and longer growing seasons. One researcher (Prof. Long) from the University of Illinois put it this way: Growing crops much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the beneficial effects previously hoped for in the event of climate change. In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20 per cent reduction in crop yield. Both these results show that we need to seriously re-examine our predictions for future global food production, as they are likely to be far lower than previously estimated. Also, studies in Britain and Denmark show that only a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the yield of major food crops such as wheat, soy beans, rice, and groundnuts if they coincide with the flowering of these crops. This suggests that there are certain thresholds above which crops become very vulnerable to climate change. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 provided a large-scale experiment on the behavior of crops to increased temperatures. Scientists from several European research institutes and universities found that the growth of plants during the heat wave was reduced by nearly a third (Ciais et al., 2005). In Italy, the growth of corn dropped by about 36% while oak and pine had a growth reduction of 30%. In the affected areas of the mid- west and California the summer heat wave of 2006 resulted in a 35% loss of crops, and in California a 15% decline in dairy production due to the heat-caused death of dairy cattle. It has been projected that a 2 C rise in local temperature will result in a $92 million loss to agriculture in the Yakima Valley of Washington due to the reduction of the snow pack. A 4'C increase will result in a loss of about $163 million. For the first time, the world's grain harvests have fallen below the consumption level for the past four years according to the Earth Policy Institute (Brown, 2003). Furthermore, the shortfall in grain production increased each year, from 16 million tons in 2000 to 93 million tons in 2003. These studies were done in industrialized nations where agricultural practices are the best in the world. In developing nations the impact will be much more severe. It is here that the impact of global warming on crops and domestic animals will be most felt. In general, the world's most crucial staple food crops could fall by as much as one-third because of resistance to flowering and setting of seeds due to rising temperatures. Crop ecologists believe that many crops grown in the tropics are near, or at, their thermal limits. Already research in the Philippines has linked higher night-time temperatures to a reduction in rice yield. It is estimated that for rice, wheat, and corn, the grain yields are likely to decline by 10% for every local 1 C increase in temperature. With a decreasing availability of food, malnutrition will become more frequent accompanied by damage to the immune system. This will result in a greater susceptibility to spreading diseases. For an extreme rise in global temperature (> 6 'C), it is likely that worldwide crop failures will lead to mass starvation, and political and economic chaos with all their ramifications for civilization.Impact TurnsCO2 Fertilization (1:48)Warming controls the internal link CO2 might help but high temperatures and draught make photosynthesis and efficient growth impossibleTheir studies are wrongNew York Times 11 Article written by Justin Gills, writer for the New York Times and an environmental specialist (A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)

For decades, scientists believed that the human dependence on fossil fuels, for all the problems it was expected to cause, would offer one enormous benefit. Carbon dioxide, the main gas released by combustion, is also the primary fuel for the growth of plants. They draw it out of the air and, using the energy from sunlight, convert the carbon into energy-dense compounds like glucose. All human and animal life runs on these compounds. Humans have already raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution, and are on course to double or triple it over the coming century. Studies have long suggested that the extra gas would supercharge the worlds food crops, and might be especially helpful in years when the weather is difficult. But many of those studies were done in artificial conditions, like greenhouses or special growth chambers. For the past decade, scientists at the University of Illinois have been putting the CO2 fertilization effect to a real-world test in the two most important crops grown in the United States. They started by planting soybeans in a field, then sprayed extra carbon dioxide from a giant tank. Based on the earlier research, they hoped the gas might bump yields as much as 30 percent under optimal growing conditions. But when they harvested their soybeans, they got a rude surprise: the bump was only half as large. When we measured the yields, it was like, wait a minute this is not what we expected, said Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, a Department of Agriculture researcher who played a leading role in the work. When they grew the soybeans in the sort of conditions expected to prevail in a future climate, with high temperatures or low water, the extra carbon dioxide could not fully offset the yield decline caused by those factors. They also ran tests using corn, Americas single most valuable crop and the basis for its meat production and its biofuel industry. While that crop was already known to be less responsive to carbon dioxide, a yield bump was still expected especially during droughts. The Illinois researchers got no bump. Their work has contributed to a broader body of research suggesting that extra carbon dioxide does act as plant fertilizer, but that the benefits are less than previously believed and probably less than needed to avert food shortages. One of the things that were starting to believe is that the positives of CO2 are unlikely to outweigh the negatives of the other factors, said Andrew D. B. Leakey, another of the Illinois researchers. CO2 hurts Ag - A. EvolutionTissue and Lewis 12 [David, international expert on the effects of climate change on ecosystems, He has worked at Free Air CO2Exchange (FACE) sites, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment and James, PhD Fordham University in Biological Studies, February 24th, 2012. Learning from the past: how low [CO2] studies inform plant and ecosystem response to future climate change, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04081.x/full]

Low [CO2] has been proposed as a strong evolutionary selective agent, including contributing to the origin of agriculture (Sage, 1995) and the evolution of C4 plants in association with high temperature and drought (Osborne & Sack, 2012). More specifically, low [CO2] has generated substantial changes in leaf traits associated with CO2 and water exchange, such as reduced stomatal density, greater vein density and megaphyll leaves (see review by Leakey & Lau, 2012). Given the duration of very low [CO2] over geologic time and the relatively recent rise in [CO2] over the past 20 000 yr, selection pressure must have been strongly exerted by low [CO2]. For example, Wardet al. (2000) found that biomass production in Arabidopsis was increased 35% after only five generations of selection in low [CO2], but not at high [CO2], suggesting rapid and strong selective effects in low [CO2]. It is therefore, reasonable to assume that plants are still adapted to low [CO2], which may constrain responses to rising [CO2] predicted to occur over the nEXT century (Sage & Coleman, 2001). In a future warmer, high [CO2] world, the primary resource limiting plant function will continue to transition from [CO2] to other resources, such as temperature, nutrients and water availability. In controlled environment studies to date, there is little evidence that adaptive evolutionary responses to elevated [CO2] have occurred, even over many generations, despite changes in plant phenotypes (Leakey & Lau, 2012). Longer term exposure (thousands of years) to elevated [CO2] at natural CO2 springs also generally find minimal adaptive change despite some alterations in photosynthetic performance and biochemistry (e.g. Cook et al., 1998). Interestingly, even the evolution of Rubisco appears constrained, with Rubisco specificity optimal for light-saturated photosynthesis at c. 200 ppm [CO2] (Zhu et al., 2004), which is the mean [CO2] over the last 400 000 yr (Luthi et al., 2008). A potential explanation for the general lack of evidence for adaptive responses to elevated [CO2] is that (e.g. nutrient, water, temperature) over multiple generations (Leakey & Lau, 2012). Given that these environmental conditions co-vary, and that selection is strongest under stressful conditions, this research direction should be pursued in the near future. Reduced terrestrial carbon storage, net primary production and forest cover during glacial periods, which are characterized by very low atmospheric [CO2], may be more accurately predicted when the impact of low [CO2] on physiological processes is included in palaeoclimate models (Prentice & Harrison, 2009). Utilizing findings from studies that address the impact of low [CO2] on physiological performance in C3 and C4 plants, it has been demonstrated that physiological effects may scale up to the ecosystem level (Prentice & Harrison, 2009). For example, changes in [CO2] and their resultant effect on plant photosynthesis and water use efficiency in low [CO2] have been used to accurately explain changes in the composition of plant communities (C3 vs C4) over the LGM, as well as account for changes in the woody component in savannas, relative forest cover, and most recently treegrass competition during the transition from LGM to pre-industrial Holocene (Prentice et al., 2011). Overall, we should utilize our improved understanding of plant adaptation and response to low and variable [CO2] over historic time periods to better predict ecosystem response to rising [CO2] and future climate change.B. Photosynthesis Cook 11 [April 18, 2011. John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honors year. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html]

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.C. Efficient nutrient useBloom et al 12 Professor in the Department of Vegetable Crops at the University of California at Davis, USA, CO2 enrichment inhibits shoot nitrate assimilation in C3 but not C4 plants and slows growth under nitrate in C3 plants, Ecology, February 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624317)

The results of these gas flux and growth experiments support the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 enrichment interferes with the ability of C3 species to assimilate NO3 into organic N compounds in their shoots and that this impedes their growth. In a diverse collection of C3 species and C3-C4 intermediates, CO2 enrichment severely decreased photosynthetic O2 evolution associated with NO3 assimilation (Fig. 1a, c). There are obviously alternative mechanisms for NO3 assimilation because plants under CO2 enrichment and NO3 nutrition continued to grow, albeit often at a slower pace (Figs. 2 and 3). One such mechanism is root NO3 assimilation, which may be enhanced under CO2 enrichment (Kruse et al. 2003). Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the EXTent to which the balance between root and shoot NO3 assimilation varies within and among species (Epstein and Bloom 2005, NunesNesi et al. 2010). In several species measured at ambient CO2 concentration, shoots account for the majority of whole-plant NO3 assimilation over the entire day (Bloom et al. 1992, Cen and Layzell 2003). This study establishes that CO2 enrichment inhibits shoot nitrate assimilation in a wide variety of C3 plants and that this phenomenon influences whole-plant growth; therefore, shoot nitrate assimilation provides an important contribution to the performance of the entire plant.D. Deserts and Pests Cook 11 [April 18, 2011. John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honors year. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html]

4. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures. 5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows. In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change. It will simply increase the size of deserts and decrease the amount of arable land. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects. Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.E. OzoneMonbiot 07 [George, Professor @ Oxford Brookes University, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, pg. 7]

But now, I am sorry to say, it seems that I might have been right, though for the wrong reasons. In late 2005, a study published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society alleged that the yield predictions for temperate countries were 'over optimistic'. The authors had blown carbon dioxide and ozone, in concentrations roughly equivalent to those expected later this century, over crops in the open air. They discovered that the plants didn't respond as they were supposed to: the extra carbon dioxide did not fertilize them as much as the researchers predicted, and the ozone reduced their yields by 20 per cent." Ozone levels are rising in the rich nations by between 1 and 2 per cent a year, as a result of sunlight interacting with pollution from cars, planes and power stations. The levels happen to be highest in the places where crop yields were expected to rise: western Europe, the midwest and eastern US and eastern China. The expected ozone increase in China will cause maize, rice and soybean production to fall by over 30 per cent by 2020, These reductions in yield, if real, arc enough to cancel out the effects of both higher temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations.F. WeedsZiska 07 [Lewis Ziska, PhD, Principal investigator at United States Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research Service Alternate Crop and Systems Lab. Climate change impact on weeds http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/III.1Weeds.pdf]

Weeds have a greater genetic diversity than crops. Consequently, if a resource (light, water, nutrients or carbon dioxide) changes within the environment, it is more likely that weeds will show a greater growth and reproductive response. It can be argued that many weed species have the C4 photosynthetic pathway and therefore will show a smaller response to atmospheric CO2 relative to C3 crops. However, this argument does not consider the range of available C3 and C4 weeds present in any agronomic environment. That is, at present, the U.S. has a total of 46 major crops; but, over 410 troublesome weed species (both C3 and C4) associated with those crops (Bridges 1992). Hence, if a C4 weed species does not respond, it is likely that a C3 weed species will. In addition, many growers recognize that the worst weeds for a given crop are similar in growth habit or photosynthetic pathway; indeed, they are often the same uncultivated or wild species, e.g. oat and wild oat, sorghum and shattercane, rice and red rice. To date, for all weed/crop competition studies where the photosynthetic pathway is the same, weed growth is favored as CO2 is increased (Table 1, Ziska and Runion, In Press). In addition to agronomic weeds, there is an additional category of plants that are considered noxious or invasive weeds. These are plants, usually non-native whose introduction results in wide-spread economic or environmental consequences (e.g. kudzu). Many of these weeds reproduce by vegetative means (roots, stolons, etc.) and recent evidence indicates that as a group, these weeds may show a strong response to recent increases in atmospheric CO2 (Ziska and George 2004). How rising CO2 would contribute to the success of these weeds in situ however, is still unclear. Overall, the data that are available on the response of weeds and changes in weed ecology are limited. Additional details, particularly with respect to interactions with other environmental variables (e.g. nutrient availability, precipitation and temperature) are also needed. Ice Age (1:40)1. The Earth is Warming the global average temperature has increased over the past 50 years the only explanation is CO2 emissions prefer our evidence it cites the most recent studies and is unbiased 2. Global Warming outweighs collapses global biodiversity which makes life impossible much quicker than an Ice Age because of positive feedback loopsGolub and Pasachoff 01 (Leon, Senior Astrophysicist @ Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Jay, Director of the Hopkins Observatory @ Williams, Nearest Star: The Surprising Science of Our Sun, p. 215-216)

It might be tempting to argue that, since the world is now undergoing a gradual decline in temperature based on the Milankovitch theory of ice ages, the man-made warming may prevent us from descending into another ice age. But there are several problems with this reasoning. First, the time scales involved are very different: the next ice age is coming, but it is thousands of years away, whereas the global warming due to fossil fuel burning is arriving very quickly, within a few decades. Human activity might then cause an enormous upswing in global temperature followed by a more drastic downturn than would otherwise have occurred. Moreover, the warming that is now either underway or imminent has not been intentional, but rather is a side effect of our efforts to produce energy for an industrial economy. Given our present rudimentary understanding of global climate, it would be difficult to produce a controlled, planned change. The likelihood that an unplanned, uncontrolled change would be beneficial is extremely low.3. Err Aff if CO2 is actually necessary to prevent and Ice Age we can always pump more into the atmosphere easily but taking it out is difficult and risks extinction4. No ice age comingRice 12 (Stanley, Professor of Biological Sciences at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBAL DISRUPTION, 5/17/2012, http://stanleyrice.com/presentations/Global_Warming_May_2012.pdf)

First, over the last 400,000 years, there have been four ice ages. Right now, global temperatures are as warm as they have ever been during any previous interglacial period. If Michael Mann is right, even warmer. Second, global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are pretty precisely correlated: it is hot when the air has more carbon dioxide in it. Third, the current levels of carbon dioxide far exceed the carbon dioxide levels of any time in the last half million years. What this may mean is that we have yet to see most of the global warming that all of that extra carbon dioxide will cause. The Earth has just put its sweater on during the last centurywatch out! 5. No offense enough CO2 to offset ice age now, adding more is catastrophicAFP 08 [CO2 may prevent next Ice Age: study, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/13/2418491.htm]

Scheduled shifts in the earth's orbit should plunge the planet into a deep freeze thousands of years from now, but current changes to our atmosphere may stop it from occurring, say scientists. Professor Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, and Dr William Hyde of the University of Toronto report in the journal Nature that the current level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere could negate the onset of the next Ice Age, which could occur 10,000 years from now. But they caution that their finding is not an argument in favour of global warming, which is driving imminent and potentially far-reaching damage to the climate system. Earth has experienced long periods of extreme cold over the billions of years of its history. The big freezes are interspersed with "interglacial" periods of relative warmth, of the kind we have experienced since the end of the last Ice Age, around 11,000 years ago. These climate swings have natural causes, believed to be due to changes in the earth's orbit and axis that, while minute, have a powerful effect on how much solar heat falls on the planet. Abrupt changes The researchers built a computer model to take a closer look at these phases of cooling and warmth. In addition to the planetary shifts, they also factored in levels of CO2, found in tiny bubbles in ice cores, which provide an indicator of temperature spanning hundreds of thousands of years. They found dramatic swings in climate, including changes when the earth flipped from one state to the other, which occur in a relatively short time, says Crowley. These shifts, called "bifurcations," appear to happen in abrupt series, which is counter-intuitive to the idea that the planet cools or warms gradually. "You had a big change about a million years ago, then a second change around 650,000 years ago, when you had bigger glaciations, then 450,000 years ago, when you started to get more repeated glaciations," says Thomas. "What's also interesting is that the inter-glaciations also became warmer." According to the model the next "bifurcation" would normally be due between 10,000 and 100,000 years from now. The chill would induce a long, stable period of glaciation in the mid-latitudes, smothering Europe, Asia and parts of North America with a thick sheet of ice. But Crowley says there is now enough CO2 in the air, as a result of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation, to offset any future cooling impacts due to orbital shift, says Crowley. "Even the level that we have there now is more than sufficient to reach that critical state seen in the model," he said. "If we cut back [on CO2] some, that would probably still be enough." In September, a scientific research consortium called the Global Carbon Project (GCP) said that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached 383 parts per million (ppm) in 2007, or 37% above pre-industrial levels. Present concentrations are "the highest during the last 650,000 years and probably during the last 20 million years," the report says. No green light Crowley cautions those who would seize on the new study to say "carbon dioxide is now good, it prevents us from walking the plank into this deep glaciation." "We don't want to give people that impression," he says. "You can't use this argument to justify [human-induced] global warming." Last year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that greenhouse-gas emissions were already inflicting visible changes to the climate system, especially on ice and snow. Left unchecked, climate change could inflict widespread drought and flooding by the end of the century, translating into hunger, homelessness and other stresses for millions of people. 6. Turn - Warming melts arctic sea ice that leads to an ice age The Telegraph 12 [The Telegraph, news agency, 27 Feb 2012, Freezing winters ahead due to melting Arctic Sea ice, 2/27/12, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9109106/Freezing-winters-ahead-due-to-melting-Arctic-Sea-ice.html]

Climate change means autumn levels of sea ice have dropped by almost 30 percent since 1979 - but this is likely to trigger more frequent cold snaps such as those that brought blizzards to the UK earlier this month. And Arctic sea ice could be to blame. Dr Jiping Liu and colleagues studied the extensive retreat of the ice in the summer and its slow recovery focusing on the impacts of this phenomenon on weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Information about snow cover, sea level pressure, surface air temperature and humidity was used to generate model simulations for the years 1979-2010. The researchers say dramatic loss of ice may alter atmospheric circulation patterns and weaken the westerly winds that blow across the North Atlantic Ocean from Canada to Europe. This will encourage regular incursions of cold air from the Arctic into Northern continents - increasing heavy snowfall in the UK. Dr Liu said: "The results of this study add to an increasing body of both observational and modeling evidence that indicates diminishing Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in driving recent cold and snowy winters over large parts of North America, Europe and east Asia." While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades there has been abnormally large snowfall in these areas. Dr Liu, of Georgia Institute if Technology in Atlanta, said: "Here we demonstrate the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation. "This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. "Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. "We conclude the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters." In November research showed there is less Arctic sea ice now than there has been at any time in the last 1,450 years.SO2 (1:15)1. The Earth is Warming the global average temperature has increased over the past 50 years the only explanation is CO2 emissions prefer our evidence it cites the most recent studies and is unbiased 2. Aerosol effect doesnt solve warming-traps heat-decreases cloud cover-decreases rain fallRosenfeld et al 12 [Daniel, Professor, Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University, Robert Wood, University of Washington, Leo Donner, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Princeton University Forrestal Campus, Steven Sherwood, Professor Physical Meteorology and Atmospheric Climate Dynamics University of New South Wales, Aerosol cloud-mediated radiative forcing: highly uncertain and opposite effects from shallow and deep clouds, 1/5/2012, http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/documents/Rosenfeld_cloud_aerosol_V9.pdf]

All other things are however not generally equal: aerosols can also alter the subsequent fate of condensed water, and can drive circulations that alter the formation of clouds. These impacts lead to adjusted aerosol forcings analogous to those following the stratospheric adjustment to added greenhouse gases (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005). Both direct (radiative) and indirect (CCN-based) pathways produce such adjustments. For example, heating of the air by absorbing aerosols can alter local stability and/or drive circulations that alter local or remote cloud amounts, producing a semi-direct forcing on regional or global radiative balances (e.g., Allen and Sherwood 2010). Smaller droplets 4 may cause a cloud to dissipate either more quickly (by reducing fall speeds and increasing cloud break-up by increasing evaporative and radiatively driven entrainment) or more slowly (by decreasing droplet lifetimes in subsaturated air and the rate at which cloud is depleted by precipitation) so called lifetime or cloud amount effects (Albrecht 1989). They also typically delay the formation of precipitation, which alters the latent heat release and therefore the dynamics of the cloud. Impacts can include invigoration and deepening of already deep clouds that would have rained anyway (e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008), or the suppression of rain in weaker, shallower and more susceptible cloud systems (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2000). Either implies changes to cloud water content, hence albedo; to cloud top height, hence greenhouse effect; to cloud amount, which affects both of these; and to net rainfall, hence the larger-scale circulation. It is in these adjustments where most of the uncertainty lies in quantifying the net climate forcing due to anthropogenic aerosols. Understanding of these has been sufficiently poor that the IPCC has not attempted to assess them up until now, but will do so to a limited degree in the upcoming AR5 report. 3. SO2 increases warming prevents elimination of methaneWard 09 [Peter, PhD Seismology, Columbia University, Sulfur Dioxide Initiates Global Climate Change in Four Ways, http://ebookbrowse.com/notes-for-science-writers-pdf-d14765089]

The IPCC emphasizes that methane is a greenhouse gas that absorbs much more energy than carbon dioxide. They explain the increasing amounts of methane as resulting from increases in methane sources on earth such as changes in the number of cows, peat bogs or rice paddies. The increase in methane can be explained in another way. The hydroxyl radical reacts with sulfur dioxide in a fraction of a second. It reacts more slowly with methane, oxides of nitrogen and other greenhouse gases. Thus sulfur dioxide steals the oxidants that become available. Too much sulfur dioxide causes methane and other greenhouse gases to accumulate. Low concentrations of sulfur dioxide leave oxidants available to react with methane and other greenhouse gases, lowering world temperatures. This is another very important concept in understanding global warming: Large quantities of sulfur dioxide reduce the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere, thereby changing the atmospheres ability to cleanse itself and thereby increasing concentrations of methane. To belabor the point: The IPCC is primarily concerned with emissions. I am primarily concerned with the atmospheres ability to remove these emissions through oxidation. Both affect atmospheric concentrations, but I argue that oxidation is far more important. Sulfur dioxide opens and closes two types of venetian blinds. Sulfur dioxide and water emitted during a large volcanic eruption forms an aerosol in the lower stratosphere that closes those venetian blinds that govern incoming solar radiation, reflecting sunlight and thereby cooling the earth. Sulfur dioxide in the troposphere is largely oxidized. Too much sulfur dioxide, especially in the troposphere, reduces the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere, closing a different set of venetian blinds that govern outgoing longwave radiation and thereby warming the earth. What closes these blinds is the rapid buildup of greenhouse gases, including sulfur dioxide, in the troposphere. How much sulfur dioxide is too much? These are details that will need to be worked out by atmospheric chemists, but my observations demonstrate that warming becomes a problem when there is at least one large, Pinatubo-sized volcanic eruption every two years. 4. SO2 causes acid rain that acidifies the worlds water suppliesSeitz and Hite 12 [John Seitz, professor at Wofford College, former official at the State Department in the office of Aid for International Development, former member of the CIA, yeah, that CIA; Kristen Hite, B.A. and B.S., Wofford College (2000) M.S. in environmental management, University of San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador J.D., Georgetown University Law School, Washington, D.C., official at Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, D.C. Global Issues: An Introduction, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing]

When fossil fuels are burned, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are released into the air. As these gases react with moisture and oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight, the sulfur dioxide becomes sulfuric acid (the same substance used in car batteries) and the oxides of nitrogen become nitric acid. These acids then return to earth in rain, snow, hail, or fog. When they do, they can kill fish in lakes and streams, dissolve limestone statues and gravestones, corrde metal, weaken trees, making them more susceptible to insects and drought, and reduce the growth of some crops. The effects of acid rain on human health are not yet known. Some scientists fear that acid rain could help dissolve toxic metals in water pipes and in the soil, releasing these metals into peoples water supplies. In the United States, acid rain comes mainly from sulfur dioxide produced by coal-burning electricity-generating power plants in the Midwest and from the nitrogen oxides from auto and truck exhausts. Acid rain has caused lakes in the northeastern part of the country to become so acidic that fish and other organisms are unable to live in them.IndictsCarter (0:20)Carter makes blatantly false claims and uses no scientific data to support his conclusionsKaroly 11 [recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, member of the faculty of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, former Director of the Cooperative Research Centre for Southern Hemisphere Meteorology at Monash University, former Professor of Meteorology in the School of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma (David, Bob Carters climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality, The Conversation, 6/24/11, http://theconversation.edu.au/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553)

Lets fall through a rabbit hole and enter a different world: the Carter reality. In that world, it is OK to select any evidence that supports your ideas and ignore all other evidence. In that world, geologists like Carter hold the key to delineating climate history and many (though not all) geological scientists see no cause for alarm when modern climate change is compared with the climate history." In the real world, this is not true. The Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of London and the American Geophysical Union have all recognised the reality of human-caused climate change and called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In the Carter reality, there has been no net warming between 1958 and 2005. Of course, in the real world, there is no basis for this statement from scientific analysis of observational data. The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s, which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s, which was warmer than the 1960s. So where does Carters statement come from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period and a cold year much later, and says theres been no warming. This would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days. In the Carter reality, human-caused emissions will have an insignificant impact on the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean and the observed increases in carbon dioxide are due to emissions from volcanoes or from the oceans. Of course, this Carter reality has ignored the contrary evidence, such as decreases in oxygen in the atmosphere, and downplayed evidence from changes in carbon isotopes, both associated with fossil fuel burning. It has also ignored the evidence that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are higher than the concentrations in the upper layers of the ocean, so there is a net flow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean. In the Carter reality, year-to-year climate variations due to El Nio explain the variations in global temperature, including global warming, much better than increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, you have to ignore the fact that you have to remove the long-term warming trend in global temperatures to get this result. In the Carter reality, the increase in global temperatures due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is low, only about one degree. This is a strange thing to mention as, in that world, there is supposed to be no warming and the increases in greenhouse gases are not due to human activity. In the real world, the feedbacks in the climate system that were important in amplifying the global warming from the last ice age to the current geological period, the Holocene, are also important in amplifying the warming response for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This geological evidence, together with evidence from the observed warming over the last century, show that the climate response to a doubling of carbon dioxide will be about three degrees. But in the Carter reality, there has been noble cause corruption to promote alarm about global warming and hide the contrary evidence, by individual scientists, by the CSIRO, by the scientific academies, and by the IPCC. Of course, this Carter reality ignores the multiple independent inquiries of climate scientists and of the IPCC that have found no evidence of corruption, and only evidence of normal scientific practices. In the Carter reality, there are many other strange conclusions based on selecting some evidence and ignoring most. The rules of science have been replaced by non-science. In that world, there are large benefits from more carbon dioxide and no adverse impacts, no sea level rise nor increasing acidification of the ocean. In the Carter reality, it is better to adapt to climate change as it occurs, rather than to act on the best scientific understanding. In the Carter reality, consensus is not needed around scientific understanding, yet he tries to establish that there is a counter-consensus. If you search the web, you can find several reviews of his book by non-scientists, who also inhabit the strange world of the Carter reality and accept everything he writes. Or you can read a review by a New Zealand scientist who says the book is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions. If you live in the Carter reality, it is fine to accept non-science. I hope that most people live in the real world and accept the science reality, not the Carter reality. Idsos (0:11)Idso is a hack denier paid off by the Heartland instituteGibson 12 [C. Gibson, March 30, 2012, Heartland Institute and ALEC Partner to Pollute Classroom Science, Polluterwatch, http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/denialgate]

The National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of actual climate researchers understand that global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, most K-12 students don't read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I certainly didn't--I relied upon my teachers to teach science with unbiased integrity. Wojick has expertise not in climate science, but the philosophy of science. He has done contract work for the coal industry through the "Greening Earth Society," a fairy tale organization established to promote the absurd idea that more CO2 in our atmosphere, such as from burning coal and other fossil fuels, is unconditionally good for our planet. This fallacy is promoted by other notable non-experts, such as oil billionaire David Koch and junk scientist Craig Idso, who produced propaganda films for the Greening Earth Society (a coal industry front group). Idso presented "The Many Atmospheric Benefits of CO2" to ALEC's Energy and Environment task force at their August, 2011 meeting in New Orleans, where he told ALEC insiders that we should let CO2 rise unrestricted, without government intervention since CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. The coal industry clearly wishes this were true, Mr. Idso. In addition to accepting fossil fuel propaganda money alongside Mr. Wojick at the Greening Earth Society, Craig Idso also consults for the Heartland Institute. Idso's $140,000 contract with Heartland this year is to coordinate the anti-scientific "Climate Change Reconsidered" reports, an admittedly "political" project that includes contracts to two federal workers and multiple university faculty members. These payments US Interior Department (DOI) contractor Indur Goklany, who is under investigation by the Interior Department's Inspector General's office at the request of US Representative Raul Grijalva of New Mexico. While the Heartland Institute is doing its best to make this unraveling scandal disappear, mainly by vilifying scientist Peter Gleick for embarrassing the Institute, Greenpeace is pushing for more. We continue to seek answers from federal bodies and universities whose employees are taking money from the Heartland Institute to attack science and disrupt the democratic process on behalf of tobacco companies, industrial giants and billionaire ideologues like the Koch brothers. Visit PolluterWatch for ongoing results of Greenpeace's investigation of the Heartland Institute leaked documents.Spencer (0:15)Spencers bought offPlait 11 [Phil, astronomer, lecturer, and author, No, new data does not blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/]

And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencers background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the ber-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from can you guess? ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think its relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. Heck, even a conservative judge ruled it to be so in the now-famous Dover lawsuit. Anyone who dumps all of biological science in favor of provably wrong antiscience should raise alarm bells in your head, and their claims should be examined with an even more skeptical eye.