warming core - fellowsx 8-4

7/30/2019 Warming Core - Fellowsx 8-4 .

1/112

ADI Warming CoreADI Warming Core..................................................................................................1

***Warming BAD***............................................................................................3***Top Shelf Impacts***........................................................................4

Warming Bad- Extinction (Ahmed).........................................................................5Warming Bad- Extinction (Sify)..............................................................................6Warming Bad- Extinction (Tickell)..........................................................................7Warming Bad- Extinction (Brandenberg and Paxson)............................................8Warming Bad- Resource Wars................................................................................9

***Warming Real/Anthropogenic***......................................................11Warming Real- Science........................................................................................12Warming Real- Consensus...................................................................................14CO2 Causes Warming- New Research..................................................................18CO2 Causes Warming- A2 Model Indict................................................................21A2 Heat Islands/Weather Stations Bad.................................................................22A2 Past Tipping Point...........................................................................................23Author Indict- Idso................................................................................................24Author Indict- Heartland Institute.........................................................................26A2 Skeptics Suppressed.......................................................................................27A2 Climate Scientists Paid Off..............................................................................28A2 Climate Models Flawed/Manipulated...............................................................29A2 Climategate....................................................................................................30

***Warming Bad Impacts***.................................................................31Biodiversity Mod...................................................................................................32Warming Destroys Biodiversity............................................................................34Warming Destroys Biodiversity- A2 Adaptation...................................................35Warming Destroys Biodiversity- Indirect Effects..................................................37Ocean Acidification Mod.......................................................................................38Warming Causes Acidification- A2 Not Real/Anthro.............................................40Coral Reefs Mod...................................................................................................41Warming Destroys Coral Reefs............................................................................43

***A2 CO2 Fert***...............................................................................44Warming Hurts Crops...........................................................................................45Warming Hurts Crops- Invasive Species...............................................................48A2 CO2 Fert- Maize..............................................................................................49A2 CO2 Fert- Soybeans........................................................................................50A2 CO2 Fert- Wheat.............................................................................................51A2 CO2 Fert- Cotton.............................................................................................52

***A2 Ice Age***..................................................................................53Warming Causes Ice Age.....................................................................................54

No Ice Age- Studies Prove....................................................................................56No Ice Age- Already Enough FF............................................................................57***Warming GOOD*** .......................................................................................58

***Warming Not Real/Natural***..........................................................59CO2 Doesnt Cause Warming- History..................................................................60CO2 Doesnt Cause Warming- Arctic Records......................................................61CO2 Doesnt Cause Warming- Alt Causes............................................................62A2 Runaway Warming- Arctic Data......................................................................63Not Anthropogenic...............................................................................................65


2/112

A2 Climate Models...............................................................................................66IPCC Indict- Rainfall Models..................................................................................68A2 Idso Indicts......................................................................................................69Heartland Institute and NIPCC Prodict..................................................................70A2 Paid By Oil Companies....................................................................................71IPCC Indict- Inconclusive......................................................................................72

IPCC Indict- Flaws in Peer Review........................................................................73A2 Climate Consensus.........................................................................................75Warming Bad People Are Hacks...........................................................................77

***No Impact/Impact Turns***..............................................................78A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Now Not Unprecedented...................................79A2 Warming Causes Extinction- Models Indict.....................................................82CO2 Good 1NC.....................................................................................................832NC Biodiversity Impact.......................................................................................87CO2 Good- Environment......................................................................................89CO2 Solves Crops.................................................................................................90Warming Solves Biodiversity- Range Expansion..................................................91Warming Solves Biodiversity- Adaptation............................................................96

Warming Solves Biodiversity- Studies..................................................................97A2 Warming Hurts Biodiversity- Flawed Models...................................................99Warming Solves Coral Reefs- Adaptation...........................................................100A2 Warming Hurts Coral Reefs...........................................................................101A2 Ocean Acidification.......................................................................................104A2 Warming Causes Resource Wars..................................................................106

***Ice Age***....................................................................................107Ice Age 1NC.......................................................................................................108Ice Age Now.......................................................................................................110A2 Warming Causes Ice Age..............................................................................111Ice Age Will Kill Biodiversity...............................................................................112


3/112

***Warming BAD***


4/112

***Top Shelf Impacts***


5/112

Warming Bad- Extinction (Ahmed)

Warming causes extinctionAhmed 2010 (Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy

Research and Development, professor of International Relations and globalization atBrunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010, GlobalizingInsecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and EconomicCrises, Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark2007 FourthAssessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which warnedthat at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions, the earths globalaverage temperature would likely rise by 6C by the end of the 21st century creating a largelyuninhabitable planet was a wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions ofclimate sceptics, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued toproduce evidence that the IPCCs original scenarios were wrong not because theywere too alarmist, but on the contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to

a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, current CO2 emissions are worsethan all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies that the IPCCs worst-casesix-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory under current rates ofemissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2C rise in global average temperatures under an atmosphericconcentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit beyond which

further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changesthat, in turn, could tip the whole earth climate system into a process ofirreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with thelevel of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data

suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower. James Hansen, director of the NASA GoddardInstitute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for CO2emissions is 350 ppm: If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is notbrief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.[ix]

A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role ofpositive-feedbackmechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warmingprocess. Emissions beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to thetotal loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified absorption ofsun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggeringmassive methane injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the lossof half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release ofbillions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbialactivity in the earths soil leading to further huge releases of storedcarbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these feedback sub-systemsalone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effectsthat could tip the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent

studies now estimate that the continuation ofbusiness-as-usual would lead to globalwarming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophicimpacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century a situation endangeringthe survival of all life on earth.[xi]


6/112

Warming Bad- Extinction (Sify)

ExtinctionSify 2010 (Sify, Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at

University of Queensland and Director of the Global Change Institute, and JohnBruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, Could unbridledclimate changes lead to human extinction?, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html)The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The impact of climate change on the world's marineecosystems' emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world'soceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists. One of theauthors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its

Global Change Institute (GCI). 'We may see sudden, unexpected changes that haveserious ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of theplanet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the wayto the next great extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications formankind, particularly if the trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces halfof the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of human-generatedcarbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. 'We are entering aperiod in which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some

cases beginning to fail', he added. The 'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to marine life identified inthe report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in watercirculation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths. These are driving majorchanges in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fishnurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life;and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms. Study co-author John F Bruno,associate professor in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas

emissions are modifying many physical and geochemical aspects of theplanet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a million years'. 'This is causing fundamental andcomprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, according to a GCI release. Thesefindings were published in Science.
http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.htmlhttp://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.htmlhttp://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.htmlhttp://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.htmlhttp://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.htmlhttp://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html


7/112

Warming Bad- Extinction (Tickell)

Warming causes extinctionTickell 2008 (Oliver Tickell, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, August 11, 2008, On a planet 4C hotter,all we can prepare for is extinction, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight

this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we couldadapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous.Global warming on thisscalewould be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probablynever spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind.Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable,bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports,cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world'sgeography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120

metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather wouldbecome extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severedroughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would behugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.


8/112

Warming Bad- Extinction (Brandenberg andPaxson)

Human caused CO2 emissions cause extinction

Brandenburg and Paxon 1999 (John E. Brandenburg (physicist rocket scientist, Mars expert,investigator on MET project, NASA technical advisor, former member of space transport subcommittee) Monica RixPaxon (writer and scientific editor) Dead Mars, Dying Earth, 1999, p.46 - 47

Gradually, incrementally, we are changing Earths atmosphere. But are we slowly altering ouratmosphere away from something that supports human life toward somethingdeadly like the atmosphere of Mars? Such an atmosphere would have been very familiar toJoseph Black, who isolated the very first atmospheric gas. Unitarian minister Joseph Priestley would haverecognized the atmosphere of Mars as well. So would coal miners from the early part of the 20th century and thecanary that lay gasping at the bottom of the cage, for the atmosphere of Mars is made of fixed air. The

atmosphere of Mars is made of blackdamp. The atmosphere of Mars is made of carbonic acid gas. Theatmosphere of Mars is made of a substance that has over time had manynames reflecting the toxic side of its nature. While today we call all ofthem carbon dioxide (which we think of as a benign product of our own bodies and the harmless

bubbles in soda pop), this substance has clearly not always been viewed as aharmless gas. Nor should it be in the future, for it is time once again to inform our opinions about thissubstance and recognize its invisible, dark side. As long as a stylus attached to the monitoring equipment in somelonely station on the top of an inactive volcano in Hawaii continues to etch a line ratcheting upwardshowing theincreased amounts of carbon dioxide that, year after year, flood our atmosphere, threatening usthen we too

must think of it very differently. It isnt a matter of speculation. It is a matter of hard,cold scientific fact supported by numerous studies conducted by manyrespected scientists.7~ In the overwhelming majority they agree: Earths atmosphere hasfar too much of what we now must think of as carbon die-oxide. It iswarming our planet to the point where life, human life, is endangered. Weare going to have to do something decisive and effective about this killer. No matter how successful or enlightenedwe think ourselves to be, we are not exempt from the need to actin the same way that we are not exempt fromthe need to breathe.


9/112

Warming Bad- Resource Wars

It also causes huge resource wars and is a conflict multiplierKlare 2006 (Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at

Hampshire College, March 10, 2006, The Coming Resource Wars,http://goo.gl/sPH9D)It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British DefenseSecretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase

the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "willmake scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer"-- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than lesslikely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant bothbecause of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water andagricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared."We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing

world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damagingand destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasinglyscarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will

become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain'sequivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategiccircles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the mostpotent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption ratessoaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is beingset for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear inthis scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior toReid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department ofDefense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario andIts Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely toresult in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in averagetemperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanesand continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects

for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence and disruptionstemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climatepose a different type of threat to national security than we areaccustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may betriggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and waterrather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed tocommand the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideologicaland religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand andextremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at

Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmentalperils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to thegrowing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems.Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North Americanglaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest thatdramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, theyconclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motorvehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White

House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists andthoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended todescribe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certainspecies and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatestthreat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude ofthe peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by globalclimate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire humansocieties, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine,

disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes,"many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum

requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is


10/112

likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greaterstock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populationswith 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." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as thosewithout the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greaterabundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and

"have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressedconcern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change,and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africacurrently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provokingmore wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthiercountries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aidoperations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, andminerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starvingpeople killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could

easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. " In thisworld of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear armsproliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and morecountries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "willaccelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and

reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports makeone thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its socialand political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us,and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and

shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escapeinvolvement in these forms of conflict.


11/112

***Warming Real/Anthropogenic***


12/112

Warming Real- Science

Warming is a fact

Achenbach 2012 (Joel Achenbach, writer and lecturer at Princeton andGeorgetown, July 7, 2012, Climate Change: Global Warming is a Fact, WashingtonPost, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/climate-change-global-warming-is-a-fact/2012/07/09/gJQAAGs6XW_blog.html)At some point we should stop litigating the basic question of whetherclimate change is happening. Climate change is a fact. The spike inatmospheric CO2 is a fact. The dramatic high-latitude warming is a fact.That the trends arent uniform and linear, and that there are anomalies here and there, doesnot change the long-term pattern. The warming trend has flattened out inthe last decade but probably only because of air pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants orsomesuch forcing we havent fully discovered (smog is hardly the long-term solution we should be seeking). The

broader patterns are clear. Models show the greatest warming spike downthe road still, decades hence. Thus in a sense, saying that this is what global warming is like wheneverwe have a heat wave actually understates the problem. Having spent much of my life in Florida, I can tell you,what kills you in summer is not the temperature but the duration of the season, which lasts basically forever

into November or even December in South Florida. So, yeah, 100 degrees in July gets myattention here in DC, but so will a stretch of 85-degree high temperaturesin October.

Warming is real- Long-term trends proveNordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at YaleUniversity, research for National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy,and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, Why the Global Warming Skeptics AreWrong, New York Review of Books,

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)The first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, Perhaps the mostinconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. It is easy to get lost inthe tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping back and looking at therecord of actual temperature measurements. The figure below shows data from 1880 to2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three different sources.2 We do not need anycomplicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising, andfurthermore that they are higher in the last decade than they were inearlier decades.3 One of the reasons that drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that thehistorical temperature series is highly volatile, as can be seen in the figure. The presenceofshort-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends. A useful analogy is the

stock market. Suppose an analyst says that because real stock prices have declined over the last decade (which istrue), it follows that there is no upward trend. Here again, an examination of the long-term data would quickly

show this to be incorrect. The last decade of temperature and stock market data isnot representative of the longer-term trends. The finding that globaltemperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robustfindings of climate science and statistics.


13/112

Anthropogenic warming is happening in line with projectionsNordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at YaleUniversity, research for National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy,and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, Why the Global Warming Skeptics AreWrong, New York Review of Books,

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by themodels: The lack of warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began

issuing projectionssuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated howmuch warming additional CO2 can cause. What is the evidence on the performance of climate models? Do they

predict the historical trend accurately? Statisticians routinely address this kind of question. The standardapproach is to perform an experiment in which (case 1) modelers put thechanges in CO2 concentrations and other climate influences in a climate model andestimate the resulting temperature path, and then (case 2) modelers calculatewhat would happen in the counterfactual situation where the only changeswere due to natural sources, for example, the sun and volcanoes, with no human-

induced changes. They then compare the actual temperature increases of the model predictions for all sources(case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case 2). This experiment has beenperformed many times using climate models. A good example is the analysis described in the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (for the actual figure, see the

accompanying online material4). Several modelers ran both cases 1 and 2 described aboveoneincluding human-induced changes and one with only natural sources. This experiment showed that theprojections of climate models are consistent with recorded temperaturetrends over recent decades only if human impacts are included. The divergenttrend is especially pronounced after 1980. By 2005, calculations using natural sources alone underpredict theactual temperature increases by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade, while the calculations including human sources

track the actual temperature trend very closely. In reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded:No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone hasreproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the

twentieth century.5

Warming is a fact- New research solves skeptics concernsBorenstein 2011 (Seth Borenstein, October 31, 2011, Skeptic finds he nowagrees global warming is real, Yahoo, http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surfacetemperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relationsefforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism. Muller'sstudy found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station qualitydidn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases

rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also foundthat while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, ruralareas, which are more abundant, are warming, too. Among many climate scientists,the reaction was somewhat of a yawn. "After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and acceptedin the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed aNational Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact.But some folks will never change."


14/112

Warming Real- Consensus

Warming is real and anthropogenic- Prefer scientific consensusto their hack deniers

Lewandowsky and Ashley 2011 (Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor ofCognitive Studies at the University of Western Australia, and Michael Ashley,Professor of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, June 24, 2011, Thefalse, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climatechange, http://goo.gl/u3nOC)But despite these complexities, some aspects of climate science are thoroughlysettled. We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans. Weknow that this CO, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an importantinfluence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and predict what is going tohappen to the earths climate during our lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain asgravity. The consensus opinion ofthe worlds climate scientists is that climatechange is occurring due to human CO emissions. The changes are rapid and

significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of thesestatements being wrong is vanishingly small. Scepticism and denialism Some people will be understandablysceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered byclimate 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 challengethe science on internet blogs and opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many timesthey are shown to be wrong, they will never change their opinions. Thesepeople 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. Denierarguments have been dealt with by scientists, again and again and again. Butlike zombies, the deniers keep coming back with the same long-falsified and nonsensical arguments. The deniershave 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 withstoodthe test of time.The phony debate on climate change So if the evidence is this strong, why is there resistance toaction 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 avoidingpeer review, have engineered a phony public debate about the science,when in fact that debate is absent from the one arena where our scientificknowledge 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. Thesecond reason, alas, involves systemic failures by the media. Systemic media failures arise from severalpresumptions 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 presumptionof many in the media and the public is that climate science is a brittle house of cardsthat can be brought down by a single new finding or the discovery of asingle error. Nothing could be further from the truth. Climate science is a cumulativeenterprise built upon hundreds of years of research. The heat-trapping properties ofCO were discovered in the middle of the 19th century, pre-dating even Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria.

Warming is real and anthropogenic- Overwhelming consensusconcludes aff

Rahmstorf 2008 (Richard Rahmstorf, physics professor at Potsdam University, Anthropogenic ClimateChange? Page 42-49)


15/112

It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts. The

first is as follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a generally undisputedpoint (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The two leading compilations of datameasured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although they differ in the details, due to theinclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures, they bothshow a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8C since the late nineteenth century.

Temperatures over the past ten years clearly were the warmest sincemeasured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks out well above the longtermtrend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest onrecord). These events are examples of the largest natural climate variations on multiyear time scales and, byreleasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is remarkablethat the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre curiosity,perhaps worth mentioning, is that several prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 toclaim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed, the absence of any recordbreakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In additionto the surface measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is alsodocumented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend fromsatellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), includingthe stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span ofindividual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day, and drifts in instrumentcalibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show trends that are fully consistent with surfacemeasurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements existed, could we be sure that

the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson putsit) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal morainesheaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the pastcentury. There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a strong increase in precipitation or localcooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and NewZealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to

reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Coresdrilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that isunprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past 10,000 years. Anotherpowerful sign of warming,visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic seaice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century, much discussion particularly in the popularmedia has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer-term context. While this is aninteresting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusualrecent warming is-say, compared to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about its cause. Even ahighly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar activity). Andeven a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. Icome to the question of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence for past natural climate variations.Records from the time before systematic temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data,"coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to localtemperatures in some way, but they may be influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation),they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality long records aredifficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantialuncertainty in the evolution of past global or hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regionaltemperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger thanglobal ones and can have many regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The firstquantitative reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an errorestimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one ofthe major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that, despite thelarge error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during thepast millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some

extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped curve became asymbol for the IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question thecredibility of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even ifthe scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question the very cautious conclusion drawn bythe IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the NorthernHemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest ofany century during the past 1,000 years." This conclusion has since been supported further by every single one ofclose to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6). Second, by far the most seriousscientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The prominentpaper of von Storch and others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, andHughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of thereconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one


16/112

used by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third, whether theirreconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past natural climatevariability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser concern about theconsequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity.While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates discussedherein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann, Hughes, and Bradley orany other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protocol" had been calledinto question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruction

in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at least, helped to attract moreresearchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has advanced significantly, and anumber of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the science has moved forward, thefirst seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main featuresreproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new proxy data,rather than further refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing

these data sets will require time and substantial effort. It is time to address the final statement: most of theobserved warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A large number ofstudies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the "attributionproblem." I do not discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an interestingquestion). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent. The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course,that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiationbalance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the rise ingreenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climatesensitivity (3"C). With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is O.8c. The point

here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount ofaerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubtthat the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing andclimate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than hasbeen observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The second important

piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In thescientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposedto explain the observed global warming. Other possible causes, such as solar activity,volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, butthey do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since1978, solar irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solarcycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers,solar cycle length, the geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solaractivity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous

centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years.Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors mentioned. Models driven bynatural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentiethcentury (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of naturalforcings is downward. The only way out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warmingtrend that arises by chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be

completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observedrecord, proxy data, or current models suggest that such internal variability couldcause a sustained trend of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed,twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or even 2,000years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internalfluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thusappear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it would be difficult for alarge and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Naturalinternal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino

event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies thatthe ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as discussed, we observed theatmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as acause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is increasing, and there is no plausiblesource of this heat other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach toattribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, whichassociate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases. For example, acharacteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that, unlike solarvariability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such studies have used different datasets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical methods. Theyconsistently conclude that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49


17/112

Overall, it has to be considered, highly likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to thehuman-caused increase in greenhouse gases. ' This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increasein atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase isproven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect on climate of 3C 1.59Cglobal-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowedsomewhat to 3C 1.0C) This is based on consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even inthe absence-of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate

history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has tobe considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a furtherincrease in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on humanbehavior, but the climatic response to various emissions scenarios can be computed from the informationpresented here. The result is the famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Twoadditional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2(for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions.

Other gases are not discussed here, although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 isthe largest and most important forcing.Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shownbasically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This couldturn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with thebiosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in themore optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3C above itspreindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordinarilyhigh temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as the data show,

we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, forcomparable temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the abilityof ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. Thelast major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 yearsago: this was a warming of about 5C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 C per century. 52 The expectedmagnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea levelrise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets),extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss.The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is

known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured and-well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidenceconsistently show that most of the observed warming of the past fiftyyears was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would beexpected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative explanation for this warming

has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the very strong evidenceaccumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the pastdecades convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many ofwhom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is areality with which we need to deal.


18/112

CO2 Causes Warming- New Research

CO2 is causing warming- Groundbreaking new researchLevy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012,

Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Ages End, Pioneering SimulationShows, http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-ages-end-pioneering-simulation-shows/)Climate science has an equivalent to the what came firstthe chicken or the egg? question: What camefirst, greenhouse gases or global warming? A multi-institutional team ledby researchers at Harvard, Oregon State University, and the University ofWisconsin used a global dataset of paleoclimate records and the Jaguar supercomputerat Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to find the answer (spoiler alert: carbon dioxide driveswarming). The results, published in the April 5 issue of Nature, analyze 15,000 years ofclimate history. Scientists hope amassing knowledge of the causes of natural global climate change willaid understanding of human-caused climate change. We constructed the first-ever recordof global temperature spanning the end of the last ice age based on 80

proxy temperature records from around the world, said Jeremy Shakun, a NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate and Global Change postdoctoral fellow at Harvard andColumbia Universities and first author of the paper. Its no small task to get at global mean temperature. Even forstudies of the present day you need lots of locations, quality-controlled data, careful statistics. For the past 21,000years, its even harder. But because the data set is large enough, these proxy data provide a reasonable estimateof global mean temperature. Proxy records from around the worldderived from ice cores and ocean and lakesedimentsprovide estimates of local surface temperature throughout history, and carbon-14 dating indicateswhen those temperatures occurred. For example, water molecules harboring the oxygen-18 isotope rain out fasterthan those containing oxygen-16 as an air mass cools, so the ratio of these isotopes in glacial ice layers tellsscientists how cold it was when the snow fell. Likewise, the amount of magnesium incorporated into the shells ofmarine plankton depends on the temperature of the water they live in, and these shells get preserved on theseafloor when they die. The authors combined these local temperature records to produce a reconstruction ofglobal mean temperature. Additionally, samples of ancient atmosphere are trapped as air bubbles in glaciers,providing a direct measure of carbon dioxide levels through time that could be compared to the global

temperature record. Being the first to reconstruct global mean temperaturesthroughout this time interval allowed the researchers to show what many

suspected but none could yet prove: This is the first paper to definitivelyshow the role carbon dioxide played in helping to end the last ice age,said Shakun, who co-wrote the paper with Peter Clark of Oregon State University. We found thatglobal temperature mirrored and generally lagged behind rising carbondioxide during the last deglaciation, which points to carbon dioxide as themajor driver of global warming. Prior results based on Antarctic ice cores had indicated thatlocal temperatures in Antarctica started warming before carbon dioxide began rising, which implied that carbon

dioxide was a feedback to some other leading driver of warming. The delay of globaltemperature behind carbon dioxide found in this study, however, showsthat the ice-core perspective does not apply to the globe as a whole andinstead suggests that carbon dioxide was the primary driver of worldwidewarming.

Extremely sophisticated computer models proveLevy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012,Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Ages End, Pioneering SimulationShows, http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-ages-end-pioneering-simulation-shows/)


19/112

While the geologic record showed a remarkable correlation betweencarbon dioxide and global temperature, the researchers also turned tostate-of-the-art model simulations to further pin down the direction of causation suggested bythe temperature lag.Jaguar recently ran approximately 14 million processor hours tosimulate the most recent 21,000 years of Earths climate. Feng He of the Universityof Wisconsin, Madison, a postdoctoral researcher, plugged the main forcings driving global climate over this time

interval into an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)class model called the Community ClimateSystem Model version 3, a global climate model that couples interactions between atmosphere, oceans, lands, andsea ice. The climate science community developed the model with support from the National Science Foundation(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration and used many codes

developed by university researchers. Our model results are the first IPCC-classCoupled General Circulation Model (CGCM) simulation of such a long duration(15,000 years), said He, who conducted the modeling with Zhengyu Liu of the University of WisconsinMadisonand Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This is of particular significance

to the climate community because it shows, for the first time, that at least one of theCGCMs used to predict future climate is capable of reproducing both thetiming and amplitude of climate evolution seen in the past under realisticclimate forcing. The group ran simulations that used 4.7 millionprocessor hours in 2009, 6.6. million in 2010, and 2.5 million in 2011. TheInnovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program, jointly managed by leadership

computing facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, awarded the allocations. Shaun Marcott andAlan Mix of Oregon State University analyzed data, and Andreas Schmittner, also of Oregon State, interpreted linksbetween ocean currents and carbon dioxide. Edouard Bard of Centre Europen de Recherche et dEnseignementdes Gosciences de lEnvironnement provided data and expertise about radiocarbon calibration. NSF supportedthis research through its Paleoclimate Program for the Paleovar Project and NCAR. The researchers used resourcesof the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, located in the National Center for Computational Sciences atORNL, which is supported by DOEs Office of Science. The paleoclimate community generated the proxy data setsand provided unpublished results of the DATED Project on retreat history of the Eurasian ice sheets. The NOAANGDC and PANGAEA databases were also essential to this work.

New models prove CO2 causes warmingLevy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012,Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Ages End, Pioneering Simulation

Shows, http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-ages-end-pioneering-simulation-shows/)As the dominant theory goes, the variation of Earths orbit around the sunis responsible for the growth and deterioration of glaciers because it changesinsolation, or solar radiation reaching and warming an area. About 21,000 years ago the orbit of the Earth wasslightly predisposed to warmer summers in the Northern Hemisphere, and the planet experienced a general

warming. Next comes a plot twist. Geologic data show that about 19,000 years ago,Northern Hemisphere glaciers began to melt, and sea levels rose. Meltingglaciers dumped so much freshwater into the ocean that it slowed asystem of currents that transports heat throughout the world. Called theAtlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), this ocean conveyor belt is particularly important in the Atlanticwhere it flows northward across the equator, stealing Southern Hemisphere heat and exporting it to the NorthernHemisphere. The AMOC then sinks in the North Atlantic and returns southward in the deep ocean. A large pulse ofglacial meltwater, however, can place a freshwater lid over the North Atlantic and halt this sinking, backing up the

entire conveyor belt. The simulation showed weakening of the AMOC due to theincrease in glacial melt beginning about 19,000 years ago, which decreased oceanheat transport, keeping heat in the Southern Hemisphere and cooling the Northern Hemisphere. Other studiessuggest this southern warming caused sea ice to retreat and shifted winds around the Southern Ocean, uncorkingcarbon dioxide that had previously been stored in the deep ocean and venting it to the atmosphere around 17,500

years ago. This rise in carbon dioxide then initiated worldwide warming. Theseesawing of heat between the hemispheres due to the AMOC shutdown explainswhy Southern Hemisphere warming led the rise in carbon dioxide whileNorthern Hemisphere temperatures lagged behind and reconciles these


20/112

patterns with the key role played by carbon dioxide in driving globalmean warming. Differences in the deglacial temperature evolution of the Northern and SouthernHemispheres can largely be explained by variations in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning

Circulation, said He. Before the teams groundbreaking efforts, researcherscould only simulate single time slices of Earths climate. Just as multiple imagesare stitched together to make an animation, speedy petascale supercomputers, capable of executing a quadrillioncalculations each second, enable stitching together of multiple time slices to produce a continuous simulation. Liu,Otto-Bliesner, and Hes group was the first to continuously capture climate from 21,000 years ago to the presentday so that scientists could compare the relationship of carbon dioxide and global mean temperature over time.The Nature article covers events up to about 6,000 years ago. The group has since extended the simulation

through the present day. Climate model output housed at Oak Ridge is currentlyin the hundreds of terabytes [trillion bytes] and will soon exceed apetabyte, so you need a large facility just to accommodate the large data output, said He. Right now theclimate model output is a top consumer of data storage in Oak Ridge. Also, [continuous simulations] definitelycannot be performed at other sites because the system needs to be quite consistent. This simulation has been runcontinuously for more than 3 years. Each simulation [step] depends on what happened earlier.


21/112

CO2 Causes Warming- A2 Model Indict

Newest research validates our modelsLevy 2012 (Dawn Levy, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012,

Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Ages End, Pioneering SimulationShows, http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-ages-end-pioneering-simulation-shows/)The work builds on a continuous simulation by Liu and colleagues of Earths climate between 21,000 and 14,000years ago, reported in a 2009 Science article detailing the first continuous simulation of climate change during

Earths most recent period of natural global warming. Using ORNLs Cray X1E supercomputernamed Phoenix and the even faster Cray XT system called Jaguar, thescientists used nearly a million processor hours in 2008 to run one-thirdof their simulation, from 21,000 years ago (the most recent glacial maximum) to 14,000 years ago (themost recent major period of natural global warming). The effort validated the ability tosimulate large climate changes in the past and is critical for assessingfuture projections of changes, such as the fate of ocean circulation in theface of continued glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica.


22/112

A2 Heat Islands/Weather Stations Bad

Our models are validBorenstein 2011 (Seth Borenstein, October 31, 2011, Skeptic finds he now

agrees global warming is real, Yahoo, http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying tofind out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, hedetermined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly. Thestudy of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected toglobal warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action

because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.Yet he found that theland is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, whoworks at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. He said hewent even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin andThomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference

Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have beensaying for decades. What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" ispaying attention is who is behind the study. One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from theCharles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers,Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable

greenhouse gas emissions. Muller's research team carefully examined two chiefcriticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; theother is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing thetemperature analysis. "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptictwo years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that thetemperature rise that had previously been reported had been donewithout bias." Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists"should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasingtemperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a placefriendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majorityof climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study lookat ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be. Still, Mullersaid it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. "Greenhouse gases could have adisastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winningIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is. On Monday, Muller was taking his results four separatepapers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M.,expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists. "Of course he'll be welcome," saidPetr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of ourconference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things." ShawnLawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to beharshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn'tabout data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."


23/112

A2 Past Tipping Point

Not inevitable even if temporarily over the tipping point, canbe brought back down.

Dyer 2009(Gwynne Dyer, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former SeniorLecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Climate Wars,)There is no need to despair. The slow-feedback effects take a long time towork their way through the climate system, and if we could manage toget the carbon dioxide concentration back down to a safe level before they haverun their course, they might be stopped in their tracks. As Hansen et al. put it in their paper:A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping level [which puts us oncourse for an ice-free world] is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice-sheet inertiapermit overshoot, provided the [concentration of carbon dioxide] isreturned below the tipping level before initiating irre versible dynamicchange .... However, if overshoot is in place for centuries, the thermal perturbation will so penetrate the oceanthat recovery without dramatic effects, such as ice-sheet disintegration, becomes unlikely. The real, long-

term target is 350 parts per million or lower,if we want the Holocene to last into the

indefinite future, but for the remainder of this book I am going to revert to the 450 parts per million ceiling that has

become common currency among most of those who are involved in climate change issues. If we manageto stop the rise in the carbon dioxide concentration at or not far beyondthat figure, then we must immediately begin the equally urgent andarduous task of getting it back down to a much lower level that is safe forthe long term, but one step at a time will have to suffice. I suspect that few nowalive will see the day when we seriously start work on bringing the concentration back down to 350, so let us focushere on how to stop it rising past 450.
http://wiki/Senior_Lecturerhttp://wiki/Senior_Lecturerhttp://wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhursthttp://wiki/Senior_Lecturerhttp://wiki/Senior_Lecturerhttp://wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst


24/112

Author Indict- Idso

Idso is a hack denier paid off by the Heartland instituteGibson 2012 (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 climateresearchers understand that global warming is happening and is primarilycaused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, most K-12 students don't read the Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences. I certainly didn't--I relied upon my teachers to teach science with unbiasedintegrity. 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 theabsurd idea that more CO2 in our atmosphere, such as from burning coal and other fossil fuels, isunconditionally good for our planet. This fallacy is promoted by other notable non-experts, such as oilbillionaire David Koch andjunk scientist Craig Idso, who produced propagandafilms for the Greening Earth Society (a coal industry front group). Idsopresented "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, withoutgovernment 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 forthe Heartland Institute. Idso's $140,000 contractwith Heartland this year is to coordinate the anti-scientific "Climate ChangeReconsidered" reports, an admittedly "political" project that includes contracts totwo 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 therequest of US Representative Raul Grijalva of New Mexico. While the Heartland Institute is doing its best to makethis 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 whoseemployees are taking money from the Heartland Institute to attack science and disrupt the democratic process onbehalf of tobacco companies, industrial giants and billionaire ideologues like the Koch brothers. Visit PolluterWatchfor ongoing results of Greenpeace's investigation of the Heartland Institute leaked documents.

Leaked documents provePappas 2012 (Stephanie Pappas, February 12, 2012, Documents reveal Koch-funded group's plot to undermine climate science, Christian Science Monitor,http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0215/Documents-reveal-Koch-funded-group-s-plot-to-undermine-climate-science)Heartland focuses on free-market issues across the board, including promoting charter schools, lobbying forbusiness-friendly finance, insurance and real estate rules and promoting prescription drug availability before fullFood and Drug Administration testing. In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the

group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of CarbonDioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also

pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com. Thedocuments also reveal a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing

voices out" of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."On the education front, Wojick would be paid $5,000 per module, or $25,000 per quarter, according to the report'stentative estimates, to produce the Heartland climate curricula. The Institute's anonymous donor has pledged$100,000 to the project, which the Institute hopes to match from other donors. Each module would injectskepticism into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whetherhumans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore varioushypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is apollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is"controversial," arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times thoseof human emissions. Creating controversy In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial,

they are not particularly scientifically controversial. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on


25/112

Climate Change 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, which synthesizes globalscientific findings about climate change, states: "Since the start of theindustrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climatehas been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds thatdue to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions." Likewise, while modelscannot represent the climate system perfectly (thus the uncertainly in how much the Earth will warm for a given

amount of emissions), climate simulations are checked and re-checked againstreal-world observations and are an established tool in understanding theatmosphere. And while carbon dioxide is crucial for plant life, the carbon balance on Earth is a delicatecycle, with oceans and land able to absorb only so much CO2. Humans do emit only a fraction of the 750 gigatonsof CO2 that move through the atmosphere each year, but small changes in the total amount can overwhelm so-called carbon "sinks" such as the ocean, resulting in important, and cumulative, changes in the atmosphere. [10

Ways the Weather Changed History] "These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what manyof us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directlyfunded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing foundations such asKoch Industries to mislead the public about climate change," Pennsylvania StateUniversity climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience.


26/112

Author Indict- Heartland Institute

Heartland is self-interested and anti-scienceAnderson 2010 (Theo Anderson, Ph.D. in American history from Yale University, June 6, 2010, Free-market fundamentalists stoke fears of a 'Warmist' conspiracy, In These Times, Lexis)

In truth, the vast majority of the public is operating on faith when it comes tothe science of climate change. It's also true that both sides have an agenda. For all its talk aboutdoing real science, Heartland is fairly explicit about its agenda, which hasnothing to do with science and everything to do with advocating for "free-market solutions" to every conceivable problem. According to Heartland, climate"alarmism" is just the entering wedge for socialism. On one side there is Heartland's promise that future warmingwill be modest and warmer will be better. On the other side there is a consensus among scientists that the earth is

warming, that human activity is the primary cause, and that the results could be catastrophic. The surrealthing about being at Heartland's Seventh International Conference onClimate Change was knowing that Heartland has been exposed as anextremist organization, and might be doomed--yet it's winning. In the United States, at least,Heartland's free-market fetish has trumped the science. We've heard the warnings of impending catastrophe and

have decided, basically, to do nothing. We've chosen to believe Heartland's comforting "research and reason"rather than hard truths.


27/112

A2 Skeptics Suppressed

Skeptics arent suppressedNordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale

University, research for National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy,and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, Why the Global Warming Skeptics AreWrong, New York Review of Books,http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)The fourth contention by the sixteen scientists is that skeptical climate scientistsare living under a reign ofterror about their professional and personallivelihoods. They write: Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many youngscientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraidto speak up for fear of not being promotedor worse.This is not the way science is supposed to work, but wehave seen it beforefor example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the SovietUnion. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeoisfiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. While we

must always be attentive to a herd instinct, this lurid tale is misleading in the extreme.Some background on Lysenko will be useful. He was the leader of a group that rejected standard genetics and heldthat the acquired characteristics of an organism could be inherited by that organisms descendants. He exploitedthe Soviet ideology about heredity, the need for agricultural production, and the favor of a powerful dictatorStalinto attract adherents to his theories. Under his influence, genetics was officially condemned as unscientific.Once he gained control of Russian biology, genetics research was prohibited, and thousands of geneticists werefired. Many leading geneticists were exiled to labor camps in Siberia, poisoned, or shot. His influence began towane after Stalins death, but it took many years for Soviet biology to overcome the disastrous consequences of

the Lysenko affair.8 The idea that skeptical climate scientists are being treatedlike Soviet geneticists in the Stalinist period has no basis in fact. There are nopolitical or scientific dictators in the US. No climate scientist has been expelledfrom the US National Academy of Sciences. No skeptics have been arrested orbanished to gulags or the modern equivalents of Siberia. Indeed, the dissenting authors are at theworlds greatest universities, including Princeton, MIT, Rockefeller, the University of Cambridge, and the University

of Paris. I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy. There are

controversies about many details of climate science and economics. While some claimthat skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all. I believe theopposite of what the sixteen claim to be true: dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are

critical to sharpening our analysis. The idea that climate science and economics arebeing suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.


28/112

A2 Climate Scientists Paid Off

Climate scientists arent paid off

Nordhaus 2012 (William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at YaleUniversity, research for National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy,and the Glaser Foundation, March 22, 2012, Why the Global Warming Skeptics AreWrong, New York Review of Books,http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting fromthe clamor about climate change: Why is there so much passion about global warming? There areseveral reasons, but a good place to start is the old question cui bono? Or the modern update, Follow themoney. Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academicresearch and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments toraise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure

for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. This argument is

inaccurate as scientific history and unsupported by any evidence. There is asuggestion that standard theories about global warming have been put together by the scientific equivalent of

Madison Avenue to raise funds from government agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF). The factis that the first precise calculations about the impact of increased CO2concentrations on the earths surface temperature were made by Svante Arrh