Warming Core - Gonzaga 2013.docx - Gonzaga Debate Institute...

This preview shows page 1 out of 244 pages.

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 244 pages?

Unformatted text preview: Gonzaga Debate Institute Warming Core 1 Warming Bad Gonzaga Debate Institute Warming Core 2 ***Science Debate*** Gonzaga Debate Institute Warming Core 3 Warming Real – Generic Warming real - consensus Brooks 12 - Staff writer, KQED news (Jon, staff writer, KQED news, citing Craig Miller, environmental scientist, 5/3/12, "Is Climate Change Real? For the Thousandth Time, Yes," KQED News, ) BROOKS: So what are the organizations that say climate change is real ? MILLER: Virtually ever major, credible scientific organization in the world. It’s not just the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And that's echoed in most countries around the world . All of the most credible, most prestigious scientific organizations accept the fundamental findings of the IPCC. The last comprehensive report from the IPCC, based on research, came out in 2007. And at that time, they said in this report, which is known as AR-4, that there is "very high confidence" that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. Scientists are very careful, unusually careful, about how they put things. But then they say "very likely," or "very high confidence," they’re talking 90%. BROOKS: So it’s not 100%? MILLER: In the realm of science; there’s virtually never 100% certainty about anything. You know, as someone once pointed out, gravity is a theory. BROOKS: Gravity is testable, though... Virtually every major credible scientific organization in the world says climate change is real. MILLER: You're right. You can’t drop a couple of balls off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to prove climate change. That’s why we have to rely on mathematical models to try to figure out where this is all going. And that's difficult. But it’s not impossible, as some people like to paint it. You know, the people doing the models are not inept. Over the past nearly four years, Climate Watch has interviewed a lot of scientists, attended conferences, read academic papers. To me, as what you might call an informed observer, the vast preponderance of scientific evidence supports this notion that the Earth is warming and that human activity is a significant cause. BROOKS: Are there legitimate debunkers of this proposition? MILLER: Certainly there are legitimate scientists on the other side of the question. If you take, for example, a guy by the name of John Christy from the University of Alabama, who is very strongly identified with climate change skeptics. That doesn’t mean that his work is invalidated. He came out recently with a study that basically refuted the idea that there’s been an observable shrinkage in the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada. And we talked to other scientists who do believe in anthropogenic or human-induced global warming and do believe that the Sierra snow pack is going to be shrinking, who thought that this study was sound. But that’s one study in a sea of studies. And you have look at the preponderance of the evidence and not at any one particular study, not any particular year, not even any particular ten years, because even a 10-year trend does not necessarily constitute climate change. BROOKS: What are some of the metrics scientists have looked at to come to the conclusion that human-caused climate change is real? MILLER: They study temperature records. There have been tidal gauges in place for a long time, looking at sea-level rise, and also augmented now by satellite data that measure with greater accuracy the rate of the rise. They’ve looked at things like ice cores from Greenland and elsewhere which gives us sort of a reverse chronological story of what the climate has done. And you can actually pull one of those ice cores and see the amount of C02 that was in the atmosphere at the time. And what they've found is what looks to be a pretty convincing relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the behavior of the Earth’s climate. BROOKS: But there are some who refute that evidence? MILLER: Absolutely. We’ll get people frequently commenting on our blog who will say the sea level is not rising and that there’s been no warming for the past ten years. As I already pointed out, ten years of anything does not constitute a definitive pattern; it’s just too short a time span. It’s this idea of cherry-picking data, which both sides accuse the other of doing. You have to look at the Earth’s climate over time as a really big, complicated jigsaw puzzle. And clearly there are pieces missing. And there are pieces sitting off to the side that aren’t missing, but we don’t quite know how they fit into the puzzle yet. But still, you see enough of the picture to know what’s going on. The science has yielded at least -- as Stanford's Chris Field of the IPCC puts it -- a blurry picture of the future. And the blurry picture is enough to know the general direction we’re heading, even without knowing all of the specifics. BROOKS: Are there former critics who now acknowledge the reality of climate change? MILLER: Richard Muller would be a good example of that. He’s the physicist over at UC Berkeley who was identified with the skeptic camp for a long time. He wasn’t buying a lot of climate change theory. He launched a temperature-data audit because he wasn’t convinced that the temperature data being used by the IPCC and NOAA and others was accurate, that there were fundamental issues – they were getting bad data, garbage in, garbage out. Warming now-Laundry list Venkataramanan and smitha ‘11(Department of Economics, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai, India Indian Journal of Science “Causes and effects of global warming p.226-229 March 2011 KG) Increasing global temperatures are causing a broad range of changes. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion of the ocean, in addition to melting of land ice. Amounts and patterns of precipitation are changing. The total annual power of hurricanes has already increased markedly since 1975 because their average intensity and average duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature). Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and Gonzaga Debate Institute Warming Core tornadoes. Other effects of global warming include higher or lower agricultural yields, further glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions. As a further effect of global warming, diseases like malaria are returning into areas where they have been extinguished earlier. Although global 4 warming is affecting the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue past then because carbon dioxide (chemical symbol CO2) has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years. Warming extremely high and increasing—current action is key to solving Malcolm, University of Toronto, 2k (Jay Malcolm 9/2000 ? 2143/Speed-Kills-Rates-of-Climate-Change-are-Threatening PB) Boston, US: Global warming represents a rapidly worsening threat to the world's wildlife and natural habitat. The increase of global temperatures seen in the late 20th century was unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. Professor Tom Crowley of Texas A&M University predicts that in the 21st century " the warming will reach truly extraordinary levels" surpassing anything in the last 400,000 year s.¶ New research by the conservation organization WWF indicates that the speed with which global warming occurs is critically important for wildlife, and that the accelerating rates of warming we can expect in the coming decades are likely to put large numbers of species at risk. ¶ Species in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, where the warming will be greatest, may have to migrate. Plants may need to move 10 times faster than they did at the end of the last ice-age. Very few plant species can move at rates faster than one kilometer per year, and yet this is what will be required in many parts of the world. ¶ The worst affected countries are likely to be Canada and Russia, where the computer models suggest that, on average, migration rates in excess of one kilometer per year will be required in a third or more of terrestrial habitats. High migration rates will particularly threaten rare, isolated or slow-moving species but will favour weeds and pests that can move, reproduce or adapt fast. The kudzu vine and Japanese honeysuckle are examples of nuisance plants in the US that will likely benefit from global warming. ¶ Conditions today make it far harder for species to move to new habitat than it was thousands of years ago. The last time the climate warmed anywhere near as fast as it is predicted to do this century, was 13,000 years ago when sabre-toothed tigers and wooly mammoths still roamed the earth and humans had just begun to populate the Americas.¶ At that time the whole of human society probably numbered in the tens of millions and all were hunter gatherers. Farming and cities did not yet exist. Now, the human population has swelled to six billion and vast swathes of habitat across the globe have been lost to urban development and agriculture. Any plant or animal that needs to move must contend with roads, cities and farms. ¶ The WWF study shows that human barriers to climate-induced migration will have the worst impact along the northern edges of developed zones in central and northwestern Russia, Finland and central Canada.¶ Large-scale range shifts will have a major effect on biodiversity if species are unable to move to find suitable conditions. For example, Mexico has the highest diversity of reptiles in the world because of its ancient, isolated desert habitats. However, several species, including the threatened desert tortoise may not be able to keep pace with the warming climate. In Africa, the nyala is vulnerable to expected habitat change in Malawi's Lengwe National Park, and scientists have predicted that South Africa's red lark could lose its entire remaining habitat. ¶ Reports of ecosystem changes due to recent global warming are already coming in from many parts of the world. Costa Rica's golden toad may be extinct because of its inability to adapt to climate changes; birds such as the great tit in Scotland and the Mexican jay in Arizona are beginning to breed earlier in the year; butterflies are shifting their ranges northwards throughout Europe; alpine plants are moving to higher altitudes in Austria; and mammals in many parts of the Arctic - including polar bears, walrus and caribou - are beginning to feel the impacts of reduced sea ice and warming tundra habitat.¶ A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has the potential to eventually destroy at least a third of the world's existing terrestrial habitats , with no certainty that they will be replaced by equally diverse or productive ecosystems, or that similar ecosystems will establish elsewhere. Unfortunately, some projections for global greenhouse gas emissions suggest that CO2 will not only double from pre-industrial levels during the 21st Century but may in fact triple if action is not taken to rein in the inefficient use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil for energy production .¶ Amongst the countries likely to lose 45 per cent or more of current habitat are Russia, Canada, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Uruguay, Bhutan and Mongolia. Bhutan and Mongolia in particular are havens for extraordinary wildlife riches to which climate change represents an alarming new threat.¶ Local species loss may be as high as 20 per cent in the most vulnerable arctic and mountain ecosystems. Fragmented habitats in highly sensitive regions including northern Canada, parts of eastern Siberia, Russia's Taimyr Peninsula, northern Alaska, northern Scandinavia, the Tibetan plateau, and southeastern Australia may be most at risk. ¶ Individual mountain species that may be under threat from global warming in isolated mountain habitats include the rare Gelada baboon of Ethiopia, the Andean spectacled bear, central America's resplendent quetzal, the mountain pygmy possum of Australia and the monarch butterfly at its Mexican wintering grounds. Many coastal and island species will be at risk from the combined threat of warming oceans, sealevel rise and range shifts, all of which can add significantly to existing human pressures. ¶ As can be seen from these examples, and the growing body of science, an alarm is sounding. The rate of global warming may be a critical determinant in the future of the global biodiversity and we cannot afford to wait to reduce greenhouse gases. Urgent action is necessary to prevent the rate of change reaching a level that will be catastrophic for nature and which may bring about irreversible losses of our world's natural treasures .¶ Gonzaga Debate Institute Warming Core 5 Warming Real – Anthropogenic Warming is real and anthropogenic C2ES 11 (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions - successor to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and recently named the world’s top environmental think tank, "Science FAQs," ) A more detailed, state-of-the-art attribution of various climate trends is possible using optimal fingerprinting approaches that match individual forcings (for example, greenhouse gases, solar intensity or airborne particles) to observed climate change patterns using global climate models. This technique has detected human-induced trends in a wide variety of climate variables including land surface warming, vertical warming of the oceans, loss of Arctic sea ice cover, and changes in precipitation patterns at different latitudes on the Earth. Observations of global land and ocean surface warming and warming of all continents except Antarctica show that no combination of forcings that excludes manmade greenhouse gases can explain the warming trend of the past half-century (see figure). Top How do we know greenhouse gases are increasing because of human activity? Some greenhouse gases (GHG), such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity. For naturally occurring GHG, several independent lines of evidence make it crystal clear that they are increasing because of human activities: First, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide concentrations were stable for thousands of years. Suddenly, they began to rise like a rocket around 200 years ago, about the time that humans began to engage in very large-scale agriculture and industry (see figure). Second, scientists and economists have developed estimates of all the natural and human GHG sources. When they add them up, only the human contributions are increasing. In fact, the amount of human-made GHG in the budget are more than enough to explain the rise in concentrations, which means that natural processes are absorbing the excess amount, keeping GHG concentrations from rising even more. For CO2, the most important human-produced GHG, scientists can tell from chemical measurements of the atmosphere that the additional CO2 is from: combustion (i.e. burning fossil fuels) because the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing in direct proportion to the rise in CO2; a prehistoric (fossil) source because the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere has been decreasing over the past century; from plants (i.e. ancient trees that became coal and oil) rather than a geological source (i.e. volcanoes). Together, all of these independent lines of evidence leave no doubt that GHG concentrations are increasing because of human activities. Global Warming is real and anthropogenic – multiple warrants. Romm 10 (Jon, Editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the American Progress, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Disputing the “consensus” on global warming,” ,)WZ A good example of how the ‘consensus’ process confuses people — especially the anti-science crowd, which gloms onto any apparent disagreement among scientists as evidence against the ‘consensus’ — can be found in two Dot Earth posts on “Andrew A. Lacis, the NASA climatologist whose 2005 critique of the United Nations climate panel was embraced by bloggers seeking to cast doubt on human-driven climate change” (Part I and Part II). Lacis had commented on the Fourth Assessment, “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.” WattsUpWithThat got all hot cool and bothered, writing, “Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic.” After pointing out the IPCC authors’ response, “Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature,” WattsUp wrote, “Simply Astonishing. This is a consensus?” Then Lacis explained exactly what he meant on DotEarth: Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact…. My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as “very likely” at the 90 percent probability level. And The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster. Doh! He Gonzaga Debate Institute 6 Warming Core thought the IPCC ‘consensus’ was some watered down, least-common denominator piece of wishywashiness that understates our scientific understanding, which it is. And that brings me to my Salon piece, which I excerpt below: The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say “the science is settled.” But that’s where the agreement ends. The science isn’t settled — it’s unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact. But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word “consensus” to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear “consensus of opinion,” which can — and often is — dismissed out of hand. I’ve met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who simply can’t believe that “as old as the planet is” that “puny, gnawing little humans” could possibly change the climate in “70 years.” Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it, and it’s going to get much, much wo...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes