args

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

I would like tothank Citrakayah for presenting his arguments. Before I begin my rebuttals, I would like to confirm that I deny the existance of short-term (i.e. right now) global warming. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the graphs feature won't work. Please see: http://www.debate.org... and look at the last five pictures (numbers are in order)) I. Public Health My opponent is working on a hypothetical here – that just because global warming is happening means that tropical disease rates will increase. However, as I have shown, over the next few decades, temperatures should decrease, meaning a "decrease" in tropical disease rates. But even if the planet was warming, there shouldn’t be a cause for concern over higher disease rates. Over the last century, tropical disease rates have not correlated with global warming. Take, for example, malaria. Rates of malaria have decreased (or were marginally affected) in almost all locations around the globe, even as temperatures have risen (Graph 1; [1]). The fact is that malaria does not really care about temperature. When the world was cooler during the "Little Ice Age", malaria was far more rampant than it ever has been today. Even though the Earth has warmed in the 20th century, tropical disease rates are at all time lows.[2] Really, these diseases aren’t tropical. Even in the 20th century, Archangel, Russia was having 10,000+ deaths from malaria.[3] The correlation just isn’t there. Science reports that the supposed correlation between tropical disease and global warming is "purely speculative".[4][5] "A warm climate is a necessary condition for the mosquitoes that can carry malaria and dengue fever but is not a sufficient condition for the diseases to become epidemic."[2] What really causes epidemics is improper regulations and poverty. For example, in Peru, when water chlorination was banned, cholera cases skyrocketed. In Sri Lanka, when DDT was banned, malaria cases skyrocketed. Or take Singapore and Malaysia. They are in the same general location, but Singapore had zero malaria deaths and Malaysia had 36853 cases of it.[3] It is clear that tropical disease rates correlate with improper regulations and poverty, not global warming. As for the increased amount of heat waves, more heat is actually beneficial, as I mentioned in the last round. In Germany, heat waves have actually been shown to reduce mortality rates, while cold spells significantly increase them.[6][7] For the UK, "For the UK, the Keatinge studies show heat-related deaths caused by global warming will increase by 2,000. But cold-related deaths will decrease by 20,000."[8] Global warming will save more than it will kill. II. Sea Level Rise Even though some groups like to show scenes of global apocalypse with this, the truth is that the sea level hasn’t risen that much. However, both past and predicted rise have been greatly exaggerated (Graph 2; [10]). The linear trend shows a sea level rise of only 1.31 +/- 0.30 mm/year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate."[9][10] That’s an increase of around 2.8 inches in the last 50 years – not that much of an apocalyptic scenario. Future sea level predictions are even better. As of currently, global ocean heat content has not changed in recent years (Graph 3; [11]). Sea level itself has actually been declining for the last decade (Graph 4; [10]). The ‘INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution’ led by Dr. Morner, prepared as estimate that the global sea level will rise 10 cm plus or minus 10 cm in the next 100 years. Dr. Morner has since revised his estimate to 5 cm per 100 years after considering data of the Sun activity suggesting that the warming trend may have ended and the Earth may be headed into a cooling trend.”[10][12][13] That’s around 2.5 inches in the next 100 years. That’s really not too bad. As for Tuvalu, sea level has actually dropped four inches in the last 20 years and there is no evidence based on the observations that sea level rise there is accelerating.[13][14] In general, there is no cause for concern here. III. Ocean Acidification Fears here are also greatly exaggerated. The mean drop in pH levels as a result of CO2 increases is around 0.3, but the sea can experience changes of almost 1.4 in as little as just a day. "On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units." "At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs." "Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that 'Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.'"[15][16] This is the paper's hypothesis: "This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions"[15][16] In addition, increased CO2 levels can help shell formation: “We also know that adding CO2 in a sense is feeding the calcifying organisms (like it feeds life above the water too). CO2 dissolves as bicarbonate, which marine uses to make skeletons and shells from. So yes, a lower pH dissolves shells, but the extra CO2 increases shell formation."[17][16] In general, increased CO2 concentrations don't affect pH levels any more than pH levels change on a daily basis. They can even help in the production of shells. IV. Cloud Forests First, cloud forests, and specifically, the one my opponent cites, the Monteverde cloud forests, are not being affected by global warming. In the case of the Monteverde cloud forest, it was the clearing of the lowland forests under the cloud forest that changed the pattern of cloud formation, not warming. In fact, the cloud forests in nearby Nicaragua were unaffected because there was no lowland deforestation. Deforestation, not warming, caused changes in the cloud forests.[7][21] Now on to drought affects. Drought frequency, in the face of warming, has not increased over the past 100 years (Graph 5; [10]). The US has not gotten any drier in the last 100 years. Pederson et al. found that droughts during the end of the Little Ice Age were more severe and of longer duration than those of the 20th and 21st centuries. Cooler climates produced more extreme conditions in many parts of the world. Woodhouse et al. published a 1,200 year perspective of Southwestern North America droughts: "The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought... Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison."[18][19][10] Droughts tend to coincide with periods of high solar activity, so since solar activity is decreasing, drought frequency should decrease further. In fact, increased heat means more precipitation, as more moisture evaporates from the oceans and then falls as rain or snow. NASA says global rainfall increased 2 percent in the 20th century compared with the tail-end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. Most of the increased moisture fell in the mid and high latitudes where much of the world’s most productive cropland is located. This should continue as time goes on.[20][13] Conclusion Most of the problems my opponent highlights are greatly exaggerated, and since I have shown that temperatures should increase only slightly in the long-term, they should not be of any concern over the next few centuries. Sources http://tny.cz...