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...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
