Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the...
Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change
Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change
Topic space view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
-
PRO -
CON First world countries do not have the moral obligation to...
First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
First world countries do not have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
-
PRO I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of...
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change
I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change.
-
CON Taking action against climate change includes economic...
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
Taking action against climate change includes economic regulation.
-
CON Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries:...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."-Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries: sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations "Moral obligation: an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong "Mitigate: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate "Effects: a change that is the result or consequence of an action or other cause "Climate change: is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. Contention 1: The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries. New regulations planned by the EPA could have detrimental effects to our economy " particularly causing a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods. The heart of the EPA"s regulation would be a backdoor national energy tax that will ultimately kill jobs, stop economic growth and raise the cost of energy, food and transportation. They would also double the current regulatory standard on farm dust that would make tilling a field, operating a feedlot or diving farm vehicles impossible - bringing the agriculture sector to a standstill. A representative from the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation said, "Farmers and their way of life and livelihood have never felt more challenged or threatened than they do today by the continuous onslaught of regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency... The cost they represent will impact the economy as a whole, and this committee should not be surprised when our economy contracts and jobs are lost to foreign competition." An MIT study conducted by Stephen M. Meyers clearly shows that increased environmental regulation burdens the economy, especially in times of economic downfall. So why then, would we want any more ridiculous red tape? An increase in environmental regulation would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars, nobody wants to see that. Contention 2: The Earth"s climate is always changing. If you talk to any credible climatologist, they will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background. The climate is always in a state of constant change and development. The Earth goes through natural periods of cooling and warming, that"s scientific fact. Would you blame the warming of the Earth after the last Ice Age on humans or man-made greenhouse gases? As with all the climate change nonsense, not a single claim can be substantiated as actual physical proof. Only assumptions and predictions made with manipulated computer models and deliberately corrupted data exist. Actual meteorological records and geophysical records destroy any credibility of everything ever said by these environmental groups. The real agenda of "global warming" has nothing to do with climate or weather but all to do with politics and the financial gain of those who stand to benefit from green investments. What better an investment could they have than one where the government forces the use of a green scheme idea or product on the public? In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man"made causes. Contention 3: There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities. On what grounds are so-called "developed countries" morally obligated to do anything? The simple fact is that there is no basis for this claim. Individuals, rather than government, determine morals. Government is not, and never has been where you should look for morals; you have that in your own heart and conscience; you teach that to your family. You cannot dictate what morals your neighbor has nor what morals your neighbor teaches his children. Make yourself an example with morals; that is all one can do. And certainly government has no place in that. The whole idea that a country would have a "moral obligation" is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism, that ethics and morals are relative to each Nation or even culture and that there is no standard ethical or moral policy that all nation-states ought to abide by.
-
PRO As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue...
Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change
Hello Woojin05. I accept your challenge and look forward to our debate and the rounds that will follow! Here we go... Global Warming is a reality, a problem and our fault. According to the Inquisitition of Climate Science, since 1800, 330 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide have been pumped into the atmosphere due to factories burning fossil fuels creating a "greenhouse effect," trapping sunlight, raising temperatures. This is also the cause for the largest global temperature increase mankind has ever encountered. According to the National Climatic Data Center, in the last century the average temperature has increased 1.33 degrees, and is projected to increase another 2.5-10.4 degrees by 21-hundred. The Institute for Demographic Research predicts that this temperature increase would raise ocean levels to the point where 634 million people living on the coast would be forced to re-locate. It is for this reason, that I support the resolution that Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue about who is in fact responsible for global warming. According to the World Resources Institue, "industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date". Industrialized countries. Not underdeveloped countries. There is additional evidence to support this. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide tend to stay in the atmosphere for decades. Old injuries dealt to the enviorment from now developed countries" haven"t healed yet. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the countries with the top annual carbon pollution per capita, are all industrialized and developed. Therefore it is developed countries that are responsible for global warming, and from the moral standpoint that this preposition wishes for us to take, it is developed countries who are responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change. It is essential to understand that climate change can be fixed. According to Royters, we have until 2040 to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible. There is a way to save our planet. However this solution is so obvious that it is often overlooked. Cutting pollution emissions by 80%, and replacing them with natural energy would literally halt the growth of climate change, which would end all effects of climate change. Admittedly, this solution comes with a high price tag. It could cost 1.9 trillion dollars annually to cut our carbon emissions by 80%. However this price tag is nothing compared to the cost of letting global warming continue. According to the Natural Resource Defense Council it is estimated that dealing with the effects of global warming would cost 20 trillion dollars a year by the end of the century, costing 10x more money than it would to just stop global warming. Each of the top 30 developed countries, have the budget to pay for approximently 4 % of the emissions decrease. This money could be funded by tax increases, charities, or budget cuts. In contrast there is mathematically no possible way of dealing with the effects of global warming without bankrupting the world"s economy. Now the logical question is: Why can"t developing countries assist in the costs of mitigating climate change? The answer is because they do not have the money. The average annual salary of a person living in a third world country is 730 dollars, or about 2 dollars a day. On top of this between 60-80% of this money is spent on food. There is no conceivable way a government could make money from taxing these people. As proof of this, the U.S."s national budget is around 2.1 trillion dollars per year, whereas Zimbobwae"s national budget is only 2.7 million dollars per year. Their budget is mathematically practically a millionth of the United States"s budget, and Zimbobwae is an average third world country. These countries need every penny they can make, therefore they cannot be obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change. It"s that simple. It is time to accept a reality and a responsibility. Therefore developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
-
CON Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole...
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
My opponent has argued that the moderate to poor correlation of CO2 is enough to be considered major, however this is illogical. First, I never said CO2 had no effect, I argued it was not the main cause. Second, it is unlikely increasing CO2 has a large impact because CO2 increases are logarithmic, in other words the more CO2 there is the less warming effect each unit has. If we double the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (we have gone through 30-50% increase) then warming per I increase would be extremely small. A 20 ppm increase of CO2 would be much less then 0.2 degrees Celsius [1]. Second, the climate is not very sensitive; a better way to put it would be an increase in CO2 would have little effect. The evidence claiming climate to be sensitive are very flawed, they ignore climate feedbacks and other factors relating to sensitivity. If CO2 were to double, only a 1 degree increase would occur, we have not doubled CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era and have warmed less then one degree Celsius. With current emissions it is unlikely we could argue CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when sensitivity is taken into account [2]. Second, my opponents rebuttal to the PDO and AMO argues the correlation is due to the seas space, however he ignores the fact the PDO and AMO go into cooling cycles and the correlation I cited showed when they cooled, the earth cooled, and in a warming phase the land warmed. Dr. Roy Spencer has argued the PDO may cause three quarters of the current warming due to its effects on clouds (therefore our albedo) winds, and obviously tropical winds. And it heats the pacific, obviously warming the earth in that way too. Spencer has argued, "mankind"s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we"ve seen over the last 100 years." And that "Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).[emphasis added]"[3] For my opponents argument to work, he would need to prove the PDO and other currents would only affect the regional areas (as he argued with his map). However, the cloud cover changes caused by the PDO would change the earths albedo and cause warming for the entire northern hemisphere, and as he noted that"s where the warming is primarily occurring. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has argued this warming is unusually fast, which is interesting, as I have argued above that warming has stopped in recent years. With the stop of warming in recent years, it is odd to argue it is rising unusually fast. Models have overestimated the effect of CO2, claiming over the last 15-20 years the warming should have increased"a lot"however the warming has stopped [4]. The earth has actually been significantly warmer throughout its time period, when comparing us to other time periods in geologic history we are in an ice age. According to the 1995 IPCC report, our warming as been extremely insignificant and fairly normal. Climate geologists, generally, oppose climate alarmism. Many of the most well known geologists have argued the current warming is "right on schedule". Nothing about our warming is odd, different, or one of a kind [5]. The sea level raises my opponent points too are exaggerated. There is vast evidence that sea level rise is meager to nonexistent. A 2003 study finds sea level rise has only been about .5 mm a year, half of what my opponent has argued. A 2004 study finds before 1940, sea level rise was about 1mm per year"my opponent"s number"but finds there has been no sea level increase (overall) after that date. Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole 20th century, we get 1.8mm rise per year, but when you break it into chunks (1950-2000) no sea level rose in that time period. And yet another 2004 study finds that the sea level increase is overall uncertain. They note in their study they believe sea level has risen 2 mm per year, however they failed to control for regional variability. They said their study answers many questions and creates many more, and conclude one cannot conclude anything. A 2005 study finds no increase in sea levels since 1950. And the list continues, the evidence that sea level rise is meager is growing [6]. My opponent has admitted no increase of hurricanes was argued. In other words, even if intensity increases but the number falls, we are left with a wash. However, even the intensity argument fails. Pro argues my data is incomplete"focusing on landfall hurricanes"although that"s what really matters (or at least matters more) then sea hurricanes, his argument still falls when I extend the data set. So let me again note: the number of hurricanes overall has fallen, and my opponent overall drops that point. Many studies project a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, however a 2005 study (although concluding higher intensity) says that number is twice as high as it should be. Other studies have found intensity to be the same or actually decrease. The 2005 study agreeing with my opponent, in a way, argues reducing CO2 emissions (which would occur by using green energy as the resolution states) would not change Hurricane intensity. A 2006 study finds there is no correlation between global warming and wind speeds in Hurricanes. A second 2006 study replicates the results, arguing there is no current correlation between Hurricane intensity and warming. Multiple 2007 and 2008 studies replicate these findings, arguing "if there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to a greenhouse gas induced global warming, it is currently obscured" (Chylek, P. and Lesins 2008) and that "no evidence that the distributional mean of individual storm intensity, measured by storm days, track length, or individual storm power dissipation index, has changed (increased or decreased) through time." (Briggs 2008) [7]. The evidence is pretty compelling: no Hurricane intensity changes have occurred. Remember: this is using non-landfall data too (making my opponents objection refuted). And there is some evidence that global warming reduces the total number of hurricanes meaning an overall decrease of extreme weather occurs. My opponent plays semantics. In this debate climate change, as implied in round one, is global warming. The dust bowl, as I argued, was caused by farming and not a warming earth. Therefore, his objection is irrelevant. A drought in the 16th century has been deemed a mega drought by a 2000 study. It was the largest drought in human history, before humans could have caused it. Droughts within the last 1000 years are much more severe then now, and a 1998 study noted there was a decrease of droughts in the 20th century. Warming has no correlation with droughts, however overall sun intensity (which, sometimes, means warming may correlate with droughts) and regional warming from the suns rays caused droughts, not human processes [8]. Hunnington (2006) has pointed out rainfall globally has been increasing. Many studies have concluded rainfall will increase because of global warming; plant growth will increase, decreasing the possibility of a drought [9]. 2. Caused by humans My opponent uses flawed data, my data was 60 million years ago, and my opponent has used data from the creations, 5-6 million years before. As CO2 naturally fluctuates with climate change"climate change often causes more CO2"it would not be unheard of for the ppm levels to be close too, or far from, other dates. My opponent also falsely correlated CO2 with temperature; by arguing it cannot be that close, the Cambrian was warmer. As stated, the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is nonexistent, with CO2 lagging temperature or not correlating at all. The CO2 was 2000-3000 ppm 60 mya, by measuring oxygen isotopes. This data is impeccable, and my opponents Cambrian objection makes little sense, its not odd that CO2 was not much lower at this time period, as CO2 and temperature historically don"t correlate well his Cambrian objection is a weak one [10]. My opponent really doesn"t refute my lagging argument, only posts links. Those links only talk about modern temperature trends, meaning source seven stands. And when looking at data millions of years ago, it won"t matter if the study was published in 1999 or 2012. But if date is what he wants, recent papers back my findings too [11]. 3. Fixing the problem The resolution is in present tense, so saying "it will get better later" is against the wording of the resolution. However, lets refute the "future" argument. It is impossible to replace fossil fuels with green energy, New York would need 60 square miles of wind turbines and the wind to be blowing 100% of the time to power the city. Wind power has always been more expensive then fossil fuels, and new research has still failed to fix that problem. Bio fuels and other sources are quite inefficient and waste other resources in the process. Current renewable are a joke, and billions (if not trillions) of dollars are needed to make them competitive, which is not worth the cost, especially as I argued warming may help humans and more CO2 = more plants. Green energy is not a logical solution [12]. If the Kyto agreement would not stop warming, and is only a first step, converting to green energy would likely have no effect [5]. Further, photovoltaic"s are inefficient, and uncompetitive [6]. 4. Extinctions First, CO2 is not a pollutant, meaning his position is illogical here. Second, mass extinctions are not occurring. A 2009 study notes, ""after five years, a re-visitation of the summit areas revealed a considerable increase of species richness at the upper alpine and subnival zone (10% and 9%, respectively) and relatively modest increases at the lower alpine zone and the treeline ecotone (3% and 1%, respectively)." In addition, with respect to threats of extinction, they reported that "during the last five years, the endemic species of the research area were hardly affected," while "at the highest summit, one endemic species was even among the newcomers."[14] As we can see, animals are not being affected by warming. CONCLUSION: Global warming is (1) exaggerated, (2) not man made, (3) fixing it is impossible, and would not help anyone, and (4) extinctions are a widely popularized myth that has been refuted. http://www.debate.org...
-
PRO Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...
Climate Shift
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org...... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...... 3. http://www.nrdc.org...... 4. http://www.mfpp.org...... 5. http://www.edf.org...... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov......
-
PRO Sorry, Con. ... Thus, CO2 is incapable of affecting the...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
Quote - The issue you're running into here is simple, The Earth's climate is not a heat exchange model between humans and earth. Reply - Your whole case here is that humans have caused the climate to change. Now, You have just excluded humans from the heat exchange equation. Then, You precede to discus CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans. You are a very confused person. You want to exclude humans from the equation and yet, Include them in relation to CO2. Quote - Which has been experimentally confirmed numerous times. Reply - They are proven experiments by scientists who make a living by creating artificial disasters from which they can save us poor fools who know nothing. Sorry, Con. The scientist have many hidden agendas and need the money, Prestige, Career prospects and social standing from making stuff up to scare people into thinking something dreadful is going to happen if we don't stop emitting CO2. CO2 is needed by plants and trees Con. It is just part of the life cycle. 95 % of a plant's mass comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. The more CO2 you can put into the atmosphere, The faster and more vigorous plants will grow. CO2 is is like a fertilizer which makes plants greener and healthier. CO2 is not some noxious gas which we should eliminate. Quote - Ref - The Vostok ice Core and the 14, 000 year CO2 time lag. CO2 levels follow temperature. Temperature doesn't follow CO2. Thus, CO2 levels have nothing to do with climate but are just a result of a changing climate. Reply - You haven't offered any refutation of this data. Still waiting. The properties of CO2. The properties of CO2 don't permit it to change the climate. Once CO2 reaches 80 parts per million it's ability to reflect radiation diminishes dramatically. Thus, CO2 is incapable of affecting the climate.
-
PRO Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...
Climate Shift
I am confused by my opponents argument. He has taken the Con side and must disagree and disprove the resolution, but his argument is only in favor of the pro. I must assume that he is being sarcastic, but I am not sure. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...
