GLOBAL WARMING: A Team Debate.

We've proven that global warming will cause massive amounts of economic harms, and a large increase in the death toll. The magnitude of the impacts are so large, even if we only prove a small probability of human-caused warming, we win that it is a "threat. " The same is true of nuclear war: it is a threat because the magnitude of its impacts is so large, even if the probability of it happening is small. C1Our opponents argue that tropospheric warming is minimal and that no hotspot exists. This is incorrect. Our opponent’s first graph shows no error bars. With no source along with the graph, it is impossible to properly fact check it--we don’t know if the author of the graph is legitimate--however, we provide references with all the graphics we use, most of which coming from peer-reviewed articles. The study which proposes a lot of the anti-tropospheric warming argumentation (Douglass et al) has multiple problems with it. When errors are corrected and error bars added, models correctly replicate tropospheric warming. [RC, . http://www.realclimate.org...] Further, research by climate skeptic John Christy eviscerates the supposed discrepancy between surface temperatures and tropospheric temperatures which the CON team brings up. When measurement error in radiosonde and satellite data are corrected, the discrepancy is erased. Only small discrepancies exist near the tropics in radiosonde data, however most researchers think the difference is due to still unknown “instrument errors” [SkS, . http://www.skepticalscience.com...]. Two hotspot graphs used by CON are based upon radiosonde data. These graphs attempt to show the tropospheric hot spot does not exist. However there is no discrepancy between predictions and observable measurements except in the tropics--these graphs use these locations. However, the stations in the tropics are spread out and too few in number to provide a realistic picture as to what is going on with the climate. Overall, these results should be taken with a grain of salt. When these issues are accounted for, tropospheric hotspots are found to exist [RC, . http://www.realclimate.org...]. [RC] As can be seen, there are very few radiosonde positions in the tropics. Our opponents claim CO2 is logarithmic to temperature. We agree with this and are well versed with this piece of information. Our opponent’s graph demonstrates the effect of CO2 (with no feedbacks) is about 1 degree C of warming per doubling of CO2 (from pre industrial levels). This is accepted by both sides of the aisle. If feedbacks are included, the effect of CO2 doubling is likely 3 degrees C. The logarithmic effect also means that every doubling of CO2 will have about the same forcing (eg, 100 to 200 ppm 3 degrees, 200 to 400 another 3, etc). Again, the logarithmic effect is accepted by everyone in the field of science--the question is again, the effect of feedbacks, something our opponents have not mentioned. CON also argues the IPCC has failed to predict temperatures. However, this is incorrect. Using an average of GISS, NASA, NOAA, NCDC, and the HADCRUT4 surface temperatures, the IPCC has accurately predicted temperatures over the period of 1990 - 2012. The IPCC predicted 0.2 degrees C warming per decade, which is well within the margin of error for actual temperatures (0.15 degrees C per decade, +/- 0.08) [SkS, . http://www.skepticalscience.com...]. [SkS] C2 Our opponents paint a very optimistic picture in relation to sea level rise. An extensive study in 2008, using measurements from satellites, has found that the rate of sea level rise has actually increased from 1870 - 2006. The reason for a small reduction in sea levels--which our opponents cite--are likely from the volcanic eruptions from the 1960s - 90s, which caused cooling. However, when these eruptions ceased, sea levels again rose. In fact, “the rate of rise over the five most recent 20-year periods is 25% greater than the next largest set of values during the 1940s” [Church et al. . http://academics.eckerd.edu...]. Our opponent’s study used more regionalized stations to measure sea level. The graph claiming no increase in heat content is based on the NODC study Levitus et al. HOWEVER, our opponents graph ONLY resembles the graph using depths of up to 700 meters. And even then, there is a significant increase in heat content increase not reported in CON’s graph. Using global ocean heat content, the rate continues to increase and does not “flatten”. Our opponents source (likely from the skeptic blogosphere) misrepresents the actual findings of the study [NOAA, . http://www.nodc.noaa.gov...]. Tuvalu is regional, not global, and therefore is not relevant to this debate. Simply because sea level is falling in one area does not mean the global average will display the same characteristics. C3 (a)Health Benefits Our opponent cites our source but misrepresents its content. The flu worsens with warming temperatures because the warmer it is, the less flu there is on a certain season. However, the following season sees a dramatic outbreak of the flu significantly worse than in previous years due to the fact that 1) fewer people catch the disease and 2) threat perception decreases. And with a perception of threat low, fewer vaccinate, and therefore there is more disease in the long term. To argue deaths from cold snaps override deaths from heatwaves is untrue. The EPA, as previously cited, was using data from a large review of the literature published by cambridge. To counter… you cite an op-ed. Now, that does not mean you are inherently incorrect, but the literature has already refuted that hypothesis. A recent publication has found that “[w]hile global tem­per­a­ture is indeed increasing, so too is the vari­ability in tem­per­a­ture extremes”. They also found, “this means that even as overall tem­per­a­tures rise, we may still con­tinue to expe­ri­ence extreme cold snaps” [SD, . http://www.sciencedaily.com...]. In other words, not only will people die from heat waves, but cold snaps will still exist and will still cause substantial harm, negating the premise of Lomborg’s op-ed. The World Health Organization also disagrees, arguing the effect to human health will be catastrophic. In one large heat wave in Europe, “more than 70,000 excess deaths were recorded” [WHO, . http://www.who.int...]. Our opponents have also ignored our argument on Dengue fever and other tropical illnesses. The dengue fever used to be only a tropical disease, but climate change has caused it to be much more widespread. Further, malaria and other infectious diseases are destined to kill more people as the climate warms [Wiki, . http://en.wikipedia.org...].(b) Economic effects Our opponents claim we never responded to their position on crops. This is incorrect. We did in all of our rounds. We demonstrated a harm to the farming economy, and the fact that more CO2 = faster maturing plants, which = fewer plant yields. The NRC has looked at the literature, and finds that if the world warms 3 degrees C, crop yields will fall dramatically. If it increases, 2 degrees, there will still be a decrease. And if it increases 1 degree (this is with no feedbacks), there will be a decrease in yields except in mid latitude areas. Overall, the effect will be negative [Wiki, . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. [Wiki; NRC] C4 To claim that water vapor is weak is contradictory to previous claims you have made, which argue water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Without feedbacks, the doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by 1 degree celsius. This is not “insignificant”, and is enough to begin the positive feedback loop. Empiricals studies have demonstrated this effect, and climate sensitivity is generally considered about 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 [Held, . http://maths.ucd.ie...]. Further, our opponent’s math is incorrect. It takes about 5 co2 doublings from the pre-industrial period to reach 7000 ppm. This, with sensitivity and the logarithmic effect accounted for, would lead to 15 degrees C of warming, not 54 degrees. This is within the margin of error, meaning the examples presented do not disprove the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Further, the temperature was closer to +15 degrees, not +10 like CON argues. In the Cambrian, there is no real accurate picture of what temperatures were like, due to the fact it was so long ago. Further, these calculations fail to account for the position of the continents or the sun, which also affect climate. Where the landmass was in the cretaceous is “may have had a radiative effect equivalent to +1 CO2 doubling” [Royer, personal correspondence]. This means that to get an accurate picture of the climate, we have to account for other factors. In fact, recent research has demonstrated this, and finds that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is at least 3 degrees C [Royer 2014, . http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu...]. The fact is, a look into history supports AGW theory, it does not weaken it. Again, a graph which does not show much at all. It does not account for other factors which may be stunting warming (e. g. aerosols). The IPCC has looked into the evidence within this time frame, and finds that “it is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplifed climate variations” [IPCC, . https://www.ipcc.ch...].