Impact Defense warming

Inevitable/Tipping Point

Tipping Point 1nc

Past the tipping point emission cuts insufficient
Ray Grigg July 17 2016 Already too hot,
http://tidechange.ca/2016/07/17/already-too-hot/
climate change has now reached a level of sophistication that cannot be refuted,
and the measurement of global temperature rise is now documented with stunning
accuracy. The cause is known our greenhouse gas emissions; the consequences are sobering global
ecological havoc; the solution is obvious a shift to clean renewable energies. A vivid reminder of the
seriousness of our situation arrived on June 23, 2016 , in an open letter by 20 prominent
Australians. Directed to the attention of their government, the writers describe the Paris Agreements objective of
The science of

trying to hold the global temperature increase below 1.5C, how this temperature briefly spiked to 1.6C early in
2016, how corals are bleaching and dying, ice sheets are melting, methane is leaking from thawing permafrost,
and Earth is already too hot. The letter calls for an immediate ban on all further fossil fuel
development, and a speedy transition to zero emissions. It asks for the declaration of a climate emergency. The

The actual rate of warming has exceeded almost every worst case
scenario in scientific predictions. NASA confirmed that February 2016 was 1.35C above the
letter doesnt exaggerate.

global long-term average, 0.2C above January 2016, the previous warmest month ever measured. A fascinating
spiral graph illustrating temperature increases from 1850 to the present clearly shows a recent acceleration (Island

we may have reached the feared

tipping point in which positive feedback is accelerating the warming beyond our
control. Lets hope this is not so. Regardless, all the evidence suggests we are dangerously close to unleashing
climate conditions which will be extremely disruptive to the way we live on our planet. The rational impulse,
of course, is to stay calm and transition away from fossil fuels. The problem with this
approach may be that we have already exhausted our quota of delays. When we are
on a one-way journey with no return ticket, each decision is final. The climate we are now making
Tides, June 6/16). The inference to be drawn from this graph is that

will last for millennia. Are we making the right decisions? Are we responding too slowly? Those 20 prominent
Australians believe our climate problem has now escalated to the status of emergency. Are they being irrational?
Theyve just come through a Southern Hemisphere summer with its searing heat, droughts and fires. But Australia
is not exceptional. Almost every country is experiencing anomalies of extreme weather: Britain, France, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Brazil, India, Canada . America has suffered successive weather traumas of increasing intensity
and frequency 10 climate disasters of more than $1 billion each in 2015 alone. BCs premier, Christy Clark, now
frequently mentions the serious threats of climate change. Canadas prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is trying to get
provincial leaders to agree to a national strategy for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-

Given the recent rapid rise

in global temperatures, the signatories of the Australian letter dont believe that our present
efforts and investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are sufficient. If, indeed,
our climate is already too hot, perhaps its time for our politicians to consider what comes after
General of the United Nations, continues to plead for aggressive climate action.

emergency.

CO2 levels are beyond the tipping point

Blakemore 2016- Citing Nature Report that measures CO2 at Mauna Loa
Observatory
Erin, "Earths Carbon Dioxide Levels Surpass Long-Feared Milestone," Jun 14,
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-carbon-dioxide-levels-surpass-longfeared-milestone-180959405/?no-ist
In new research published in the journal Nature, researchers used measurements of
carbon dioxide (CO2) from the Mauna Loa Observatory to forecast future levels. They
found that, thanks to the recent El Nio event, the monthly average CO2 concentrations will

remain above 400 ppm all year long, a long-feared milestone of human impact
on the environment. In a way, a CO2 level of 400 ppm or higher is a symbolic threshold; Earth has been
hovering around that level for years. But for scientists, its what The Guardians Michael Slezak calls the
point of no returna tipping point past which plenty of warming will occur, even if
humans figure out how to reduce their carbon dioxide output.

Tipping Point 2nc

Were past the point of no return
Goldenberg 2015 citing 2014 UN Report
Suzanne, "Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US
scientists," Jul 16, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/16/warmingof-oceans-due-to-climate-change-is-unstoppable-say-us-scientists
The warming of the oceans due to climate change is now unstoppable after record
temperatures last year, bringing additional sea-level rise, and raising the risks of severe
storms, US government climate scientists said on Thursday. The annual State of the Climate in 2014
report, based on research from 413 scientists from 58 countries, found record
warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans , especially in the North Pacific, in line
with earlier findings of 2014 as the hottest year on record. Global sea-level also reached a record high, with the
expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over

Scientists said the consequences of those warmer

ocean temperatures would be felt for centuries to come even if there were
immediate efforts to cut the carbon emissions fuelling changes in the oceans.
the past two decades, the report said.

Inevitable
Warming inevitable impossible to sufficiently reduce
emissions
HNGN 16 (Headlines & Global News; Global Warming of More Than 2 Degrees
May Be Inevitable, Even With Changes, Study Says; March 24;
http://www.hngn.com/articles/191930/20160324/global-warming-of-more-than-2degrees-may-be-inevitable-even-with-changes.htm)//AJ
We may not be able to curtail rising temperatures. The goals set a few months ago
in Paris to prevent further temperature rises around the world are almost sure to
fail, according to a new study.
During the "Paris Agreement" at the United Nations Climate Conference last
December, each country agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global
warming to less than two degrees Celsius. However, researchers have now shown
that these goals may be unrealistic.
The researchers modeled the projected growth in global population and per capita
energy consumption. They also modeled the size of known reserves of oil, coal and
natural gas, and greenhouse gas emissions. This allowed them to see just how
difficult it will be for nations to achieve the warming goal set in Paris.
"Just considering wind power, we found that it would take an annual installation of
485,000 5-megawatt wind turbines by 2028," said Glenn Jones, one of the
researchers. "The equivalent of about 13,000 were installed in 2015. That's a 37fold increase in the annual installation rate in only 13 years to achieve just the wind
power goal."
In fact, the researchers found that there would have to be a massive overhaul in
energy infrastructure and energy mix in order to come close to climate goals. This
particular overhaul would require rates of change that have never happened in
human history.
In addition, more people are being born every day. This means that there will have
to be more of an effort in order to change energy usage since there will be more
demand in the future.
"There will be about 11 billion people on Earth by 2100 (compared to 7.2 billion
today)," Jones said. "So the question becomes, how will they be fed and housed and
what will be their energy source? Currently 1.2 billion people in the world do not
have access to electricity, and there are plans to try to get them on the grid. The
numbers you start dealing with become so large that they are difficult to
comprehend. To even come close to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, 50
percent of our energy will need to come from renewable sources by 2028, and today
it is only 9 percent, including hydropower. For a world that wants to fight climate
change, the numbers just don't add up to do it."
The findings show that current goals will need a significant shift to renewable
resources. This particular shift may be difficult to attain in time in order to prevent

further warming. While the findings may be grim, they do show what needs to be
done in order to achieve the goals.
The findings were published in the March 2016 issue of the journal Energy Policy.

Slow

Slowing 1nc
Warming is not fast and is natural new research indicates
natural cycles exist even when anthropogenic forcing rates are
high.
John C. Fyfe et al. March 2016 (Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and
Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, University of Victoria) Making
sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown (Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England,
Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P.
Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka and Neil C. Swart)
www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
results support previous findings of a reduced rate of surface warming over the 2001
2014 period a period in which anthropogenic forcing increased at a relatively
constant rate. Recent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the
surface air temperature record is of high scientific value. Investigations have also identified
non-climatic artefacts in tropospheric temperatures inferred from radiosondes and satellites,
and important errors in ocean heat uptake estimates . Newly identified observational
errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface
warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s1990s. This reduction arises
through the combined effects of internal decadal variability 1118, volcanic19,23 and solar
activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing 32. The warming
slowdown has motivated substantial research into decadal climate variability and
uncertainties in key external forcings. As a result, the scientific community is now better able
to explain temperature variations such as those experienced during the early
twenty-first century33, and perhaps even to make skilful predictions of such fluctuations
in the future. For example, climate model predictions initialized with recent observations indicate a transition
Our

to a positive phase of the IPO with increased rates of global surface temperature warming (ref. 34, and G. A.
Meehl, A. Hu and H.Teng, manuscript in preparation).In

summary, climate models did not (on

reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first
century6, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing . This mismatch
focused attention on a compelling science problem a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our
analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that
the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that
of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and in the global
average)

mean temperature of the lower troposphere. The magnitude and statistical significance of observed trends (and the
magnitude and significance of their differences relative to model expectations) depends on the start and end dates
of the intervals considered23.Research

into the nature and causes of the slowdown has

triggered improved understanding of observational biases , radiative forcing and internal
variability. This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal
variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface
temperature increase for a decade or even more particularly if internal
variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of
volcanic eruptions. The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown. This is
particularly true in the embryonic field of decadal climate prediction, where the challenge is to simulate how the
combined effects of external forcing and internal variability produce the time-evolving regional climate we will
experience over the next ten years35.

Slowing 2nc
Warming is slowing down - natural solar minimum and
maximum cycles
Sam Khoury 3/29/2016 After warmest year on record, brace for years without
summer, The Nation, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/After-warmestyear-on-record-brace-for-years-witho-30282708.html
Manmade global warming seems set to take a back seat as solar minimums return
after two centuries In January of this year, The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) and
Nasa's Goddard Institute declared 2015 "the warmest year on record ". Sceptical scientists
were quick to slam this assessment as being chalked up with "adjusted and
modelled" data. According to Tony Heller, who runs a leading climate change-sceptic blog, 45 per cent of
the data used to construct the "warmest year on record" was in some way
tampered with. He points out that to come to this conclusion the US agencies modelled data for massive
swathes of territory like the entire Russian territory of Siberia, because they do not have access to those areas.

Dr Roy Spencer, who

runs one of two US satellites that measure temperature , both of which show no
warming and even a cooling trend when unadjusted, has charged that the NOAA
Data from those places conveniently uses the highest possible values, he claims.

removes or adjusts the more reliable rural surface data and instead uses unreliable urban data showing warmer
temperatures due to the effect of human activity. Even as Nasa's Goddard Institute proclaims that the Earth is
overheating, its own research on Antartica challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a
net gain of 112 billion tonnes a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82
billion tonnes of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 . Our sun does not maintain a
constant intensity, instead it cycles between solar maximums and solar minimums.
The Middle Ages were dominated by a series of solar minimums - each named after the
researchers that discovered them. From the Wolf minimum, to the Maunder minimum to the Dalton minimum, the
fluctuating solar activity over 400 years brought less solar irradiation to Earth, creating a
cooling effect. In addition to the lesser irradiation, solar minimums also tend to
increase volcanic activity, which in turn cools the Earth even more by blocking
sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface . But that's not all, solar minimums also
allow cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn seed low level
clouds, cooling even more. Known as the Mini Ice-Age this period saw intense
winters in the northern hemispheres and snow in the tropics. The MIA was not consistent, some
periods were devastatingly cold, others not so bad. The year 1816 was one of the most disastrous
during the MIA period. Smack in the middle of the Dalton minimum and it's massive volcanic activity, it became
known as the year without a summer as snow fell in the spring and summer,
wreaking havoc on crop production. As a result, the world's population decreased by 20 per cent
due to famine and disease. There had been similar weather phenomena during the 1600s'
Maunder minimum. In the 1960s and '70s scientists pioneered climate science based on natural cycles. One
ice.

of these scientists was a brilliant woman named Leona Woods Libby. Libby was the youngest and only female
scientist to work on the nuclear reactor during the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. After
World War II she helped pioneer climate science based on natural cycles. Using tree-ring data and ice cores, Dr
Libby and other scientists such as George Kukla determined that the overall climate was determined by recurring
natural cycles dominated by the sun. Using the past cycles they forecasted the future. They predicted in the 1970s
(which had been the fourth decade of a cooling trend going back to the '30s) that there would be global warming for
two decades until 2000, followed by a 50 year cooling trend. Theodor Landscheidt was another scientist of the era
who theorised that in addition to solar activity, the Earth's climate can be dominated by the solar system's giant

planets. Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus in certain configurations during a solar minimum can bend the Earth's magnetic

Since 1988 establishment climate

science has been dominated by the theory of anthropogenic (manmade) global
warming, and climate science based on natural cycles has been shelved . But around
2010 the solar minimums returned after a hiatus that had lasted since the early 1800s. Once again
the volcanoes are bellowing with solar activity decreasing at its fastest rate in
10,000 years. Scientists expect it to bottom out in 2030 for several decades
before recovering to healthy solar maximums after that. Cold weather
anomalies have been intensifying as the sun's activity decreases. Polar vortices
are increasingly drifting down into the US and Europe. The winter of 2014-15 broke
snow and cold records all over the world with snow penetrating into southern latitudes like Texas,
poles to create a perfect storm like the one that occurred in 1816.

central Mexico, Vietnam, Libya and Syria. Cuba and Florida experienced their coldest winters ever during that

Just this month

central Mexico was hit with heavy snow again and there was a foot of snow 300km south of Hanoi.
Also this month New York and Boston had their coldest March in 100 years. Last
month New York's Whiteface Mountains reached an insanely cold minus-78.88C.
Temperatures usually only recorded in the north or south poles. The terms
"Snowmaggeddon" and "Snowpocalypse" are now being used to describe the annual
winters in both Europe and the United States . London has experienced winter conditions not seen
since the MIA, and this year Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan experienced their first snow in recorded history. With
the establishment sticking with anthropogenic global warming, independent
researchers like John Casey, a former US White House and Congress science adviser, are dusting off the
old natural-cycle climate science to predict an era of sustained colds , insisting that
period. In the summer of 2015 it snowed in the summer in Canada, the US and China.

scientists like Dr Libby were right all along. David Dubyne, an independent researcher who follows Casey's work,
notes that around 2020 both the PDO (Pacific Decadel Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadel Oscillation)
Indexes (which fluctuate between "warm" and "cold" modes and have traditionally reversed each other) will be

the perfect storm may occur in a few years and

these current cold spells are building up to that storm .
"cold". Along with the factors mentioned earlier,

Slowing A2 IPCC
Warming is slow newest and most accurate climate science
support. IPCC models are running way too hot
Michaels and Knappenberger 2015 (Patrick J. Michaels - director of the
Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, holds AB and SM degrees in
biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he
received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at
Madison) (Paul C. Chip Knappenberger - assistant director of the Center for the
Study of Science at the Cato Institute, holds an MS and BA degrees in environmental
sciences from the University of Virginia) Climate Models and Climate Reality: A
Closer Look at a Lukewarming World, December 15, CATO WORKING PAPER
Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was
presented by University of Alabamas John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and
Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8 (Figure 1). It isnt the usual
comparison between global average surface temperature and the current family of general circulation climate

The troposphere is
the earths active weather zone, and it extends from the surface to around 40,000 feet. Its deeper
where the atmosphere is warm, as in the tropics, and shallower at higher latitudes . All
significant storms, from massive winter cyclones to gullywashing summer thunderstorms are formed
and contained in the tropospher e. The data in Figure 1 are smoothed out by using five-year running
means, which filters out year-to-year variability and emphasizes more systematic, long-term behavior. Twice a
day, weather balloons are launched simultaneously around the planet in order to
get a snapshot of the physical properties of todays atmosphere . The temperature,
models. Instead, its the forecast and observed temperatures for the middle troposphere.

humidity, barometric pressure and wind data provide the basis for the next iteration of global weather forecasting
models. The instrumentation is largely standardized and calibrated for accuracy. There are four different analyses of
these datasets, and the blue dots in Figure 1 are their running mean average.

The temperature of the

mid-troposphere can also be sensed from above , by orbiting satellites that measure the vibration
of diatomic oxygen, which turns out to be a much more accurate thermometer than, say, a
standard mercury-in-glass instrument. There are several global analyses of these data, one by Christys crew,
another from Remote Sensing Systems, a California consultancy, and a third by the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. The green squares in Figure 1 are the average of these three datasets. Note that the
satellite and balloon-sensed temperatures are independent observational measurements. The red line in Figure 1 is
the five-year running mean of the average of 102 computer model simulations that generate temperatures in this
layer, compiled in the latest (2013) scientific assessment of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
All of the data have been scaled the same in the vertical dimension, with a maximum weighting around 12,000 feet
above the surface. The sensing technique in the satellite picks off a bit of data above the troposphere, in the placid
stratosphere, and the balloon and computer model data were scaled in the same fashion. So this is a true apples-toapples-to-apples test. Whats the advantage of looking at these temperatures versus those at the surface? Rain and
snow are largely dependent upon the temperature difference between the surface and the mid-troposphere. When
theres little difference, air in the lower atmosphere does not rise, meaning that the vertical motion required to form
a cloud is absent. When the difference is large, moistureladen surface air is very buoyant and can result in intense
rain events. Getting the vertical difference systematically wrong in a climate model means getting the rainfall
wrong, which pretty much invalidates regional temperature forecasts. A dry surface (think: desert) warms (and
cools) much more rapidly than a wet one. If the computer models are somehow getting surface temperatures right
that could only be a fortuitous result if the mid-tropospheric temperatures are as far off as Christys data shows.
Indeed, the models have this temperature differential dead wrong. Over the period of study, they say it should be
increasing only very slightly. But, in fact, in the real world it is growing at a rate nine times what is predicted by the
models over this study period. Which brings us to those surface temperatures. Theyre a bit slipperier than the midtropospheric ones. The laboratories responsible for the three principal histories keep changing history, much more
frequently than the satellite or balloon records are reconfigured. At Catos Center for the Study of Science our

the anthropogenic influence on the earths

climatespecifically through emissions of greenhouse gases is near the low end of
investigations have led us to the hypothesis that

the mainstream (e.g., IPCC) assessed range of influence. And further, that models
developed to simulate the behavior of the earths climate have generally
overestimated the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions . Our new book,
Lukewarming: The New Science That Changes Everything details the latest scientific findings supporting a complex,
yet modest human impact on the earths climate. At last Decembers Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical
Union (AGU), we summarized our thinking on the issue in a presentation titled Quantifying the Lack of Consistency
between Climate Model Projections and Observations of the Evolution of the Earths Average Surface Temperature
since the Mid-20th Century. It reflected the state (at that time) of our continual updates to work originally
presented to Congress in 2009, expanded upon at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate
Change in 2011, written up into a paper, presented at the AGUs Science Policy Conference in 2013, and regularly
updated in comments on national and international climate change assessments and proposed federal regulations

climate
models project a greater rise in the global average temperature than has been
experienced, one avoids the pitfalls of other types of comparisons and is immune from claims of cherry-picking,
designed to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The work is a straightforward demonstration that

as it includes all time periods since 1950 ending in the present. Accompanying this demonstration of model

a major part of the reason that climate models run too

hot is that the earths equilibrium climate sensitivity is substantially less than
portrayed by the climate models. We will revisit this at the end of this paper. Everyone by now is
familiar with the pause or slowdown in the rate of global warming that has
taken place over the past 20 years of so, but few realize is that the observed warming
rate has been beneath the model mean expectation for periods extending back to
the mid-20th century60+ years. We demonstrate this fact with our comparison of the observed
infidelity, we present a case that

warming rate to that of the range of climate model-predicted warming rates for all periods from 1951 ending with
the most recent available data. In our AGU presentation, we included the observations of the global average surface
temperature compiled by the UKs Hadley Center. The Hadley Centre compilation has long been preferred by the
IPCC. And while the Hadley Centres surface temperature compilation is not the only one, its recent behavior is
more consistent with the low rates of warming being revealed in the mid-tropospheric compilations, in which a
substantial amount of the overall data is in fact below approximately 12,000 feet. Here, we add the other two major
compilations, from NASA and the Department of Commerces National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Weve also included two less prominent surface temperature compilations from Cowtan and Way (2013) and
Berkeley Earth, inclusions which do little more than demonstrate their overall similarity (Figure 2). We have also

Thanks, in part, to a
strong El Nio, 2015 is going to be the warmest year in any of the surface
temperature compilations. You can see from Figures 1 and 2, however, that this warmth does very little to
updated our AGU presentation with our best guess for 2015 average temperatures.

narrow the disparity between the predicted and observed temperatures. During all periods from 10 years (20062015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of
climate model simulations, and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the
model runs. Over shorter periods, such as the last two decades, a plethora of mechanisms have been put forth to
explain the observed/modeled divergence, but none do so completely and many of the explanations are
inconsistent with each other. One concern that has been recently been raisedsome nine months after our AGU
presentationis by Cowtan et al., 2015 is that the vast majority of extant comparisons (for example, the IPCC
Assessment Reports, or our own work) between climate model projections and observations of the earths surface
temperature are not precisely apples-to-apples for two reasons: 1) observed temperature compilations include
regions of missing data (i.e., incomplete geographic data coverage) while climate models include the entire surface,
and 2) observed compilations combine air temperature measurements over the land with sea surface temperatures
into a global average, while climate model compilations use air temperatures over both land and oceans. The
combination of these factors is shown to lead to a slight warming bias in the models when compared to the
observations. A more appropriate model dataset has been developed and made available for researchers to
compare the models with the UK Hadley Centre data through 2014. Weve used these data to see how this concern
impacts our analysis. The results are shown in Figure 3. While this adjustment brings the observed trends closer to
the multi-model mean, it remains clear that the observed trends lie near, and in some cases continue to fall
beneath, the lower bound containing 95 percent of all model runs (i.e., the 2.5th percentile distribution of model
projections). (Because the 100+ model results are binned very close to a normal frequency distribution), the 2.5th
percentile is analogous to the .05 confidence limits for a two-tailed (above or below the model average)

this is not strong evidence that the climate models predict too much
warming, there is an additional comparison that can be made, one which is largely free from the sampling issues
distribution.) If

raised abovean examination of the climate model behavior in a the mid-troposphere. In addition to analysis

performed by John Christy (the results of which are shown in our Figure 1), we performed a trend analysis similar to
the one described in our AGU presentation on the midtropopsheric data (as described above). We compare the
collection of climate model trends with the collection of trends observed from both satellites and weather balloons.
The climate model and the weather balloon observations have been weighted to simulate the observations from the
satellites so the comparison is directly apples-to-apples-to-apples, as was the case in Figure 1. Figure 4 displays our

This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance. For periods of

time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall
beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases,
falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102
climate model runs. One other very encouraging result, using the satellite and
balloon data, is that the observed trends are very flat, meaning that they are
constant, neither increasing nor decreasing depending upon length of record.
results.

Greenhouse physics actually predicts this, so what we are seeing may very well in fact be the greenhouse-gas-

It is simply that the rate of warming is far

beneath what has been forecast. The amount of that overprediciton comports well with a growing
generated response, not random noise.

body of scientific findings and growing understanding that the sensitivity of the earths surface temperature to
rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levelsas directly determined from observations lies towards (and yet within)

Since 2011, at least 14 studies

published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature provide strong evidence that the
equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)how much the earths average surface
temperature will rise under a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrationlies near the low end of the IPCC estimates (Figure 5). This recent research
the low end of the mainstream (IPCC AR5) assessed likely range.

includes investigations of the earths thermal response to changes in climate forcings that have taken place over
the past century, millennium, and over glacial periods. Several of these research findings were published
subsequent to the 2013 release of the IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), and thus were not included in that
Assessment. Others were considered in the IPCC AR5, and still others were ignored. And while the IPCC AR5 did
reflect some influence on these new low ECS estimatesby expanding its likely range of ECS estimates downward
to include 1.5C (the low end was 2.0C in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and omitting a best estimate
value (which had previously been given as 3.0C in the 2007 report)it still doggedly held on to its high end likely
estimate of 4.5C. This was a disservice to the latest science, but was a necessary step to preserve the IPCCs
reliance on climate projections made by models with an ECS averaging 3.2C and ranging from 2.1C to 4.7Cthe
same models recently evaluated by Christy and in our AGU presentation. Had the IPCC fully embraced an ECS near
2.0Cthat which the recent literature suggestsit would have had to throw out much of the rest of the report. We
explained the IPCCs conundrum in this post on Catos blog. A more detailed and extremely compelling report on
how the IPCC should have handled the new ECS findings was put together by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Any serious examination of the extant ECS literature would be remiss not to carefully consider the content of the
GWPF report (which convincingly argues for an ECS of 1.75C or even a bit lower). One may argue that ECS
estimates based upon one or two centuries of observations may not fully capture very long-term climate responses,
and that therefore such ECS estimates are likely too low. While the magnitude (or even the existence) of the
underestimate is difficult to assess, what is certain is that whatever the influence may be, it is only fully manifest on
timescales far beyond even multiple human generations. In other words, when attempting to assess the coming
climate changes over the next century or so, observationally based ECS estimatesestimates derived directly from
the extant temperature histories both of the surface temperature as well as oceanic heat contentare very
appropriate. This is even more so for estimates of the transient climate sensitivitythe temperature rise at the
time of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, as that is likely to occur sometime in the second half of
this century, before the ECS is realized. Again, the recent estimates from real - world behavior of the atmosphere

That the
actual ECS (at least as assessed over century times scales) is likely much lower than the
average value of the climate models incorporated in the IPCCs AR5 is an efficient
explanation for why climate models tend to overpredict the amount of global
warming which has taken placewhich has huge significance in assessing the utility
of climate model projections for future climate change . Based upon these and other lines of
evidence (laid out in our numerous scientific publications, books, blogs articles, social media (see publications
listed here and here for example)), we conclude that future global warming will occur at a
pace substantially lower than that upon which US federal and international
and ocean are far beneath climate model expectations; see the GWPF report for a recent round-up.

actions to restrict greenhouse gas emissions are founded.

It is high time to rethink those

efforts.

And, the most conclusive Science is on our side

IPCC supported climate models fail to account for or ignore
ECS data ECS data is the most accurate in predicting climate
warming or cooling. Failing to account for it in models is a
disservice to science
Michaels and Knappenberger 2015 (Patrick J. Michaels - director of the
Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, holds AB and SM degrees in
biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he
received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at
Madison) (Paul C. Chip Knappenberger - assistant director of the Center for the
Study of Science at the Cato Institute, holds an MS and BA degrees in environmental
sciences from the University of Virginia) Climate Models and Climate Reality: A
Closer Look at a Lukewarming World, December 15, CATO WORKING PAPER
Since 2011, at least 14 studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
provide strong evidence that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)how
much the earths average surface temperature will rise under a doubling of the
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrationlies near the low end of the IPCC
estimates (Figure 5). This recent research includes investigations of the earths
thermal response to changes in climate forcings that have taken place over the past
century, millennium, and over glacial periods. Several of these research findings were published
subsequent to the 2013 release of the IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), and thus were
not included in that Assessment. Others were considered in the IPCC AR5, and still others
were ignored. And while the IPCC AR5 did reflect some influence on these new low ECS estimatesby
expanding its likely range of ECS estimates downward to include 1.5C (the low end was 2.0C in the 2007 IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report) and omitting a best estimate value (which had previously been given as 3.0C in the

This was a disservice

to the latest science, but was a necessary step to preserve the IPCCs reliance on climate projections
2007 report)it still doggedly held on to its high end likely estimate of 4.5C.

made by models with an ECS averaging 3.2C and ranging from 2.1C to 4.7Cthe same models recently

Had the IPCC fully embraced an ECS near 2.0C

which the recent literature suggestsit would have had to throw out much of
the rest of the report. We explained the IPCCs conundrum in this post on Catos blog. A more detailed and
evaluated by Christy and in our AGU presentation.
that

extremely compelling report on how the IPCC should have handled the new ECS findings was put together by the
Global Warming Policy Foundation. Any serious examination of the extant ECS literature would be remiss not to
carefully consider the content of the GWPF report (which convincingly argues for an ECS of 1.75C or even a bit

One may argue that ECS estimates based upon one or two centuries of observations may not
fully capture very long-term climate responses , and that therefore such ECS estimates are likely
too low. While the magnitude (or even the existence) of the underestimate is difficult to
assess, what is certain is that whatever the influence may be, it is only fully
manifest on timescales far beyond even multiple human generations. In other
words, when attempting to assess the coming climate changes over the next
century or so, observationally based ECS estimatesestimates derived directly from
the extant temperature histories both of the surface temperature as well as oceanic
heat contentare very appropriate. This is even more so for estimates of the
transient climate sensitivitythe temperature rise at the time of a doubling of the
lower).

atmospheric CO2 concentration, as that is likely to occur sometime in the second

half of this century, before the ECS is realized . Again, the recent estimates from real world behavior of the atmosphere and ocean are far beneath climate model
expectations; see the GWPF report for a recent round-up.

Slowing A2 NOAA
No fast warming NOAA models are inaccurate and 2015 El
Nino artificially inflated surface temperatures
Patrick J. Michaels 1/24/2016 (a climatologist, is the director of the Center for
the Study of Science at the Cato Institute) The Climate Snow Job,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-snow-job
An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken
California drying upsurely theres a common thread tying together this extreme weather. There is. But it has
little to do with what recent headlines have been saying about the hottest year ever. It is called business as usual.

Surface temperatures are indeed increasing slightly: Theyve been going up, in fits and
starts, for more than 150 years, or since a miserably cold and pestilential period known as the Little Ice
Age. Before carbon dioxide from economic activity could have warmed us up, temperatures rose three-quarters of
a degree Fahrenheit between 1910 and World War II. They then cooled down a bit, only to warm again from the mid1970s to the late 90s, about the same amount as earlier in the century. Whether temperatures have warmed much

Until last June, most scientists acknowledged that

warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, and since then had plateaued in a
hiatus. There are about 60 different explanations for this in the refereed literature. That changed last
summer, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided to overhaul
its data, throwing out satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures since the late
1970s and instead relying on, among other sources, readings taken from the coolingwater-intake tubes of oceangoing vessels. The scientific literature is replete
with articles about the large measurement errors that accrue in this data
since then depends on what you look at.

owing to the fact that a ships infrastructure conducts heat, absorbs a tremendous amount of the suns energy, and
vessels intake tubes are at different ocean depths. See, for instance, John J. Kennedys A review of uncertainty in
in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature, published Jan. 24, 2014, by the journal Reviews of

NOAAs alteration of its measurement standard and other changes produced a result
that could have been predicted: a marginally significant warming trend in the data over
the past several years, erasing the temperature plateau that vexed climate alarmists have
found difficult to explain. Yet the increase remains far below what had been
expected. It is nonetheless true that 2015 shows the highest average surface temperatur e
in the 160-year global history since reliable records started being available, with or without the hiatus. But that
is also not very surprising. Early in 2015, a massive El Nio broke out. These
quasiperiodic reversals of Pacific trade winds and deep-ocean currents are welldocumented but poorly understood. They suppress the normally massive upwelling
of cold water off South America that spreads across the ocean (and is the reason that Lima
may be the most pleasant equatorial city on the planet). The Pacific reversal releases massive
amounts of heat, and therefore surface temperature spikes . El Nio years in a warm
plateau usually set a global-temperature record. What happened this year also
happened with the last big one, in 1998. Global average surface temperature in
2015 popped up by a bit more than a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit compared with
the previous year. In 1998 the temperature rose by slightly less than a quarterdegree from 1997. When the Pacific circulation returns to its more customary mode,
all that suppressed cold water will surge to the surface with a vengeance, and
global temperatures will drop. Temperatures in 1999 were nearly three-tenths of a degree lower
Geophysics.

than in 1998, and a similar change should occur this time around, though it might not fit so neatly into a calendar
year. Often the compensatory cooling, known as La Nia, is larger than the El Nio warming.

There are two real

concerns about warming, neither of which has anything to do with the El Nio-enhanced recent peak.

How much more is the world likely to warm as civilization continues to exhale
carbon dioxide, and does warming make the weather more extreme, which means more costly? Instead
of relying on debatable surface-temperature information, consider instead readings
in the free atmosphere (technically, the lower troposphere) taken by two independent
sensors: satellite sounders and weather balloons. As has been shown repeatedly by University of
Alabama climate scientist John Christy, since late 1978 (when the satellite record begins), the rate of
warming in the satellite-sensed data is barely a third of what it was supposed to
have been, according to the large family of global climate models now in existence.
Balloon data, averaged over the four extant data sets, shows the same. It is
therefore probably prudent to cut by 50% the modeled temperature forecasts for the
rest of this century. Doing so would mean that the worldwithout any political effort at all
wont warm by the dreaded 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 that the United Nations regards as the
climate apocalypse. The notion that world-wide weather is becoming more extreme is just
that: a notion, or a testable hypothesis. As data from the worlds biggest reinsurer, Munich Re, and
University of Colorado environmental-studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. have shown, weather-related losses havent
increased at all over the past quarter-century. In fact, the trend, while not statistically significant, is downward. Last
year showed the second-smallest weather-related loss of Global World Productivity, or GWP, in the entire record.

Without El Nio, temperatures in 2015 would have been typical of the post-1998
regime. And, even with El Nio, the effect those temperatures had on the global
economy was de minimis.

Slowing A2 fast warming

No runaway warming sun cycles mean second chance and
adaptation
Astronomy Now July 17 2015 Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice
Age by 2030, http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-maybring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
The notion that solar activity affects the climate, appeared long ago. It is known, for
example, that a change in the total quantity of the electromagnetic radiation by
only 1% can result in a noticeable change in the temperature distribution and air
flow all over the Earth. Ultraviolet rays cause photochemical effect, which leads to the formation of ozone
at the altitude of 30-40 km. The flow of ultraviolet rays increases sharply during chromospheric flares in the Sun.
Ozone, which absorbs the Suns rays well enough, is being heated and it affects the air currents in the lower layers
of the atmosphere and, consequently, the weather. Powerful emission of corpuscles, which can reach the Earths
surface, arise periodically during the high solar activity. They can move in complex trajectories, causing aurorae,

By increasing the flow of particles in

the lower atmospheric layers air flows of meridional direction enhance: warm
currents from the south with even greater energy rush in the high latitudes and cold
currents, carrying arctic air, penetrate deeper into the south. In addition, the solar
activity affects the intensity of fluxes of galactic cosmic rays . The minimum activity
streams become more intense, which also affects the chemical processes in the
Earths atmosphere The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were
five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. The
increase in the volcanic activity comes after the Ice Age and it leads to the
greenhouse gas emissions. The magnetic field of the Sun grows, what means that
the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds and leading to
the warming again. Next comes the reverse process, where the magnetic field of
the Sun decreases, the intensity of cosmic ray rises, reducing the clouds and
making the atmosphere cool again. This process comes with some delay . Dr Helen
Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human influence on climate. There is no strong
evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity . The study of
deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice
Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60
thousand years ago. However, even if human activities influence the climate, we
can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more time or
a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when
the Sun will return to normal activity, Dr Helen Popova summarised.
geomagnetic storms and disturbances of radio communication.

Models exaggerateprefer quantitative temperature data

Goklany, 15 (Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the
United States Department of the Interior, Assistant Director of Programs, Science
and Technology Policy, represented the United States at the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, PhD are from Michigan State
University, October 12, 2015, Financial Post, Indur Goklany: The great carbon
boom, http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/indur-goklany-the-greatcarbon-boom

The wide divergence between dystopian warmist claims and empirical reality can be
attributed to the fact that those claims derive largely from unvalidated models.
Empirical data, however, indicate that these models have overestimated the rate of
warming. A recent study compared projections from 117 simulations using
37 models versus empirical surface temperature data. It found that the vast
majority of the simulations/models have overestimated warming, on average by a
factor of two for 19932012 and a factor of four for 19982012.It also estimated
that the observed trend for 19982012 was marginally positive, but not statistically
significant; that is, notwithstanding model results, warming has essentially
halted.

Consensus is a lie
Tol, 14 (Richard S.J. Tol, Department of the Economics, Jubilee Building, University
of Sussex, Energy Policy Volume 73, October 2014, Pages 701705, Quantifying the
consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic
climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim,
frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in
composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement . Reported results are
inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many
irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cooks validation test shows that the
data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be
reproduced or tested.

Cooling

Yes cooling 1nc

Global cooling coming 97% model accuracy
Jon Austin 12/1/2015 GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun
'hibernates', http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLINGDecade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates
GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates' SCIENTISTS claim we
are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per
cent. A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that
the Earth is likely to experience a mini ice age from 2030 to 2040 as a result of
decreased solar activity. Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we
could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles. However, at the National

Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said

11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a

Astronomy Meeting in Wales,

fluctuations an

freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s. From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures
dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder
Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen. The researchers have now
developed a "double dynamo "model that can better predict when the next freeze
will be. Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030. Professor
Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading
to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent . Sunspots are dark concentrations
of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of
radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from the
otherwise devastating effects. She said: "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same
time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. "We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder
minimum. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Suns northern and southern hemispheres. Combining
both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that

our predictions

showed an accuracy of 97 per cent." Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University,
Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic
field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University. A Royal Astronomical
Society spokesman said: "It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Suns activity varies over a cycle
lasting around 10 to 12 years. "But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have

The double dynamo theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue
Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun
fully explained fluctuations."

goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Cooling coming maunder minimum effects by 2030

Andre Mitchell November 6 2015 It's global cooling, not warming: Scientists
see 10-year 'mini Ice Age' as sun hibernates,
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/its.global.cooling.not.warming.scientists.see.1
0.year.mini.ice.age.as.sun.hibernates/69782.htm
Scientists have long warned against the adverse effects of global warming, including such scenarios as famine and

European researchers, however, is

putting forward a completely different but equally alarming model about a potential change in the
Earth's climate: global cooling triggered by the sun's decreased activity . In fact, the
research team, led by Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova, warned of
a possible "mini Ice Age" being experience on Earth from 2030 to 2040 because of the fluctuations
in the 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through . At the National Astronomy Meeting
in Wales, Zharkova explained that this is not the first time the Earth will experience
entire areas being wiped out due to rapid sea level rise. A team of

freezing climate related to the sun's "hibernation." The lead researcher cited for
instance the "Maunder Minimum," a 70-year ice age experienced on Earth from 1645 to 1715 after
decreased solar activity caused global temperatures to drop. During this period, the River Thames in London

To be able to predict when our planet will experience similar

freezing temperatures, Zharkova's team developed the so-called "double dynamo"
model. Using this model, the researchers predict that the sun's activity will dwindle
for a 10-year period starting in 2030. The sun's hibernation, Zharkova explained, will be the result of
became completely frozen.

two magnetic waves cancelling each other out in about 2030. "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other,
peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of
a Maunder minimum," the lead researcher said. Due to this, the number of sun spots, or temporary dark
concentrations of magnetic field flux that causes reduced temperature on the sun's surface, will decrease. The
frequency of solar flares, or bursts of radiation and energy on the sun's surface, meanwhile, will rise to about 60
percent. "Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun's northern and southern hemispheres. Combining
both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle,

we found that our

predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent, " Zharkova said.

Yes cooling 2nc

Cooling coming sun cycles.
Astronomy Now July 17 2015 Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice
Age by 2030, http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-maybring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the Little Ice Age,
which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in
the years 20302040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova
(Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of
scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of
Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei
Zharkov of Hull University. It is known that the Sun has its own magnetic field, the amplitude and spatial
configuration of which vary with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere
results in the changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, of the intensity of plasma flows coming from the
Sun, and the number of sunspots on the Suns surface. The study of changes in the number of sunspots on the
Suns surface has a cyclic structure vary in every 11 years that is also imposed on the Earth environment as the
analysis of carbon-14, beryllium-10 and other isotopes in glaciers and in the trees showed. There are several cycles
with different periods and properties, while the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle are the best known of them. The
11-year cycle appears as a cyclical reduction in stains on the surface of the Sun every 11 years. Its 90-year
variation is associated with periodic reduction in the number of spots in the 11-year cycle in the 50-25%. In 17th
century, though, there was a prolonged reduction in solar activity called the Maunder minimum, which lasted
roughly from 1645 to 1700. During this period, there were only about 50 sunspots instead of the usual 40-50
thousand sunspots. Analysis of solar radiation showed that its maxima and minima almost coincide with the
maxima and minima in the number of spots. In

the current study published in 3 peer-reviewed

papers the researchers analysed a total background magnetic field from full disk magnetograms for three cycles
of solar activity (21-23) by applying the so-called principal component analysis, which allows to reduce the data
dimensionality and noise and to identify waves with the largest contribution to the observational data. This method
can be compared with the decomposition of white light on the rainbow prism detecting the waves of different
frequencies. As a result, the researchers developed a new method of analysis, which helped to uncover that the
magnetic waves in the Sun are generated in pairs, with the main pair covering 40% of variance of the data
(Zharkova et al, 2012, MNRAS). The principal component pair is responsible for the variations of a dipole field of the
Sun, which is changing its polarity from pole to pole during 11-year solar activity. The magnetic waves travel from
the opposite hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere (odd cycles) or to Southern Hemisphere (even cycles), with
the phase shift between the waves increasing with a cycle number. The waves interacts with each other in the
hemisphere where they have maximum (Northern for odd cycles and Southern for even ones). These two
components are assumed to originate in two different layers in the solar interior (inner and outer) with close, but

The scientists managed to

derive the analytical formula, describing the evolution of these two waves and calculated the summary
not equal, frequencies and a variable phase shift (Popova et al, 2013, AnnGeo).

curve which was linked to the variations of sunspot numbers, the original proxy of solar activity, if one used the

By using this formula the scientists

made first the prediction of magnetic activity in the cycle 24, which gave 97% accuracy
in comparison with the principal components derived from the observations. Inspired by this success, the
authors extended the prediction of these two magnetic waves to the next two cycle 25 and
26 and discovered that the waves become fully separated into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26 and thus have
little chance of interacting and producing sunspot numbers. This will lead to a sharp decline in solar
activity in years 20302040 comparable with the conditions existed previously
during the Maunder minimum in the XVII century when there were only about 50-70 sunspots observed
instead of the usual 40-50 thousand expected. The new reduction of the solar activity will lead to
reduction of the solar irradiance by 3W/m2 according to Lean (1997). This resulted in
significant cooling of Earth and very severe winters and cold summers. Several
studies have shown that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest phase of
global cooling, which was called the Little Ice Age . During this period there were very cold
modulus of the summary curve (Shepherd et al, 2014, ApJ).

winters in Europe and North America. In the days of the Maunder minimum the water in the river Thames and the
Danube River froze, the Moscow River was covered by ice every six months, snow lay on some plains year round
and Greenland was covered by glaciers says Dr Helen Popova, who developed a unique physical-mathematical
model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the Sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global
minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation. If the similar reduction will be observed during the

According to Dr
Helen Popova, if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the
climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the
one occurred during the Maunder minimum.
upcoming Maunder minimum this can lead to the similar cooling of the Earth atmosphere.

Emissions check
Warming Key to stop an Ice age
Alex Morales, 1-13-2016, "The Good News on Global Warming: We've Delayed
the Next Ice Age," Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-0113/the-good-news-on-global-warming-we-ve-delayed-the-next-ice-age
emissions is blamed by scientists for intensifying storms, raising sea levels
and prolonging droughts. Now theres growing evidence of a positive effect: we may have delayed the next
ice age by 100,000 years or more. QUICKTAKE Climate Change The conditions necessary for the
onset of a new ice age were narrowly missed at the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution in the 1800s, researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research near Berlin wrote Wednesday in the journal Nature . Since then, rising
emissions of heat-trapping CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas have made the
spread of the worlds ice sheets even less likely , they said. This study further
confirms what weve suspected for some time, that the carbon dioxide humans
have added to the atmosphere will alter the climate of the planet for tens to
hundreds of thousands of years, and has canceled the next ice age, said Andrew Watson,
Global warming caused by fossil fuel

a professor of Earth sciences at the University of Exeter in southwest England who wasnt involved in the research.
"Humans

now effectively control the climate of the planet." The study reveals new
findings on the relationship between insolation, a measure of the Suns energy
reaching the planet, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the spread of
ice sheets that characterize an ice age. The researchers in Germany were able to use computer
models to replicate the last eight glacial cycles and provide predictions on when the next might occur. The scientists
found that even without further output of heat-trapping gases, the next ice age probably wouldnt set in for another
50,000 years. That would make the current so-called inter-glacial period unusually long, according to the lead

our study also shows that relatively moderate additional

anthropogenic CO2-emissions from burning oil, coal and gas are already sufficient
to postpone the next ice age for another 50,000 years, which would mean the
next one probably wont start for 100,000 years, he said. The bottom line is that
we are basically skipping a whole glacial cycle, which is unprecedented .
author, Andrey Ganopolski. However,

Co2 solves ice age prevents extinction

Gerald E. Marsh 2012 (Retired Physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory
and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear
technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration) The
Coming of a New Ice Age, http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm,
2012
the real danger facing humanity is not
global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. What we live in now is known as
CHICAGO Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day,

an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last
only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How much longer do
we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earths surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred?
We simply dont know. Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities,
the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit an increase well within natural
variations over the last few thousand years. While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next
century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.

Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern
civilization. One has only to look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to
understand what a return to ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by

thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder. The last little Ice Age
started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a
rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and
the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere
foreshadowing of the miseries to come. By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out
farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze.
Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the
Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued flowering of modern civilization. There were very few Ice Ages

Starting about a
million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by
relatively short interglacial periods, like the one we are now living in became the
rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earths history, it was far warmer than it is today.
until about 2.75 million years ago when Earths climate entered an unusual period of instability.

Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished.
Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in
Earths long history. Five hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current
levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than twice what

increased carbon dioxide concentrations could

extend the current interglacial period. But we have not reached the level
required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach. So, rather than call for
they are today. It is possible that moderately

arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range

NASA has predicted that

the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should
cause a very significant cooling of Earths climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new
of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely.

Ice Age? We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending
trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.

Warming scales back an ice age

Thompson 2007 September, Citing a researcher @ University of Southampton,
Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age, Online
The effects of burning fossil fuels today will extend long beyond the next couple of
hundred years, possibly delaying the onset of Earth's next ice age, more properly called a glacial period,
says researcher Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. For the past 3
million years, glacial periods have advanced and retreated about every 100,000 years or so as the pattern of Earth's orbit changes with time called a

When less solar energy hits a given area

of the surface, temperatures become cooler. This is what causes the difference in temperatures between summer and
Milankovitch cycle and alters the way the sun strikes the planet's surface.

winter. Long-term changes in Earth's orbit that cause less sunlight to hit the surface can cool down summer temperatures so that less ice melts at the

In the most recent

glacial period, sheets of ice covered all of Canada and most of the northern United
States, as well as all of Scandinavia and most of Britain and Russia. The level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere may also be an important factor in triggering glacial periods . In the past,
lower carbon dioxide levels, caused by natural processes, helped cool the Earth and
again allowed ice to advance. Rising carbon dioxide levels, as is the case with
global warming, can have the opposite effect .
poles. If ice sheets and glaciers don't melt a bit in the summer, the ice accumulates and starts to advance.

Ice Impact
Extinction
David Deming 2009 (geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Oklahoma) The Coming Ice Age, 5/13/09,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html
the Little Ice Age kicked off with the Great Famine of 1315. Crops
failed due to cold temperatures and incessant rain. Desperate and starving, parents
ate their children, and people dug up corpses from graves for food. In jails, inmates
instantly set upon new prisoners and ate them alive. The Great Famine was followed by the Black
Death, the greatest disaster ever to hit the human race . One-third of the human race died;
terror and anarchy prevailed. Human civilization as we know it is only possible in a warm
interglacial climate. Short of a catastrophic asteroid impact, the greatest threat to the
human race is the onset of another ice age. The oscillation between ice ages
and interglacial periods is the dominant feature of Earth's climate for the last million
years. But the computer models that predict significant global warming from carbon
dioxide cannot reproduce these temperature changes . This failure to reproduce the most
In northern Europe,

significant aspect of terrestrial climate reveals an incomplete understanding of the climate system, if not a nearly

Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on

speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge
of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets . In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists,
not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening
the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's
announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle
of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not
hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of
human civilization as we know it. Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In
comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the
complete ignorance.

seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to be
entering a new period of quiescence. August of 2008 was the first month since the year 1913 that no sunspots were

the sun remains quiet. We are in a cooling trend. The areal extent of global
We have heard much of the dangers of global warming
due to carbon dioxide. But the potential danger of any potential anthropogenic
warming is trivial compared to the risk of entering a new ice age. Public policy decisions
observed. As I write,

sea ice is above the twenty-year mean.

should be based on a realistic appraisal that takes both climate scenarios into consideration.

Ice age coming and will wipe out civilization

Alan Carlin 2011 (PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND)
3-2011, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate
Change, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8
during interglacial periods over the last 3 million years
the risks are on the temperature downside, not the upside. As we approach the
point where the Holocene has reached the historical age when a new ice age has
repeatedly started in past glacial cycles, this appears likely to be the only CAGW
effect that mankind should currently reasonably be concerned about. Earth is
On the contrary, the evidence is that

currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the
glacial periods that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years. During these
interglacial periods there is currently no known case where global temperatures suddenly and dramatically warmed
above interglacial temperatures, such as we are now experiencing, to very much warmer temperatures. There have,
of course, been interglacial periods that have experienced slightly higher temperatures, but none that we know of
that after 10,000 years experienced a sudden catastrophic further increase in global temperatures. The point here

there does not appear to be instability towards much warmer temperatures

during interglacial periods. There is rather instability towards much colder
temperatures, particularly during the later stages of interglacial periods . In fact,
Earth has repeatedly entered new ice ages about every 100,000 years during recent
cycles, and interglacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. We are currently
very close to the 10,000 year mark for the current interglacial period. So if history is any
guide, the main worry should be that of entering a new ice age, with its growing ice
sheets, that would probably wipe out civilization in the temperate regions of the Northern
Hemispherenot global warming. The economic damages from a new ice age would indeed
be large, and almost certainly catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very likely to occur sooner or later.
is that

Comparative Ice to heat

Warmer climate best key crops colder kills them
Joseph DAleo 2007 (Meteorologist at Weather Services International) Jul 9,
Global Warming is carbon dioxide getting a bad rap?
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544#]
we have had an optimum climate the last 30 years with
warmer temperatures, more rainfall, and increased CO2 that has enabled us to
grow more food in more places, and consume less energy than had the cold weather of the
60s and 70s persisted. Descending back into a little Ice Age has far greater
negative consequences than a slow and relative minor warming. Crop failures
and famines are more common due to dryness and cold, and the world would
consume more energy for heating. We may look back at the late 20th and early 21st centuries as the
golden years. Future generations will shake their heads over how we failed to recognize
a good thing when we had it and how science was hijacked by politics, environmentalism, and greed.
We would be better off spending all our dollars and efforts on maximizing energy
sources, new and old, than trying to eliminate a gas that does far more good than
harm.
Lost in all of this is the fact that

Humans can adapt to warming levels ice makes that

impossible
George Marsh 2008 [George, physicist, The Coming of a New Ice Age,
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is
not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. What we live in now is
known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial

How
much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earths surface?
Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply dont know. Even if all
the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities,
the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit an
increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. While an
enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it
would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt. Entering a new ice age, however,
would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization.
periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

Comparative Ice to nukes

Ice age outweighs nuclear war.
Robert Felix 2000 (Research and Ice Expert) Not By Fire But By Ice
It was mass extinction, global and sudden . Seventy-five percent of all species on the
planet went extinct, never again to appear in the geologic record. The sheer number of
other deaths, say scientists, make the dinosaurs disappearance look like an afterthought. When 75% of all
living species disappear from the face of the earth, weve got a disaster on our
hands, a disaster greater than any nuclear holocaust weve ever tried to imagine. If
we simultaneously exploded every nuclear weapon in existence in every country on
earth, say scientists, we would not begin to match the devastation. Not even close.
There must be an answer, and wed better find it quick, before it happens again. It
is going to happen again, and soon!

A2 warming causes cooling

Theres only a risk that global warming can prevent an ice age
because elevated CO2 levels remove necessary ice age
conditions.
Andrew Weaver 2004 (Professor of Earth & Ocean Sciences at University of
Victoria) Apr 16, Global Warming and the Next Ice Age, Science p. 400
A popular idea in the media, exemplified by the soon-to-be-released movie The
Day After Tomorrow, is that human-induced global warming will cause another ice
age. But where did this idea come from? Several recent magazine articles (1-3) report that abrupt climate change
was prevalent in the recent geological history of Earth and that there was some early, albeit controversial, evidence
from the last interglacial--thought to be slightly warmer than preindustrial times (4)--that abrupt climate change
was the norm (5). Consequently, the articles postulate a sequence of events that goes something like this: If global
warming were to boost the hydrological cycle, enhanced freshwater discharge into the North Atlantic would shut
down the AMO (Atlantic Meridional Overturning), the North Atlantic component of global ocean overturning
circulation. This would result in downstream cooling over Europe, leading to the slow growth of glaciers and the

This view prevails in the popular press despite a relatively solid

understanding of glacial inception and growth. What glacier formation and growth
require is, of course, a change in seasonal incoming solar radiation (warmer winters
and colder summers) associated with changes in Earth's axial tilt, its longitude of
perihelion, and the precession of its elliptical orbit around the Sun. These small changes must then be
amplified by feedback from reflected light associated with enhanced snow/ice cover, vegetation
onset of the next ice age.

associated with the expansion of tundra, and greenhouse gases associated with the uptake (not release) of carbon

Several modeling studies provide outputs to support this

progression. These studies show that with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, such as
those that exist today, no permanent snow can exist over land in August (as
temperatures are too warm), a necessary prerequisite for the growth of glaciers in
the Northern Hemisphere [e.g., (6)]. These same models show that if the AMO were to be artificially shut
dioxide and methane.

down, there would be regions of substantial cooling in and around the North Atlantic. Berger and Loutre (7)
specifically noted that "most

CO2 scenarios led to an exceptionally long interglacial from

5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now . . . with the next glacial maximum
in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance
into glaciation simulated." They further argued that the next glaciation would be unlikely to occur for
another 50,000 years.

Warming doesnt cause cooling.

S. Rahmstrof 1999 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Research) Long-term Global
Warming Scenarios Computed With An Efficient Coupled Climate Model,
http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/wfsearch/search
warnings have
been raised repeatedly that anthropogenic climate change might trigger another
instability of the circulation and a severe cooling over the North Atlantic and parts of
Europe (Broecker, 1987, 1997; White, 1993). A large number of model simulations (reviewed in Rahmstorf et al.,
Based on the past instability of the Atlantic conveyor belt and on physical considerations ,

1996) have confirmed the sensitivity of the circulation to freshwater input and the fact that a collapse would cause
a strong cooling. The pattern of this cooling, seen in atmospheric models driven by cold North Atlantic conditions
(Schneider et al., 1987) and in coupled models (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1988, and also in the CLIMBER-2 model,
Ganopolski et al., 1998c), is similar to the pattern of anomalous warmth shown in Figure 1. Until now, however,

hypothesis that global warming could lead to a cooling of Europe has not been

the

supported by model simulations. None of the published greenhouse scenarios shows

such a cooling, even though most show a decline and some even a complete
shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf, 1997).

Adaptation

Adaptation 1nc
Adaptation solves the impacts
Indur Goklany 12 (independent scholar and author, is co-editor of the Electronic
Journal of Sustainable Development, former member of the U.S. delegation that
established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report) global
warming Policies MIGHT BE BAD for your health, July 18,
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/goklany-public_health.pdf
even if it were possible to roll climate - i.e. temperature,
back to 1990 levels through drastic emissions
reductions, it would at best reduce mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme events in 2085
by 13% under the warmest (A1FI/4C) scenario, while adding a net 1.2 billion people to
Focused Adaptation Figure 6 shows that

precipitation and other climatic variables -

global PAR of water stress (Figure 7, based on Arnell 2004). Such a rollback would require
emissions to be reduced to significantly below 1990 levels, which

is infeasible

with present technology

without incurring astronomical economic and social costs. Alternatively, one could focus on
reducing vulnerability to hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events. Such focused adaptation
efforts would target 100% of the mortality (compared to a maximum of 13% for
emission reductions) while allowing society to benefit from positive impacts of global
warming on water stress, even as it tries to reduce its negatives. For malaria, focused adaptation
efforts could include methods to improve antenatal care for expectant mothers in vulnerable
areas, developing a malaria vaccine, indoor residual spraying with DDT, insecticide-treated
bed nets, and otherwise improving public health services (Reiter 2008). These measures,
according to the U.N. Millennium Project (2005a), would reduce malaria by 75% at a cost of $3
billion a year. By contrast, the maximum reduction in malaria mortality that could
be obtained in 2085 from emissions reduction is 5% (under the warmest scenario) (see Table
3) were climate to beimplausiblyrolled back to its 1990 level. For hunger, focused
adaptation could include measures to develop crops that would do better in poor
climatic or soil conditions (drought, waterlogging, high salinity, or acidity) that could be
exacerbated by global warming, and under the higher CO2 and temperature
conditions that might prevail in the future. The UNMP (2005b) estimates that a 50% reduction in hunger
could cost an additional $12-15 billion per year (see Table 3), a bargain compared to the cost of rolling back post-

focused adaptation would include improved

e arly w arning s ystems, evacuation and response plans, transportation networks and
machines to move people, food, medicine and other critical humanitarian supplies
before and after events strike, and building technologies. This approachfocused adaptationcan
be extended to all the 37 disease and injury outcomes listed in Table 1. Specifically, this entails
1990 global warming. For extreme weather events,

reducing vulnerability to todays climate-sensitive global health problems that might be exacerbated by global

This has the advantage that it would reduce death and disease from each of
these outcomes, regardless of whether it is caused by global warming or something
else, whereas mitigation would only address that portion caused by global
warming.

warming. In other words, focused adaptation would address the whole iceberg, while
mitigation would only address its tip, and at a much larger costessentially paying more for less.

Adaptation 2nc
Human adaptation solves Our Goklany evidence is
comparative, emission cuts ONLY solve 13 percent by 2085,
while adaptation strategies can target 100 percent of the
mortality resulting from warming associated impacts
And, Humans can adapttheir models are flawed
Indur Goklany 2012, former IPCC review, Is Global Warming the Number One
Threat to Humanity? BRIEFING PAPER n. 7, Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12
12, p. 5-6.
The paper notes that global warming impact studies systematically
overestimate negative impacts and simultaneously underestimate positive
consequences. The net negative impacts, therefore, are likely to be substantially
overestimated because these studies fail to consider adequately societys
capacity to adapt autonomously to either mitigate or take advantage of climate
change impacts. This violates the IPCCs methodological guidelines for impact
assessments, which require consideration of autonomous or automatic adaptations.
These adaptations depend on, among other things, adaptive capacity, which should
advance with time due to the assumption of economic growth embedded in each
IPCC emission scenario (see Figure 1). 16 However, these advances are rarely
accounted for fully in impacts assessments. For example, the FTAs water
resource study totally ignores adaptive capacity while its malaria study assumes no
change in adaptive capacity between the baseline year (1990) and projection year
(2085) (see here17). Consequently, the assessments are internally inconsistent
because future adaptive capacity does not reflect the future economic
development used to derive the emission scenarios that underpin global warming
estimates.

Default to certainty and immediacy

Indur Goklany 12 (independent scholar and author, is co-editor of the Electronic
Journal of Sustainable Development, former member of the U.S. delegation that
established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report) global
warming Policies MIGHT BE BAD for your health, July 18,
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/goklany-public_health.pdf
focused adaptation and economic developmentwith mitigation of global warming indicates that either
adaptive approach will, for a fraction of the cost of any significant emission reductions, deliver greater
benefits for human health and wellbeing. These greater benefits would also be delivered faster because any
benefits from emission reductions would necessarily be delayed by several decades
due to the climate systems inertia. No less important, they would accrue to humanity with
greater certainty because, while the reality of hunger, malaria, and extreme
A comparison of the two adaptive approaches

events is uncontested , the contribution of global warming to these problems is,

at best, uncertain , as discussed previously.

Top-experts agree adaptation focus is superior solves their

impact
Lomborg 11/5/2012 adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School,
founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center (Bjrn, Climate Course
Correction, 2012,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/climate_course_correction?
page=full, CMR)
Obama or Mitt Romney finds himself working from the Oval Office over the next four years, he will face the problem of tackling
global warming without breaking the bank. He will have to realize that ignoring the problem will not make it go away -- but will also have to
accept that the policies of the past 20 years have not worked . Those policies, like the
pledges to reduce carbon emissions at innumerable global conferences -- from Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to Kyoto in 1998 to
Durban in 2011 -- have failed to tackle global warming. The total efforts of the last 20 years of climate policy has likely
reduced global emissions by less than 1 percent, or about 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Even if this decrease were attained for 100 years, it would reduce the temperature
increase at the end of the century by an immeasurable one-hundredth of a degree
Fahrenheit. The seas would rise about one-twentieth of one inch less. These policies have also failed because they rely on very expensive but unreliable
Whether Barack

green technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. It is estimated that had the Kyoto Protocol been implemented as agreed, it would have cost $180
billion a year. Implementing the European Union's climate policy for 2020 -- which calls for a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels in CO2 emissions and
reaches for 20 percent of total energy from renewables, both of which are hard and hence expensive -- will cost about $250 billion a year. In a weak
economy, such price tags make combating climate change an increasingly difficult political sell -- just look at the collapse of the Spanish solar subsidies,
the substantial cutbacks of subsidies in Germany, and the possible expiration of the U.S. wind tax credit by the end of the year. At the same time,
developing countries like China and India are focused on economic growth, and have made little or no effort to reduce their emissions. Contrary to
conventional wisdom, China is no poster-boy for green energy: It gets about one-tenth of one percent of its energy from wind and less than one-five
hundredth of one percent from solar. Telling the electorate to sacrifice hundreds of billions of dollars every year in order to have a barely measurable
effect on the climate a century from now simply doesn't work. The outcome of the current approach predictably ranges from complete abandonment of
climate policies (as in the United States) to some sort of feel-good policies (as in the EU) that will do nothing useful, even as they incur significant costs.

Copenhagen Consensus is a think tank that

ranks the economically smartest approaches to a variety of issues. In 2009, we asked 27 of the
world's top climate economists to identify the costs and benefits of the top climate
solutions. A group of eminent economists, including three Nobel laureates, ranked
the smartest ways to fix the climate. Their answer was: Don't continue to expand current
policies. Trying to make fossil fuels so costly that no one wants them is bad economics, in addition to being bad politics. They suggested instead
Neither is a long-term policy worthy of American leadership. The

three changes to the way the United States approaches climate change. First, we should aim to make green energy so cheap everyone will want it. This
will require heavy investment in research and development of better, smarter green technologies. Such an investment has much lower costs than current
climate policies (like the EU 2020-policy), but a much greater chance of allowing the entire world to make the switch to green energy in the long run. A
good example is the innovation of fracked gas, which has made the price of natural gas drop dramatically -- allowing a switch in electricity production
away from coal. This in turn has singlehandedly caused the United States to reduce its annual CO2 emissions by about 500Mt, or about twice as much as
the entire global reductions from the last 20 years of international climate negotiations. Moreover, it has not cost the United States anything -- in fact, U.S.
consumers are saving about $100 billion per year in cheaper prices. That's a policy that is easy to sell around the world. Second, we should investigate
(but not deploy) geoengineering as a possible insurance policy to runaway climate change. Cooling the planet with slightly whiter clouds over the Pacific
could completely counteract global warming at the cost of $6 billion, according to research by Eric Bickel and Lee Lane for the Copenhagen Consensus --

we should recognize that there are

huge lags between our actions and their effects on the climate -- no matter what we do, it will
only affect the second half of this century . Thus, if we want to tackle climate impacts
such as Hurricane Sandy, we need to step up adaptation and make our societies more resilient.
This is mostly an inexpensive no-brainer . Of course, technological breakthroughs are not a given. But there are many potential
solutions out there, and we really only need one to work. It makes technical sense, financial sense, and common sense to spend
money on R&D until we find renewable energy technologies that are economically viable.
between 1,000 and 10,000 times cheaper than anything else we are considering today. Third,

Cant solve warming or its effects, but adaptation checks

Goklany 11 (Dr. Indur, independent scholar who has worked with federal and
state governments, think tanks, and the private sector over 35 years, former
representative to the IPCC, former Julian Simon Fellow at the Property and
Environment Research Center, a visiting fellow the American Enterprise Institute,
part of a chapter from Climate Coup: Global Warmings Invasion of Our Government
and Our Lives, page # below, CMR)
It is often argued that unless greenhouse gases are reduced forth with, the resulting
global warming could have severe, if not catastrophic, consequences for developing
countries because they lack the economic and human resources to cope with warming's consequences. But this
argument has two major problems. First, although developing countries' adaptive
capacity is low today, it does not follow that their ability to cope will be low forever.
In fact, under the IPCC's warmest scenario , which would increase globally averaged temperature
by 4 degrees Celsius relative lo 1990, net GDP per capita in developing countries (after
accounting for losses due to climate change per the Stem Revieio's exaggerated estimates) will
be double the United States' 2006 level in 2100, and triple that in 2200. Thus, developing
countries should be able to cope with climate change substantially better in the
future than the United States can today. But these advances in adaptive capacity, which are
virtually ignored by most assessments of the impacts and damages from global
warming, are the inevitable consequence of the assumptions built into the IPCC's
emission scenarios. Hence, the notion that developing countries will be unable to cope
with global warming does not square with the basic assumptions that underpin the
magnitude of emissions, global warming, and its projected impacts under the IPCC
scenarios. Second, global warming would not create new problems ; rather it would
exacerbate some existing problems of poverty (e.g., hunger, malaria, extreme events), while
relieving others (e.g., habitat loss and water shortages in some places). One approach to dealing with the
consequences of global warming is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . That action would,
however, reduce all global warming impacts, whether they are good (e.g., net reduction in the
global population at risk of water shortage or in the habitat used for cultivation) or bad (e.g., arguably increased
levels of malaria or hunger). And even where global warming provides no benefits, reducing emissions
would at best only reduce global warming's contribution to the problem, but
not the whole problem, since non-warming factors are also
contributors .'111 With respect to mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme events, for
example,

global warming only contributes 13 percent of the problem in 2085 (which is

beyond the foreseeable future). Another approach to reducing the global warming impacts would be to reduce the

Focused adaptation would

allow society to capture the benefits of global warming while allowing it to reduce
the totality of climate-sensitive problems that warming might worsen . For mortality from
hunger, malaria, and extreme events, for instance, focused adaptation could through the
foreseeable future address 100 percent of the problem, whereas emission
climate-sensitive problems of poverty through "focused adaptation."10*

reductions would at most deal with only 13 percent . [182-184]

Scenario Defense

Agriculture
Warming wont collapse agriculture
Bjorn Lomborg 2011 (director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and
adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School)
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/ClimateAction/Food_Security_Solutions/EN/index.htm
Several large-scale surveys that have looked at the effect of climate change on agricultural production and the global
food trade system have four crucial findings in common. First, they envision a large increase in ag ricultural output
more than a doubling of cereal production over the coming century. In the
words of one modeling team: Globally, land and crop resources, together with technological progress, appear to be sufficient to

The most pessimistic models, expecting the most pessimistic

climate impacts, expect a total reduction of agricultural production of 1.4% compared to a scenario without
any climate change Second, the impact of global warming on agricultural production will probably be negative,
but in total very modest. The most pessimistic models, expecting the most pessimistic climate impacts, expect a total
reduction of agricultural production of 1.4% compared to a scenario without any climate change. The most optimistic
model forecasts a net increase in agricultural production from global warming of 1.7%. To put these
feed a world population of about 9 billion people in 2080.

numbers in perspective, the average growth rate for agriculture over the past 30 years was about 1.7. Third, while there will be
little change globally, this is not true regionally. In general terms,

global warming has a negative impact on developing

nations agriculture but a positive impact on developed nations agriculture. This cruel reality is because
temperature increases are helpful for farmers in high latitudes (bringing longer growth seasons, multiple crops, and higher yields)

In worst-case scenarios, this will

mean a 7% decrease in yield in the developing world and a 3% increase in the developed
world. This is an issue that we must address, but we should also note the bigger picture: total production even in the
least developed countries is expected to rise by about 270%. Over the coming century,
developing nations will inevitably become more dependent on food imports from developed
countries. This is not primarily a global warming phenomenon: even without global warming,
imports for least developed countries would double over the century because of
demographics. Global warming causes the import increase to go from about 100% to %110140%. We should keep in mind that developing country consumers in 2080 will be considerably
better off than they are today. One modeling team points out that future developing nation consumers are largely
but mean lower productivity for those in tropical countries. [Lomborg_cropfield_2.jpg]

separated from agricultural production processes, dwelling in cities and earning incomes in the non-agricultural sectors. As in

consumption levels depend largely on food prices and incomes rather

than on changes in domestic agricultural production. Fourth, overall, global warming will be
responsible for up to 28 million more malnourished people in the most likely scenario. (Other
todays developed countries,

scenarios show lower impacts, ranging down to global warming causing an overall reduction in the number of malnourished people

The extent of hunger depends less on climate and more on economics It is

important to put this into context. The world now has about 925 million malnourished . Over the
coming century we will add at least 2-3 billion more people, yet it is likely that towards the end of the century, there
will be only about 108 million people starving.
by 28 million).

Biodiversity Collapse
No biodiversity loss
Carter, Idso, Singer 2011(Robert Carter Ph.D Adjunct Research Fellow at
James Cook University, Craig Idso Ph.D Chairman at the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer Ph.D President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project) Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,
The Heartland Institute,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new evidence suggests that climate-driven
extinctions and range retractions are already widespread and the projected impacts on biodiversity are
significant and of key relevance, since global losses in biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence) (IPCC-II,

The IPCC claims that globally about 20% to 30% of species (global uncertainty range from
will be at increasingly
high risk of extinction, possibly by 2100, as global mean temperatures exceed 2 to 3C above pre-industrial
levels (ibid.). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) disagreed. According to
Idso and Singer (2009), These claims and predictions are not based on what is known about the
phenomenon of extinction or on real-world data about how species have endured the
warming of the twentieth century, which the IPCC claims was unprecedented in the past two millennia (p.
579). The basis of the IPCCs forecasts is an assumption that the increase in temperature
predicted to result from the ongoing rise in the atmospheres CO2 concentration will be so
fast and of such great magnitude that many animal species will not be able to migrate
poleward in latitude or upward in elevation rapidly enough to avoid extinction. In this chapter we review new
research that contradicts this assumption as well as extensive observational data that
2007, p. 213).

10% to 40%, but varying among regional biota from as low as 1% to as high as 80%)

contradict the claim of impending species extinctions.

Ocean Collapse
CO2 will not cause Ocean acidification alt cause o/w CO2
impact
Fred Ridley 2012 (BA and PhD from Oxford Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a
Grain of Salt, Jan 7,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.
html
Coral reefs around the world are suffering badly from overfishing and various forms of pollution. Yet many experts
argue that the greatest threat to them is the acidification of the oceans from the dissolving of man-made carbon
dioxide emissions. The effect of acidification, according to J.E.N. Veron, an Australian coral scientist, will be "nothing
less than catastrophic.... What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the
marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way." This is a common view. The
Natural Resources Defense Council has called ocean acidification "the scariest environmental problem you've never
heard of." Sigourney Weaver, who narrated a film about the issue, said that "the scientists are freaked out." The
head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls it global warming's "equally evil twin." But do
the scientific data support such alarm? Last month scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography
and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies
naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year. " On both

a monthly and
annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times
larger than the annual rate of acidification ," say the authors of the study, adding that because good
instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, "this variation has been under-appreciated."
Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH

The noise is greater than the signal. Another recent study, by

scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that " marine and freshwater
assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions, " and that "in many
expected over the next 100 years.

freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century

the ocean-acidification problem

may have been exaggerated. For a start, the ocean is alkaline and in no danger of
becoming acid (despite headlines like that from Reuters in 2009: "Climate Change Turning Seas Acid"). If the
oceans can occur over periods of hours." This adds to other hints that

average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8 from 8.1 by 2100 as predicted, it will still be well above seven, the neutral
point where alkalinity becomes acidity. The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and
other "calcifier" creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated.
Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents

studies
calcifiers still thriveat least as far down as pH 7.8. In

make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic,

have shown that

at least some kinds of

a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were
transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved "able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when
exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years." In any case, freshwater mussels

more marine
creatures thrive than suffer when carbon dioxide lowers the pH level to 7.8. This is
because the carbon dioxide dissolves mainly as bicarbonate, which many calcifiers
use as raw material for carbonate. Human beings have indeed placed marine
ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and
pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within
the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic
headlines.
thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five. Laboratory experiments find that

CO2 is good for marine ecosystems outweighs acidification

Carter et al. 2011lead authors are Robert Carter, Ph.D., Adjunct Research
Fellow at James Cook University AND Craig Idso, Ph.D., Chairman at the Center

for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change AND Fred Singer, Ph.D.,
President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project; contributing authors are
Susan Crockford, Joseph DAleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Madhav Khandekar,
Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, and Mitch Taylor ( 2011, Climate Change Reconsidered:
2011 Interim Report, The Heartland Institute,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf)
Another reason to doubt Pelejero et al.s forecast of falling pH levels is that high rates of
aquatic photosynthesis by marine micro- and macro-algae, which have been shown to be
stimulated and maintained by high levels of atmospheric CO2see, for example, Wu et al.
(2008), Fu et al. (2008), and Egge et al. (2009)can dramatically increase the pH of marine bays,
lagoons, and tidal pools (Gnaiger et al., 1978; Santhanam et al., 1994; Macedo et al., 2001; Hansen, 2002; Middelboe and Hansen, 2007)
and significantly increase the surface-water pH of areas as large as the North Sea (Brussaard et al.,
1996). Thus it is logical to presume anything else that enhances marine photosynthesis, such as nutrient
delivery to the waters of the worlds coastal zones (i.e., eutrophication), may increase pH as well.
Thinking along these lines, Borges and Gypens (2010) employed an idealized biogeochemical model of a river system (Billen et al., 2001) and a complex
biogeochemical model describing carbon and nutrient cycles in the marine domain (Gypens et al., 2004) to investigate the decadal changes of seawater
carbonate chemistry variables related to the increase of atmospheric CO2 and of nutrient delivery in the highly eutrophied Belgian coastal zone over the

The findings of the two researchers indicate, as they describe it, that the increase of
primary production due to eutrophication could counter the effects of ocean acidification on
surface water carbonate chemistry in coastal environments, and changes in river nutrient
delivery due to management regulation policies can lead to stronger changes in carbonate
chemistry than ocean acidification, as well as changes that are faster than those related solely to ocean acidification. And to
make these facts perfectly clear, they add, the response of carbonate chemistry to changes of
nutrient delivery to the coastal zone is stronger than ocean acidification .
period 19511998.

Sea Level Rise

Cant solve sea level rise
Nina Chestney 2012 Rise in sea level can't be stopped: scientists,
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-climate-sealevelidINBRE8600EG20120701
Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if
deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate
(Reuters) -

scientists said in a study on Sunday. A lot of climate research shows that rising greenhouse gas emissions are
responsible for increasing global average surface temperatures by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 19802010 and for a sea level rise of about 2.3mm a year from 2005-2010 as ice caps and glaciers melt. Rising sea levels
threaten about a tenth of the world's population who live in low-lying areas and islands which are at risk of flooding,
including the Caribbean, Maldives and Asia-Pacific island groups. More than 180 countries are negotiating a new
global climate pact which will come into force by 2020 and force all nations to cut emissions to limit warming to
below 2 degrees Celsius this century - a level scientists say is the minimum required to avert catastrophic effects.

even if the most ambitious emissions cuts are made, it might not be enough to stop sea
levels rising due to the thermal expansion of sea water , said scientists at the United States'
But

National Centre for Atmospheric Research, U.S. research organization Climate Central and Centre for Australian
Weather and Climate Research in Melbourne. "Even with aggressive mitigation measures that
limit global warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial values by 2100, and with decreases of global
temperature in the 22nd and 23rd centuries ... sea level continues to rise after 2100," they said in the journal

as warmer temperatures penetrate deep into the sea,

the water warms and expands as the heat mixes through different ocean regions .
Even if global average temperatures fall and the surface layer of the sea cools, heat would still be mixed
down into the deeper layers of the ocean, causing continued rises in sea levels.
Nature Climate Change. This is because

No Ice Age

No Ice Age Mauder Minimum small

Cooling will not trump warming no ice age
Elizabeth Goldbaum July 18 2015 (Staff Writer) Is a Mini Ice Age Coming?
'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy, Live Science,
http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html
A scientist who claims waning solar activity in the next 15 years will trigger what
some are calling a mini ice age has revived talk about the effects of man-made versus natural disruptors
to Earth's climate. Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in the United
Kingdom, used a new model of the sun's solar cycle, which is the periodic change in solar radiation, sunspots and
other solar activity over a span of 11 years, to predict that "solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to
conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645," according to a statement. At the National
Astronomy meeting in Llanduno, north Wales last week, Zharkova said that a series of solar phenomena will lead to
a "Maunder Minimum," which refers to the seven decades, from 1645 to 1715, when the sun's surface ceased its
heat-releasing magnetic storms and coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of chillier temperatures, from around
1550 to 1850 in Europe, North America and Asia, according to NASA. [Top 10 Ways to Destroy Planet Earth] "The
upcoming Maunder Minimum is expected to be shorter than the last one in 17th century (five solar cycles of 11

However, many
scientists are not convinced. Georg Feulner, the deputy chair of the Earth system
analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research , has studied
the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His research has shown that temperature
drops correlated to a less intense sun would be insignificant compared with
anthropogenic global warming, according to the Washington Post. Regarding the Maunder
Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global
temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since
pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time
research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that
man-made global warming won't be trumped.
years)," Zharkova told Live Science in an email. "It will be lasting about three solar cycles."

Human induced climate change trump Maunder Minimum

cooling
Elizabeth Goldbaum July 18 2015 (Staff Writer) Is a Mini Ice Age Coming?
'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy, Live Science,
http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html
Solar cycles rise and fall over an 11-year cycle, though each cycle is unique . The sun
can emit extreme ultraviolet and X-ray emissions that heat the part of the sky where planes fly. "Although the
change in total solar irradiance seems too small to produce significant climatic effects, there is good evidence that,
to some extent, the Earth's climate heats and cools as solar activity rises and falls," wrote David Hathaway, a solar
physicist with NASA's Ames Research Center, in a 2010 review paper published in the journal Living Reviews in
Solar Physics. The Maunder Minimum was named by solar astronomer John Eddy in 1976 after E.W. Maunder, an
English scientist who, along with German scientist Gustav Sprer, first noticed the decrease in solar activity in the
1890s, according to the New York Times. I have re-examined the contemporary reports and new evidence which
has come to light since Maunders time and conclude that this 70-year period was indeed a time when solar activity
all but stopped, Eddy wrote in the Times. Eddy looked through historical documents dating all the way back to
Galileo to find any mention of visual observations of sun spots everything he found corroborated, though to
double check, he looked to some hard data. Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope that is associated with living things,
correlates with solar activity. The isotope is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit nitrogen-14
and convert it to carbon-14. Increased solar activity reduces the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate the
atmosphere, decreasing carbon-14 formation. Eddy determined that the carbon-14 measurements in tree rings
indicated a period of lower solar activity from 1450 to 1540, during a period Eddy called the Sprer Minimum. In a
paper detailing the study published in the journal Science in 1977, Eddy pointed out that both the MaunderMinimum
and the Sprer Minimum happened during the coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age

The Little

Ice Age saw rapid expansion of mountain glaciers , especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland and
Alaska. There were three cycles of particularly chilly periods, beginning around 1650, 1770 and 1850, each

Although the Maunder Minimum

corresponds with the first of the three cooling periods, the connection between solar
activity and terrestrial climate are topics of on-going research, according to NASA. [See
separated by slight warming intervals, according to NASA.

Photos of Greenland's Gorgeous Glaciers] Some historical records peg the onset of the Little Ice Age earlier, to
around the year 1300, which includes the Sprer Minimum. Records are more robust for the later part of the
millennia-long cooling, with figures like Charles Dickens' writing about white Christmases, and records of Mary
Shelly spending an unusually cold summer in 1816 indoors, where she and her husband shared horror stories, one
of which became "Frankenstein," according to climate scientist Michael Mann in Volume 1 of the Encyclopedia of
Global Environmental Change (Wiley, 2002). "The Little Ice Age may have been more significant in terms of
increased variability of the climate, rather than changes in the average climate itself," Mann wrote. Furthermore,
the most dramatic climatic extremes happened with year-to-year temperature changes, rather than prolonged
multiyear periods of cold. Mann points to atmospheric circulation patterns, like the North Atlantic Oscillation, to
explain some of the regional variability during the Little Ice Age. Although the coldest year in Europe and over much
of the Northern Hemisphere was 1838, temperatures were relatively mild over significant portions of Greenland and
Alaska during the same year. A large volcanic eruption in Cosigina, Nicaragua, in 1838 may have emitted aerosols
that circulated through the atmosphere, deflecting incoming solar radiation and cooling the air. Also, Dickens' white

Although solar
activities can align with changes in temperatures, there are many processes that
contribute to climatic variations, and human-induced climate change will likely
prove too big a force for muted solar activity to influence .
Christmases may have benefited from the 1815 eruption of the volcano Tambora in Indonesia.

No Ice Age humans

No ice age; 100,000 years past emissions and natural cycle
PIK 2016 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) Human-made climate
change suppresses the next ice age, 1/31, https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pressreleases/human-made-climate-change-suppresses-the-next-ice-age
01/13/2016 - Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the
next ice age, a study now published in the renowned scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial

scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the relation of
insolation and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be the key criterion to
explain the last eight glacial cycles in Earth history. At the same time their results illustrate
that even moderate human interference with the planets natural carbon balance
might postpone the next glacial inception by 100.000 years . Even without man-made
climate change we would expect the beginning of a new ice age no earlier than in
50.000 years from now which makes the Holocene as the present geological epoch an unusually long
period in between ice ages, explains lead author Andrey Ganopolski. However, our study also shows that
relatively moderate additional anthropogenic CO2-emissions from burning oil, coal
and gas are already sufficient to postpone the next ice age for another 50.000
years. The bottom line is that we are basically skipping a whole glacial cycle, which is
inception,

unprecedented. It is mind-boggling that humankind is able to interfere with a mechanism that shaped the world as
we know it. For the first time, research can explain the onset of the past eight ice ages by quantifying several key
factors that preceded the formation of each glacial cycle. Our results indicate a unique functional relationship
between summer insolation and atmospheric CO2 for the beginning of a large-scale ice-sheet growth which does
not only explain the past, but also enables us to anticipate future periods when glacial inception might occur
again, Ganopolski says.

No ice age human activity and sun cycle has minimal impact
Phil Plait July 14 2015 No, Were Not Headed for a MiniIce Age, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not
_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html
the global warming denial industry is cranked and I do mean crankedinto
overdrive. The latest is a rehash of an old claim that we may be headed for a miniice
age due to changes in the Suns magnetic activity affecting its output . Let me be
very clear: no. Ill repeat: NO. The overwhelming majority of scientists do
not think this can happen. While changes in the Suns activity have a very marginal effect on global
warming and/or cooling, human contributions to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
completely overwhelm the Suns influence . Its like tapping on your brakes as your car plunges
headlong into a brick wall at 100 kilometers per hour. This new claim comes from a presentation at
conference by Valentina Zharkova, a mathematician and scientist at Northumbria University. To be clear,
shes not predicting a 60 percent drop in the light and heat emitted by the Sun, but
a drop in magnetic activity in the Sun. This has only a marginal effect on the Suns
light/heat output. Also, if you listen to an interview with her on Radio New Zealand, youll hear some unusual
Sheesh,

claims, like the climates on other planets are changing due to the Suna red herring when it comes to climate

She also admits at the end she doesnt do atmospheric research, so the
claim that lowered magnetic activity of the Sun can cause an ice age here on Earth
is in my opinion shaky at best. The funny thing is, I debunked this Sun-influenced cooling idea back in
2011! Ill be interested to see if Zharkova puts out a paper on this, but even if the Suns magnetic
activity does lower, it almost certainly wont cause any real cooling (at best it might slow
change on Earth.

warming a bit). Read that link for the details, but heres a synopsis: In a nutshell, the Sun goes through an 11-year
cycle of magnetic activity. When it peaks, sunspots are more common. You might think that means less heat from
the Sun, since sunspots are cooler and darker. But they have bright rims (called faculae) that more than make up
for the cooler interior regions. So, when solar activity is high, and sunspots abound, the Sun is actually very
marginally warmer. The sunspot cycle this go-round was weak, and may be weak in the next cycle as well. No one
really knows. There has been research asking what would happen if it is weak next time and concludes it will have
moderate localized effectsnot global cooling. In fact, the very first line of the abstract of that paper is this: Any
reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small
fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. I mean, how much more clear can they be? None. None more clear:

The Sun only has a small effect on Earth compared with what we humans are doing.

No Ice Age no impact

No little ice age or cold shocks
Phil Plait July 14 2015 No, Were Not Headed for a MiniIce Age, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not
_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html
What about the Little Ice Age, though? Some climate change deniers have been
claiming for a while that the lower number of sunspots can lead to a repeat of the
brutal cold snap that gripped Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, but thats silly.
There were several factors that came into play there (including huge volcanic
eruptions that magnified cooling; volcanic gases reflect sunlight and cool the Earth
a wee bit), and even then the effects were localized to Europe. And even then,
summers were normal; it was just that winters were extra cold. And again, all of this
is a drop in the bucket. Any cooling effects by the Sun would be on top of a much
larger heating trend due to global warming. Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt put out
a series of tweets showing why (similar to what Ive written here), and dont forget
that 2015 is gearing up to be the hottest year on record, too. My Slate colleague
Eric Holthaus has written about this as well, and Think Progress also has a good
article on it.

Minimal effects
Astronomy Now July 17 2015 Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice
Age by 2030, http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-maybring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
However, only the time will show soon enough (within the next 5-15 years) if this
will happen. Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles,
which is about 30 years, it is possible, that the lowering of the temperature will not
be as deep as during the Maunder minimum. But we will have to examine it in
detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to
work in this direction, Dr Helen Popova said.

No Ice Age Zharkova wrong

No Ice age Zharkova research inadequate and even if it true,
emissions mean cooling is moderated.
Zo Schlanger July 17 2015 AN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST EXPLAINS WHY THAT
MINI ICE AGE NEWS IS BOGUS, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/mini-iceage-bogus-global-cooling-climate-change-354632
a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society caught the British news
medias attention. It quickly spread to American outlets , and soon headlines blared
across the Internet announcing the coming of a mini ice age in 15 years. Winter is coming,
Last week,

announced one. Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030, ominously intoned another. Global warming

The problem is, none of

this is true. The press release in question was an announcement of a presentation to be given
by Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in
Newcastle, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. She and her team of researchers
had analyzed the suns 11-year cycles from a purely astronomical perspective and
skeptics announcing their vindication on Twitter followed shortly thereafter.

found that the solar cycle that will come into force in the 2030s looks much like the one last seen in the mid-17th
century, a time period known as the Maunder Minimum, when Europe and North America experienced particularly
bitter winters. Solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age'

The trouble is, the press release said nothing about

what implications that solar cycle would have for conditions on Earth . It described
that began in 1645, the press release said.

conditions only on the sun. Yet the headlines announced a deep freeze anyway. Outlet after outlet echoed a line
from the press release that solar activity would fall by 60 percent. Any reader who took a moment to digest the
severity of that statement ought to have gone into a panic. A

decrease in solar output of 1 percent

would be a very big deal for the climate system. A 60 percent decrease would end all life on Earth, forever
probably, says James Renwick, a professor at Victoria University of Wellington in New
Zealand and an expert in atmospheric physics , via email. I am kind of surprised no one much has
commented on this yet or pointed out how unlikely it is. What Zharkova and her co-authors meant,
Renwick explains, was that the amplitude of the solar cycle may decrease by 60
percent during that period. In other words, during an 11-year period in the 2030s,
the two magnetic waves that produce sunspotstemporary phenomena that
correlate with higher levels of solar activityare predicted to interact in such a way
as to nearly cancel each other out, causing a 60 percent drop in the difference
between peak and height solar activity, as compared with the 11-year-cycle before.
This would equal a decrease in solar output of roughly 0.1 percent , according to Renwick.
What would a 0.1 percent drop in solar output mean for us? Not a whole lot. If
things played out as described in Zharkova's paper , and we did see a decrease in solar output
roughly as happened in the 1700s, there would be some cooling for 20 or 30 years, according to
Renwick. But the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are so much
higher now (and will be even higher in 2030) that temperatures would not drop much
below where they are today. And that drop would last only until 2050 or so. Then
we'd have a bounce upwards again. Howard Diamond, the program director for the
federal U.S. Climate Reference Network, came to the same conclusions. Regionally,
there may be more cooling, but overall the globe would go back for a while to
conditions experienced in the first half of the 20th century, he says, hardly a period
of unusual cold. Once the solar cycle strengthened again, we would be back to
greenhouse gas-related warming again.