Saswat's DSCOVR Aff

8/2/2019 Saswat's DSCOVR Aff

1/22

NEERAJWASHERE

THIS IS A DUCK. WHY IS THERE A DUCK BEFORE

MY 1AC? CAUSE IM SASWAT DAS.

1Did I mention that Im Saswat Das?


2/22

NEERAJWASHERE

CONTENTION 1: INHERENCY

A ) NOAA funding for Earth Observation Satellites will increase in 2012 however

DSCOVR didnt make the cut

Brinton, 7/13/2011[Turner, Space News Staff Writer, House Panel Denies Funding for Space Climate Probe, Satellite Constellation,

Space.com, http://www.space.com/12259-house-panel-space-climate-satellites-funding.html, BJM]

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee is set to vote today (July 13) on a 2012 spending bill that denies

funding for a pair of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite programs,

one to provide advance warning of solar storms, the other a collaborative project with Taiwan. The House version of the

2012 commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations bill also would trim $50 million from NOAAs $617.4 million

request to develop a new generation of geostationary orbiting weather satellites, according to the reportaccompanying the bill published July 12. It appears the savings would be applied to help kick-start NOAAs polar-orbiting weather satellite program, which

was delayed by the protracted 2011 budget process. The 2012 budget request NOAA sent to Congress in February asked for $47.3

million for the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) and $11.3 million for Constellation Observing System for Meteorology Ionosphereand Climate-2 (COSMIC-2). The House bill would not provide funding for either. DSCOVR would utilize hardware left over from a

planned NASA Earth observation mission dubbed Triana that was canceled several years ago. COSMIC-2 is a multisatellite radio occultation experiment being

conducted jointly with Taiwan. "While the Committee supports NOAAs efforts to establish a radio occultation satellite constellation in partnership withTaiwan, the recommendation does not include any funding for the COSMIC-2 program given funding constraints and the need to fund other higher priority

NOAA satellite programs," the report said. The higher priority satellite program is the Joint Polar Satellite System created last year after the White Housedismantled a joint military-civilian weather satellite program. NOAA had sought $1 billion for the program in 2011 but Congress provided less than half of thatamount. The House bill would provide $901.3 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System in 2012, which is $429.4 million more than appropriated for the

program in 2011 but $168.6 million less than the request. NOAA sought $9.5 million for 2011 to ready the long-shelved DSCOVR spacecraft for launch and

$3.7 million to initiate development of COSMIC-2. Congress was unable to pass any of the 12 traditional federal

spending bills for 2011 and instead passed an all-in-one spending bill that held most federal spending to 2010 levels. Funding was

generally not provided for so-called new start programs such as DSCOVR and COSMIC-2. The

2012 funding bill, meanwhile, would provide $567.4 million for NOAAs Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite-R series, $94.9 million less than provided for this year.

http://www.space.com/12259-house-panel-space-climate-satellites-funding.htmlhttp://www.space.com/12259-house-panel-space-climate-satellites-funding.html


3/22

NEERAJWASHERE

PLAN-TEXT: THE UNITED STATESFEDERALGOVERNMENTSHOULDSUBSTANTIALLYINCREASEDEVELOPMENTOFSPACEBYDEPLOYINGTHE DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORYINTOTHE

L1 POSITION. IMPLEMENTATIONANDFUNDINGWILLBEDONETHROUGHTHE NATIONAL

OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SATELLITE PROGRAM. WECLAIMTHERIGHTTO

FIATANDTHERIGHTTODEFINEANDCLARIFYALLTERMSOPERATIONALLY. CROSS-X

CHECKSABUSE.



4/22

NEERAJWASHERE

CONTENTION 2: MOTHERNATURE

A) Nature is only viewed as a cash cow waiting to be milked by the humans for the benefit

of humans.

Alisdair Cochrane, 2006 (London School of Economics and Political Sciencehttp://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21190/1/Environmental_ethics_%28LSERO%29.pdf) JMAAlthough many environmental philosophers want to distance themselves from the label of anthropocentrism, it nevertheless remains the case that a number ofcoherent anthropocentric environmental ethics have been elaborated (Blackstone, 1972; Passmore, 1974; ONeill, 1997; and Gewirth, 2001). This should really

be of little surprise, since many of the concerns we have regarding the environment appear to be concerns precisely because of theway they affect human beings. For example, pollution diminishes our health, resource depletion threatens our standards ofliving, climate change puts our homes at risk, the reduction of biodiversity results in the loss of potential medicines, and theeradication of wilderness means we lose a source of awe and beauty. Quite simply then, an anthropocentric ethic claims thatwe possess obligations to respect the environment for the sake of human well-being and prosperity. Despite their human-centeredness, anthropocentric environmental ethics have nevertheless played a part in the extension of moral standing. This extension has not been to the non-

human natural world though, but instead to human beings who do not yet exist. The granting of moral standing to future generations has beenconsidered necessary because of the fact that many environmental problems, such as climate change and resource depletion,will affect future humans much more than they affect present ones. Moreover, it is evident that the actions and policies that we ascontemporary humans undertake will have a great impact on the well-being of future individuals.

B) This mindset is inherently flawedanthropocentrism disconnects humanity from

nature.

Turner 95 (Jack, previous professor of philosophy at the University of Illinois Gary Snider and The Practice of theWild inDeep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 41-42)With such raw contact we learn what primary cultures learned, that nature can be a ferocious teacher of the way things are a profoundly wild, organic world ofsystem and raw process, a maze of networks, webs, fields, and communities, all interdependent, interrelating, and mirroring each other- Thoreau says, "In

wildness is the preservation of the world." Snyder responds, "Wildness is not just the 'preservation' of the world, it is the world. . . . Natureis ultimately in no way endangered; wilderness is. The wild is indestructible, but we might not see the wild." In our emphasison species loss and habitat destruction we forget our own peril. "Human beings themselves are at risk-not just on somesurvival of civilization level, but more basically on the level of heart and soul. We are ignorant of our own nature andconfused about what it means to be a human being."This confusion stems from judging ourselves independent from and

superior to other forms of life rather than accepting equal membership in the seemingly chaotic and totally interdependentworld of wildness.To remove an animal or plant or hunter-gatherer from its place automatically compromises its inherentqualities and integrity and leads to the infinite sadness of zoos, aquariums, and reservations. How do we remedy this situation? "Toresolve the dichotomy of the civilized and the wild, we must first resolve to be whole." And if we are going to make thisresolution we must first figure out what we might mean by "wild." The practice of the wild refines our thinking about thewild, extending it beyond the realm of vacation spots, beyond the facts and equations of scientific explanation, to a placefamiliar to any child who persists in asking "Why?" Children know that natural metaphors of plants and animals penetrate to the wild place, thatfairy tales are true, that they are little animals. That is why they so vigorously oppose the forces of domesticity and civilized education. They know quite wellthat they would be better off in forests, the mountains, the deserts, and the seas. "Thoreau wrote of 'this vast savage howling mother of ours, Nature, lying allaround, with such beauty, and such affection for her children, as the leopard; and yet we are so early weaned from her breast to society.' "

C) Ignoring environmental concerns will only fulfill the prophesy of Earths destruction.

Williams 10[Lynda, physics instructor, Santa Rosa Junior College, Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization,Peace Review, aJournal of Social Justice, The New Arms Race in Outer Space, Spring 2010, http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_peacereview.pdf] JL

If we direct our intellectual and technological resources toward space exploration without consideration of

the environmental and political consequences, what is left behind in the wake? The hype surrounding space

exploration leaves a dangerous vacuum in the collective consciousness of solving the problems on Earth. If

we accept the inevitability of Earths destruction and its biosphere, we are left looking toward the heavens

for our solutions and resolution. Young scientists, rather than working on serious environmental challenges

on Earth, dream of Moon or Martian bases to save humanity, fueling the prophesy of our planetary

destruction, rather than working on solutions to solve the problems on Earth.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21190/1/Environmental_ethics_(LSERO).pdfhttp://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21190/1/Environmental_ethics_(LSERO).pdf


5/22

NEERAJWASHERE

D) Andtolerating the destruction of this ecosystem saps us of our humanityits the

opening act for nuclear war and human extinction.

Bookchin 87 (Murray, co-founder of the Institute of Social Ecology An Appeal For Social and Psychological Sanity1987)Industrially and technologically, we are moving at an ever-accelerating pace toward a yawning chasm with our eyes completely blindfolded. From the 1950s

onward,we have placed ecological burdens upon our planet that have no precedent in human history.Our impact on ourenvironment has been nothing less than appalling. The problems raised by acid rain alone are striking examples of [end page 106] innumerable problems that

appear everywhere on our planet. The concrete-like clay layers, impervious to almost any kind of plant growth, replacing dynamic soils that once supported lushrain forests remain stark witness to a massive erosion of soil in all regions north and south of our equatorial belt. The equatora cradle not only of our weatherlike the ice caps but a highly complex network of animal and plant lifeis being denuded to a point where vast areas of the region look like a barrenmoonscape. We no longer "cut" our foreststhat celebrated "renewable resource" for fuel, timber, and paper. We sweep them up like dust with a rapidity and

"efficiency" that renders any claims to restorative action mere media-hype. Our entire planet is thus becoming simplified, not only

polluted. Its soil is turning into sand. Its stately forests are rapidly being replaced by tangled weeds and scrub, that is, where vegetation in any complex form

can be sustained at all. Itswildlife ebbs and flows on the edge of extinction, dependent largely on whether one or two nations

orgovernmental administrationsagree that certainsea and land mammals, birdspecies,or, for that matter, magnificent treesare

"worth" rescuingas lucrative items on corporate balance sheets. With each such loss, humanity, too, losesa portion of its own character

structure:its sensitivity toward life as such, including human life, and its rich wealth of sensibility. If we can learn to ignore the destiny of whales andcondorsindeed, turn their fate into chic clicheswe can learn to ignore the destiny of Cambodians in Asia, Salvadorans in Central America, [end page

107] and, finally, the human beings who people our communities. If we reach this degree of degradation, we will then become so

spiritually denuded that we will be capable of ignoring the terrors of thermonuclear war. Like the biotic ecosystems we have

simplified with our lumbering and slaughtering technologies,we will have simplified the psychic ecosystems that give each of us our

personal uniqueness. We will have rendered our internal mileau as homogenized and lifeless as our external milieuand a biocidal war will merely externalize the deep sleep that will have already claimed our spiritual and moral

integrity. The process of simplification, even more significantly than pollution, threatens to destroy the restorative powers of nature and humanitytheircommon ability to efface the forces of destruction and reclaim the planet for life and fecundity. A humanity disempowered of its capacity to change amisbegotten "civilization," ultimately divested of its power to resist, reflects a natural world disempowered of its capacity to reproduce a green and living world.

E) Nuclear war causes extinction and, at the very least, wide-spread environmental

destruction.

Robuck 9(Alan, prof, in an interview, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html, dw: 1-22-2009, da: 7-8-2011, lido)

Tensions between India and Pakistan have been high recently. If they escalated to all-out nuclear war, what would be the effect to the global climate?

We looked at a scenario in which each country used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons, which they are

believed to have in their arsenals. That's enough firepower to kill around 20 million people on theground. We were surprised that the amount of smoke produced by these explosions would block out

sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history.Yourstudy predicts mass cooling. With all the heat and radioactivity of the explosions, why wouldn't nuclear war warm the planet?

It has nothing to do with the radioactivity of the explosions although that would be devastating to

nearby populations. The explosions would set off massive fires, which would produce plumes of black

smoke. The sun would heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere that's the layer above the

troposphere, where we live where there is no rain to clear it out.It would be blown across the globe and block thesun. The effect would not be a nuclear winter, but it would be colder than the little ice age [in the 17th and 18th centuries] and the change would

happen very rapidly over the course of a few weeks. Would you be able to see the smoke? The sky would not be blue. It would

be grey. And what would the results be for humanity? We calculated that there would be a

shortening of the growing season in the mid-latitudes that includes Europe and America in the Northern Hemisphere

by a couple of weeks. The growing season is defined as the period between the last frost in spring and first frost in the fall. Some crops thatneed the whole growing season would not reach fruition and there would be no yield. Others would grow more slowly and produce a small yield. In

addition there would be less precipitation and it would be darker, also damaging yield. You compound that with [the shutdown

of] the current global network of food trading countries would likely stop shipping food and focus

on feeding their own populations and it's a big crisis.We don't have the resources to do detailed analyses on the impactsof crops in different farming regimes but this suggests it could be a very serious problem. How confident are you that your modeling is correct? We

used ModelE, designed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the models used

to produce the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The model does an

excellent job of simulating climate change that resulted from volcanic eruptions in the past. That

gave us confidence.What's more, a group repeated the calculations for the Pakistan-India scenario with a different model at the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the results almost exactly agreed. Their research showed how the smoke from the fires would



6/22

NEERAJWASHERE

open up holes in the ozone, which would cause even more problems for humanity. We'd like other people to test the calculations with their models, but

we're pretty confident that they'll get the same answer. So we get a clue of the climatic effects of nuclear war from volcanic eruptions? Yes. 1816

was known as the "year without summer." It followed the Tambora Volcano eruption in Indonesia in

1815. It was sudden climate change on a similar scale, and it resulted in a severe famine in Europe,

food riots and mass emigrations.Volcanic aerosols have a lifetime of about a year in the stratosphere. The lifetime of soot fromnuclear fires is about five years. It's obviously much harder for a society to recover from such an extended cooling.

F) Only by deploying DSCOVR can we hope to solve for our anthropocentric tendencies

Sivil 01, lecturer in Environmental Philosophy, University of Durban Westville, 01(Richard R, "Why we Need a New Ethic for the Environment", Protest And Engagement: Philosophy after Apartheid, Ed.Patrick Giddy, http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htm) LKIt is clear that humanity has the capacity to transform and degrade the environment Given the consequences

inherent in having such capacities, "the need for a coherent, comprehensive, rationally persuasive environmental

ethic is imperative" (Pierce & Van De Veer 1995: 2). The purpose of an environmental ethic would be to account forthe moral relations that exist between humans and the environment, and to provide a rational basis from which to

decide how we ought and ought not to treat the environment. The environment was defined as the world in which we

are enveloped and immersed, constituted by both animate and inanimate objects This includes both individual living

creatures, such as plants and animals, as well as non-living, non-individual entities, such as rivers and oceans, forests

and velds, essentially, the whole planet Earth This constitutes a vast and all-inclusive sphere, and, for purposes of

clarity, shall be referred to as the "greater environment". In order to account for the moral relations that exist betweenhumans and the greater environment, an environmental ethic should have a significantly wide range of focus.

G) And just expansion into space shatters anthropocentrismhelps us realize our

dependence on earth.

Anker 05[Associate Professor of History of Science and Environmental Studies*, The Journal of Architecture Volume 10 Number 5,Peder Anker, The Closed World of Ecological Architecture November 2005, http://www.scribd.com/doc/52787067/anker-ecological-architecture, M.F.]

In Design with Nature, the imagined life in outerspace came to represent this holistic Oriental alternative to the havoc of Western anthropocentr-ism. The USs space programme was well underway,with the first unmanned spacecraft landing on the moon while McHarg wrote his book. In the last week of

1968, Apollo 8 sent photographs of the Earth as seen from space, an image McHarg adopted which in a modified

form to adorn his book cover. The image of the Earth as a whole was to

evoke the environmental ethics of the astronaut: We can use the astronaut as our instructor: he too is pursuing the same quest. Hisaspiration is survivalbut then, so is ours, McHarg argued. The importance of the perspective of the

moon tra-veller to understanding ecological relationships on Earth had everything to do with the life

support systems of space cabinsThe astronauts photograph of the Earth as a whole embodied the wisdom of Oriental ecological holism whichwas different from destructive Western compartmental reasoning.Travelling in space forced the astronaut to realizehuman biological dependence on the ecological stability of the space cabin. This realisation of dependence

was a crushing blow to anthropocentr-ism McHarg believed, since the astronaut could not survive if theship did not sustain its own ecological balance. The Earth should be viewed in the

same way as the space capsule: In enlarging the capsule, the objectives remain unchanged; to create a self-

sustaining ecosystemwhose only import is sunlight, whose only export is heatsufficient to sustain a man

for a certain period of time.McHarg would emphasise again and again that people on board Spaceship Earth were gov-erned by the same laws as astronauts. The astronauts diet, for example, was something the ecologically concerned citizens on Earth shouldeat, since it was presumably grown within the carrying capacity of a self-sustained space cabin. In the future, McHarg imagined, humans would build and settle

in a space buoy located between the Moon and the Earth. Here the ecologists were to reproduce a miniature farm within an artificially built biosphereproviding the astronauts with food. It was supposed to be an organic community of plants, insects, fish, animals, and birds designed to have a carryingfor several astronauts. Here the astronaut was supposed to function as a natural scientist and an excellent research ecologist. [His] major task was clearly notonly understanding the system, but managing it. Indeed, while the astronaut had learned a great deal of indispensable science, his finest skill was that he could

apply this in the management of the ecosystem. We could now call him an intelligent husbandman, a steward. To McHarg, the astronaut and thelife in the future space buoy served as a human ecological utopia

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htmhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52787067/anker-ecological-architecturehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52787067/anker-ecological-architecturehttp://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htmhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52787067/anker-ecological-architecturehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52787067/anker-ecological-architecture


7/22

NEERAJWASHERE

H) Environmental discourse is a pre-requisite to any negative argument.

Leary 99, Warren E. "Politics Keeps a Satellite Earthbound." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 June 1999.Web. 23 Feb. 2012. .

As spacecraft go, it is small, inexpensive and normally would hardly stand out among the dozens of satellitesand probes NASA is planning to send into space. But Triana, because of its unusual origin and mission, hasattracted a lot of attention. And it is in trouble because of it. The goals of this simple satellite, designed toview the Earth from afar, have become complicated by the reality of Washington politics. The debate overwhether the mission is a good idea or not is muddled by whose idea it was in the first place, Triana, in itsearliest incarnation, is the brainchild of Vice President Al Gore. In a speech on March 13, 1998, at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Gore challenged NASA to build and fly an inexpensivespacecraft thatwould make continuous, live pictures of the full, sunlit Earth from far out in space thatwould be available to the world at all times via the Internet and television. Weather and scientific satellitesview the Earth all the time, but they orbit so close that they only see a portion of the planet at a time.

Any ''whole Earth'' view has to be stitched together from several images, and none of these displays can bedone in real time. Mr. Gore said that seeing the entire Earth against the blackness of space at any time,which is not now possible, would inspire environmental consciousness and encourage new educationaland scientific efforts. As the nation's classrooms and homes are connected to the Internet and cable television,

he said, the images would arouse new feelings among millions of Americans about their home planet.As White House aides tell it, Mr. Gore's idea came to him almost in a dream. He awoke at 3 A.M. one day inFebruary 1998, and thought about a global view of Earth, they say, perhaps inspired by the famous ''BlueMarble'' photograph of the planet taken in December 1972 by the returning crew of Apollo 17, the last moonmission. A copy of the picture hangs in Mr. Gore's office. Mr. Gore also gave the Earth-watching project itsname, after Rodrigo de Triana, the lookout aboard Christopher Columbus's ship who first saw the New Worldin 1492. After Mr. Gore told the NASA administrator, Daniel S. Goldin, about the idea and asked if it wasfeasible, the agency made a quick study of the proposal and concluded that it could be done for between $20million and $50 million. But after NASA asked for bids on the project, it grew from a simple camera-in-spaceidea -- nicknamed by some the Gorecam or Goresat -- to a more elaborate spacecraft that would also doenvironmental monitoring of the Earth and the Sun. Last October, after an evaluation of nine competingproposals, the agency selected one from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California

at San Diego for a $75 million mission. Instead of just a video camera for taking pictures of the Earth, theScripps mission includes a multi-spectral imager that sees a variety of wavelengths of light, from ultraviolet tonear infrared, to measure ozone, cloud height, the amounts of aerosols and particulates suspended in the air andother parameters. It also includes a radiometer for monitoring the solar radiation reflected back into space byEarth and an instrument package for monitoring solar events that could affect electrical equipment on Earth.''By no means is this the 'Gorecam,' '' said Dr. Francisco P.J. Valero, director of the Atmospheric ResearchLaboratory at Scripps and principal investigator for Triana. ''We wouldn't get into this unless there is good,substantial science. We will be looking at the planet in a way it has never been looked at before.'' Asidefrom any scientific payoff, he said, continued monitoring of Earth can attract attention to the planet's

problems globally and be a useful educational tool. ''There is some value in just making people aware

of their world,'' Dr. Johnson said.



8/22

NEERAJWASHERE

CONTENTION 3: SOLARFLARES

A Solar storms will become inevitable by 2013 as the sun reaches its most active

stateMoskowitz 11 [Clara, senior writer for space.com, 8/11/2011, Solar storms building towards peak in 2013 NASApredicts,http://www.space.com/12586-solar-storms-intensity-2013-peak-nasa.html]

Solar flareslike the huge one that erupted on the sun early today (Aug. 9)will only become more common as our sun nears

its maximum level of activity in 2013, scientists say.Tuesday's flare was themost powerful sun storm since 2006, and was rated an X6.9 on

the three-class scale for solar storms (X-Class is strongest, with M-Class in the middle and C-Class being the weakest).Flaressuch as this onecould

become the norm soon, though, as our suns 11 year of magnetic activity nears their end in 2013, scientists

explained. The sun is just coming out of a lull, andscientists expect the next peak of activity in 2013. The current cycle, called SolarCycle 24, began in 2008."We still are on the upswing with this recent burst of activity," said Phil Chamberlin, a solar scientist at NASA's Goddard Space FlightCenter in Greenbelt, Md., who is a deputy project scientist for the agency's Solar Dynamics Observatory, a sun-studying satellite that launched in February

2010. "We could definitely in the next year or two see more events like this; there's a potential to see larger events as well."

B) 22 Year Cycle ends in 2013

Kelly 9/30TEOTWAWKI: The perfect solar storm Travis Kelly Grand Junction Free Press Columnist Friday, September 30, 2011http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20110930/COLUMNISTS/110929950/1021&parentprofile=1062

Moreover,NASA advised last month that the Sun's 22-year magnetic energy cycle is due to peak in 2013,

increasing the likelihood of a Carrington-level event.

C) Even-numbered solar cycle in 2013

Shaw 11Solar Flares 2012 : Is It The Sun's Final Assault on Earth? By Linda Shaw October 15, 2011 12:40 PM EDT http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980584408

So, it's probably best to keep it a secret, even though it's pretty obvious that something big is brewing for 2012 -- and not just according to the MayanCalendar. Though the Mayan's predicted something happening in 2012 thousands of years ago, NASA is alsopredicting something big themselves for

the coming year. "We're entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered

solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME (coronal mass ejection)

should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It's theperfect sequence for a really big event," said Jimmy Raeder, a NASA researcher. With all of the hype of the Mayan Calendar and now

NASA's new information, do you believe the Earth will be hit by a massive solar flare in 2012? If so, are you ready to withstand theaftermath?

http://www.space.com/12586-solar-storms-intensity-2013-peak-nasa.htmlhttp://www.space.com/12580-sun-unleashes-major-solar-flare.htmlhttp://www.space.com/12580-sun-unleashes-major-solar-flare.htmlhttp://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20110930/COLUMNISTS/110929950/1021&parentprofile=1062http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980584408http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980584408http://info.2012pro.com/articles/art_017_sunspotcycle.htmhttp://www.space.com/12586-solar-storms-intensity-2013-peak-nasa.htmlhttp://www.space.com/12580-sun-unleashes-major-solar-flare.htmlhttp://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20110930/COLUMNISTS/110929950/1021&parentprofile=1062http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980584408http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980584408http://info.2012pro.com/articles/art_017_sunspotcycle.htm


9/22

NEERAJWASHERE

D ) 11 Year Cycle and the 100 year cycle culminate in 2013. The combined factors threaten human

extinction

Cox 10A GIANT explosion of energy from the Sun could paralyse Earth in just three years' time, scientists warned yesterday.Published: 21 Sep 2010 by Brian Cox; Sun Professorhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3145874/Solar-flare-to-paralyse-Earth-in-2013.html

They feara huge solar flare is due to erupt in 2013 causing blackouts and global chaos. The once-in-a-

century disaster could see power grids crash, communication systems collapse, planes grounded, foodsupplies hit and the internet shut down. Everything from home freezers to car sat navs would be affected. The disaster could

mirror the Great Solar Flare of 1859. That wreaked horrendous damage across Europe and America burning outtelegraph wires across both continents. The threat of another disaster which could mirror scenes in Hollywood blockbuster 2012 is so great that

Defence Secretary Liam Fox called an emergency conference in London yesterday. Dr Fox told experts that incalcul-able damage would

be caused if an explosion similar to the one in 1859 occurred in modern times. He called on scientists to build a

strategy against the impending disaster. The talks, organised by the Electric Infrastructure Security Council, heard that the Sun will reach a

critical stage of its cycle in 2013. A surge of magnetic energy in its atmosphere is likely to trigger

radiation storms which cause massive power surges. Such a phenomenon occurs only once about every

100 years. The last big flare, in 1859, smothered two thirds of the Earth's skies in a blood-red aurora. Suchscenes could occur again, causing cloud storms in major modern cities such as London, Paris and New York. In 1989, a more common smaller solar flare tookout power stations in Quebec, Canada. In the movie 2012, starring John Cusack, a solar flare causes global temperatures to soar. The planet is then battered by

tsunamis and earthquakes, threatening mankind.

E) Solar Storms move faster than status quo satellites can detect

Webre 92012 may bring the "perfect storm" - solar flares, systems collapse Alfred Lambremont Webre , Seattle Exopolitics Examiner April 1, 2009http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/2012-may-bring-the-perfect-storm-solar-flares-systems-collapse

The solar coronal mass ejection from the 1859 Carrington event arrived on earth in less than 15 minutes, which is

faster than our early warning systemNASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) can detect.

F) More early warning is key to augment current systems. Squo does not have the

capability to mobilize action

Pachal 6/8Of course, a decision like that has to based on very, very solid evidence." The key to having that evidence is

refined science in predicting solar flares.While progress is being made, Hesse sayspredictive models for space weatheraren't anywhere near the accuracy of those used for the terrestrial variety. "I think the National Weather Service does a good job forecastingweather. Space weather is not a mature science. We actually have many things that we don't really understand properly. We're

doing a pretty good job, but we need to do more to be able to really say with confidence, 'Tomorrow at this time, itwould be a good idea if this satellite system were turned off.'"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3145874/Solar-flare-to-paralyse-Earth-in-2013.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/alfred-lambremont-webrehttp://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/2012-may-bring-the-perfect-storm-solar-flares-systems-collapsehttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3145874/Solar-flare-to-paralyse-Earth-in-2013.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/alfred-lambremont-webrehttp://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/2012-may-bring-the-perfect-storm-solar-flares-systems-collapse


10/22

NEERAJWASHERE

G) DSCOVR is the cheapest, fastest, and most suitable way to replace the current

technology monitoring space storms, which could cause trillions in disaster

Clark, 11[2/21/11Stephen C., Space Flight Now, NOAA Taps Dscovr satellite for space weather mission, http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/21dscovr/ ,PHS]

The White House is requesting $47 million in fiscal year 2012 to convert a climate satellite grounded by politics into an observatory to monitor space weather and warn of solar storms. The Obama

administration's budget proposal released last Monday would start the development of a new mission for the Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR. The satellite was

originally built for climate observations from the L1 libration point, a stable gravity-neutral point a million miles away from Earth.

From that location, Earth science sensors on DSCOVR would have a constant view of the day side of the planet. But the L1 point is more commonly

used by solar science missions, and it's an ideal location for a spacecraft to sniff out geomagnetic storms before

they reach Earth. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would manage the DSCOVRmission as an operational sentinel to

give notice of approaching solar storms with potentially calamitous consequences for terrestrial

electrical grids, communications, GPS navigation, air travel, satellite operations and human

spaceflight. "The FY2012 funds would support the refurbishment of an existing NASA satellite, DSCOVR," said Jane Lubchenco, NOAA's

administrator. "This acquisition will allow NOAA to continue to receive vital data to help anticipate and

mitigate space weather damage, which could potentially result in costs to the United States of $1 to

$2 trillion." NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer, launched in 1997, is the only spacecraft

currently providing short-term warnings of geomagnetic storms. ACE is also stationed at the L1 point, give

forecasters about a 40-minute warning of approaching solar events that could disrupt life and

economic activity on Earth. ACE is operating 12 years beyond its design life and could fail at anytime. The $47.3 million budgeted for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would support the refurbishment of the DSCOVRspacecraft, which was put in storage at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center when the agency suspended work on the project in 2001. The DSCOVR missionwas conceived by former Vice President Al Gore in the late 1990s. Gore envisioned the satellite would beam back live pictures of the Earth 24 hours a day, boosting interest inenvironmental concerns. Scientists developed observation cameras to collect data on the planet's radiation budget. But Congress and the George W. Bush administration balked at the mission. NASA formallyterminated the project in 2005 after spending $97 million. The funding would also permit the Naval Research Laboratory to continue development and construction of a coronal mass ejection imager to fly onthe new DSCOVR mission, according to NOAA. After it set mostly untouched for seven years, NASA pulled the refrigerator-sized satellite out of storage in late 2008 for health checks of the spacecraft bus and

its science instruments, a ten-channel imager and a radiation-measuring radiometer for Earth observations and a plasma sensor suite to monitor space weather.NASA was alsodirected

to refurbish the Earth science instruments, and that work is complete or nearing completion, according

to Steve Cole, an agency spokesperson. The recent work on the DSCOVR spacecraft was ordered as NOAA

considered several replacement options for the aging ACE satellite. Other options included starting

from scratch on an entirely new spacecraft and developing a sensor to fly on a commercial satellite. The space agency would ready theDSCOVR spacecraft for flight and the U.S. Air Force would select a launch vehicle. DSCOVR would be ready for launch by late 2013 if NOAA gets full

funding this year. NOAA wants to launch the satellite by the time the sun reaches solar maximum, the peakof activity in its up-and-down cycle. Forecasters predict the next solar maximum in 2013. The White Housebudget request also calls for more than $1 billion to continue development of the Joint Polar Satellite System, NOAA's next-generation low-altitude weather satellites. The NOAA-led JPSS program was startedlast year to replace the troubled NPOESS program, which combined U.S. civil and military weather satellites. The federal government is running on a continuing resolution, a stopgap budget that freezesspending at last year's levels. NASA officials say the frozen budget is delaying critical work to start development of a spacecraft and observation sensors. NOAA is facing a potential gap in crucial weatherobservations from polar orbit, and $1 billion would jumpstart the JPSS program, according to Lubchenco. The budget request represents a $687 million increase over the current year. The NOAA budgetproposal also includes funds for the Jason 3 sea surface altimetry mission, a joint project with Europe. The Obama administration is also requesting money to start work on 12 new small COSMIC satellites withTaiwan to obtain global temperature and moisture profile measurements.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/21dscovr/http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/21dscovr/


11/22

NEERAJWASHERE

WELL ISOLATE 2 SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO 1: BLACKOUTS

A) One. Solar Flares wipe out the power grid

Mazzocchi 10Sherry Mazzocchi, nydailynews.com writer, 2010/10/28, Massive Solar Flare Storm Warnings for the Next Few Years,http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13045

Unlike a hurricane, Kappenman said the aftermath of a solar storm could be widespread, with 50% to 75% of the

country affected. "We could have a blackout like never before," he said. It took only a few days to get back to normal after the 1977

or 2003 blackouts. "This time, you might not get back to normal at all." There would also likely be no immediate

help from neighboring areas, and big cities such as New York would be hit especially hard "You

couldn't evacuate," he said. "Where do you put 8 million people?"

B) Solar Flares cause Blackouts which cause global nuclear holocaust as nuclear reactors

meltdown

IBT Science 9/14Solar Flare could unleash nuclear holocaust across planet earth forcing hundreds of nuclear power plants into total meltdowns September 14, 2011 9:55 AMEST (NaturalNews) http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htm

Why does all this matter? To understand that, you have to understand how nuclear power plants function. Or, put another way, how is nuclear material

prevented from "going nuclear" every single day across our planet? Every nuclear power plant operates in a near-meltdown

state All nuclear power plants are operated in a near-meltdown status. They operate at very high heat, relying on nuclear fission to boil

water that produces steam to drive the turbines that generate electricity. Critically, the nuclear fuel is prevented from melting down

through the steady circulation ofcoolants which are pushed through the cooling system using very high powered

electric pumps. If you stop the electric pumps, the coolant stops flowing and the fuel rods go critical (and

then melt down). This is what happened in Fukushima, where the melted fuel rods dropped through the concrete floor of the containment vessels,unleashing enormous quantities of ionizing radiation into the surrounding environment. The full extent of the Fukushima contamination

is not even known yet, as the facility is still emitting radiation. It's crucial to understand that nuclearcoolant pumps are usually driven by

power from the electrical grid. They are not normally driven by power generated locally from the nuclear power plant itself.Instead, they're connected to the grid. In other words, even though nuclear power plants are generating megawatts ofelectricity for the

grid, they are also dependant on the grid to run their own coolant pumps. If the grid goes down, the coolantpumps go down, too, which is why they are quickly switched to emergency backup power either generators or batteries. Aswe learned with Fukushima, the on-site batteries can only drive the coolant pumps for around eight hours. After that, the nuclear

facility is dependent on diesel generators (or sometimes propane) to run the pumps that circulate the coolant which prevents the

whole site from going Chernobyl. And yet, critically, this depends on something rather obvious: The delivery of diesel fuel tothe site. If diesel cannot be delivered, the generators can't be fired up and the coolant can't be circulated. When you grasp the

importance of this supply line dependency, you will instantly understand why a single solar flare could unleash a nuclear

holocaust across the planet.

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13045http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htmhttp://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htmhttp://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13045http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htmhttp://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flare-could-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-power-pl.htm


12/22

NEERAJWASHERE

C) Blackouts detonate chemical plants and city infrastructure, which outweigh nuclear

and biological warLatynina 3[World Press Review (VOL. 50, No. 11) America in the dark download date: 6-2-08 www.worldpress.org/Americas/1579.cfm ]

The scariest thing about the cascading power outages was not spoiled groceries in the fridge, or elevators getting stuck, or even, however cynical it may sound,

sick patients left to their own devices without electricity-powered medical equipment. The scariest thing of all was chemical plants and refineries

with 24-hour operations, which, if interrupted, can result in consequences even more disastrous and on a larger

scale than those ofan atomic bomb explosion. So it is safe to say that Americans got lucky this time. Several hours after the disaster, noone could know for certain whether the power outage was caused by an accident or someones evil design. In fact, the disaster on the East Coast illustrates just

one thing: A modern city is in itself a bomb, regardless of whether someone sets off the detonator intentionally or by accident. In order

to destroy a modern city, one does not need to have nuclear weapons, because the modern city is in

itself a weapon. The city infrastructure is an infrastructure with dual purpose. Why should terrorists need

chemical weapons if their enemies already have chemical plants? Why should terrorists need nuclearweapons if their enemies already have skyscrapers and airplanes with tanks full of fuel, which can be hijacked with the help of apenknife? Why would they need sophisticated military technologies and stolen explosives if the KamAZ truck that blew up thehospital in Mozdokwas carrying a load of, let us say, fertilizer? So-called dictatorship regimes and terrorists themselves have long since figured

that out. That is exactly why there were no nuclear or bacteriological weapons in Iraq.Why not? A bomb

planted on an airplane would kill dozens fewer people than a failure of the air traffic control system of a large airport. Sept.

11 taught the world that the infrastructure of the modern civilization could be as lethal as the

weapons themselves.



13/22

NEERAJWASHERE

D) Blackouts harm public health, causing dirty water, spoiled food, and ruined vaccines

Bragi 01[David, Health Watch: Rolling Health Hazards; Summer Blackouts May Pose Public Health Risks,http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/05/07/healthwatch.DTL d/n date: 09-09-04]The company's backup generators had failed to kick in and the ensuing power outage tripped a safety valve which shut down the compressor. After power wasrestored,the safety valve would not reopen, causing a leakage of sulfuric gas into the air. By the time workers plugged the leak, approximately 100 people, all inRichmond, hadarrived at area hospitals with minor ailments.

Although not caused by the state's energy crisis, this electrical outage highlights how the prospect ofchronic blackouts could p ose some

very real and unexpected threats to public health. So far we have been lucky, with planned rolling blackouts lasting no longer than

about 90 minutes.But if sudden, unexpected shortfalls in electrical supply cause outages lasting longer than

a few hours, Californians may face such health hazards as unclean drinking water, food spoilage,

vaccine shortages, heat stroke and disabled and elderly residents living without electricity. For

instance, widespread outages could affect the availability and safety of water supplies. Local water

districts are concerned that the state Public Utilities Commission has not exempted their facilities,

such as pumping stations that transport water uphill and treatment plants that purify water, from

rolling blackouts."In addition to our own facilities, outages could affect the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project's ability to get water to us," said Marty Grimes,

publicinformation representative for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which provides wholesale water supplies to Santa Clara County. On the retail level, some

of thesmaller suppliers lack large storage tanks and would themselves run out of water quickly.If treatment plants go off-line, water quality might also decline in some areas, in which case consumers would have to boil their tap water for at least one minute

beforedrinking it. "We are doing all we can to minimize this possibility and see it as unlikely," says Grimes. "If that were to happen, we'd be ready to inform everyonein theaffected area immediately."To help keep the water flowing during outages, the district has installed backup generators in treatment facilities and key pumping stations, and is keepingAndersonReservoir as full as possible. "It is high enough in altitude that electricity is not needed to get the water to our treatment plants. Gravity does all the work," saysGrimes.The district also recommends that consumers use less water when the weather is very hot or outages are likely to occur. "In essence," says Grimes, "savingwater cansave energy."

Since refrigerators and freezers run on electricity, when the power goes out, so does your ability to

keep perishables fresh. One health risk occurs when somebody carelessly reheats and eats yesterday's frozen casserole long after a blackout has

already thawed it back to life. It goes way beyond spoilage," says Susan Conley, director of food safety education for the Food Safety and Inspection Service at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "If, because of the blackouts, the temperature in the refrigerator or the freezer goes above dangerous levels,then you could have a problem withbacterial contamination," such as botulism. Contrary to popular opinion, simply sniffing around is not a good wayto tell whether food is safe to eat, since not all bacteria produce noticeable odors. A better course is to learn how to keep your food cold for as long as possibleand which foods last for how long at what temperatures. For instance, a blackout lasting under four hours will not spoil the food in your refrigerator. A freezerwill keep frozen food safe for at least a day. To keep the cold air inside, keep refrigerator and freezer doors closed unless you absolutely need to retrieve food.Some foods, muffins for instance, will last longer than others, such as eggs. For an easy-to-read spoilage chart that recommends when to use, refreeze or discardvarious foods, go to the USDA's Keeping Food Safe During A Power Outagepage. It also has a collection of practical tips, such as safe temperature levels,using thermometers, and handling dry ice. As for food spoilage at grocery stores, I asked a butcher at Armond's Quality Meats in El Cerrito how well the meatsin the store's refrigerated glass display counter would hold up during an extended outage. He said they would keep the counter closed; since the case is kept at

just above freezing, the meat would remain safe until the next day. Medical facilities also rely upon refrigerators to keep perishables cold and safe.Unfortunately, like water facilities, smaller clinics and hospitals in California are not exempt from planned blackouts, although major hospitals are.

According to Dr. Barbara Ramsey, medical director the Native American Health Center's community health clinic in Oakland,

if power goes down for more than two hours, their biggest problem will be vaccine spoilage. In

addition, replacing them may also prove difficult if power outages to other clinics across the state ornation result in widespread shortages. "We have episodic vaccine shortages without blackouts," she says, largely because drugmanufacturers allegedly limit the supply of medicines to improve profit margins. "We just had one with tetanus. For those vaccines that aren't profitable, Iwould see a particular risk." Ramsey recommends that parents of children between 15 months and 30 months and 4 to 6 years get them vaccinated as soon as

possible, especially if they expect to enroll them in a school or day care center that requires inoculations prior to admission. Often, says Ramsey, "the parentsgo, 'Oh, the kid turned 4 but I've two years to do these vaccines.' Then suddenly the parent wants boosters given today because preschool starts tomorrow. But ifI don't have the vaccine, tough luck." Otherwise, having experienced a rolling blackout a few weeks ago, she gives mixed reviews about the clinic's ability tooperate without power. Since the clinic is "a fairly low-tech operation," Ramsey says she is confident that it can continue to provide basic services, with the

exception of the EKG machine and dental equipment. "Just to shine that light in your mouth requires electricity," she says. Other medical issues

must be dealt with in the home, especially for elderly and disabled residents. Medicines kept in the

refrigerator can spoil, life-support equipment can shut down, and heat stroke can result in serious

illness or death.13

Did I mention that Im Saswat Das?


14/22

NEERAJWASHERE

SCENARIO 2: SATELLITES

A) In addition to widespread blackouts, solar storms annihilate satellites

Electronics and Solar Noise

Phillips 8Dr. Tony Phillips 08, Space Weather Research, May 6, 2008, A Super Solar Flare, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

Lanzerotti points out that as electronic technologies have become more sophisticated and more embedded into everyday life,

they have also become more vulnerable to solar activity. On Earth,power lines and long-distance telephone cables might be

affected by auroral currents, as happened in 1989. Radar, cell phone communications, and GPS receivers could be

disrupted by solar radio noise.Experts who have studied the question say there is little to be done to protect satellites from a Carrington-class

flare. In fact, a recent paper estimates potential damage to the 900-plus satellites currently in orbit could costbetween $30 billion and $70 billion.

B) Dead Satellites emit radiation and eventually fall to earth, causing fallout

Zaitsev 7(Yury, Expert with the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Tech Space, The Growing Problem of SpaceJunk, June 13, 2007, http://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Growing_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.html, NG)

Accumulation ofspace debris is also increasing radiation levels in the near-Earth environment. In its day, the Soviet Unionlaunched 33 spacecraft with nuclear power units aboard. After fulfilling their missions, the units were jettisoned from thesatellites and put in the so-called burial orbit (700 to 1,000 kilometers). There, their cores, consisting of fuel clusters, were jettisonedin turn. Currently, 44 radiation sources from Russia are parked in the burial orbit. They are: two satellites with unseparated nuclear powerunits (Cosmos-1818 and Cosmos-1867), fuel assemblies and 12 closed-down reactors with a liquid metal coolant, 15 nuclear-fuel assemblies, and 15 fuel-free

units with a coolant in the secondary cooling loop. They are to spend no less than 300 to 400 passive years in the orbit. That is enoughfor uranium-235 fission products to decay to safe levels. The United States is another contributor to the high levels ofradiation in near-Earth space. In April 1964, its Transit-SB navigation satellite with a radio isotope generator aboard failed to

enter orbit and broke into pieces. While burning up in the atmosphere, it scattered about a kilogram of plutonium-238 overthe western part of the Indian Ocean north of Madagascar. The result has been a 15-fold increase in background radiation aroundthe world. A few years later, theNimbus-B weather satellite with a uranium-235 reactor crashed into the Indian Ocean. Today,there are seven American radiation sources circling the Earth in orbits ranging from 800 kilometers to 1,100 kilometers, and

two more in near-geostationary ones. The lurking threat ofboth Russian and American nuclear satellites is that,should they fall apart upon collision with space debris, vast expanses of near-Earth space would be contaminated. Additionally, if some of the

fragments had a velocity after collision and destruction that was below orbital speed, they would fall out of orbit and

pollute some parts of the Earth's surface. In the worst-case scenario, the atmosphere could be heavily

contaminated.

C) Fallout ends all life on earth

ISANW 7Indian Scientists against nuclear weapons Effects of Nuclear Weapons http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/effectsofnuclearweapons/

Lethal levels of fallout can extend many hundreds ofkilometers and miles from the blast area. Contaminated areas can remainuninhabitable fortens orhundreds of years. Radiation injury has a long-term effect on survivors. Reactive chemicals releasedby ionization cause damage to DNA and disrupt cells by producing immediate effects on metabolic and replication processes.While cells can repair a great deal of the genetic damage, that takes time, and repeated injuries make it that much more difficult. Immediate treatment requirescontinual replacement of blood so that the damaged blood cells are replaced, and treatment of bone marrow and lymphatic tissues which are amongst the mostsensitive to radiation. One must remember in this context that there are very few hospitals equipped to carry out such remedial procedures. Radiation injury is

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Growing_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.htmlhttp://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Growing_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.htmlhttp://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/effectsofnuclearweapons/http://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Growing_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.htmlhttp://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Growing_Problem_Of_Space_Junk_999.htmlhttp://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/effectsofnuclearweapons/


15/22

NEERAJWASHERE

measured in a unit called rem. Some authorities consider 5 rem/year tolerable for workers who are occupationally exposed to radiation a typical value forexposure to medical X-rays is 0.08 rem. 1.5 rem/year is considered tolerable for pregnant women. It should be remembered that natural radiation is always

present in the atmosphere over most places on the earth, but at lower levels. However, there is no threshold, universally agreed upon, at which a dose ofradiation can be declared safe. Things which get irradiated by prompt radiation themselves become radioactive. People in the area of a nuclear explosion, andthose subject to radioactive fallout stand more risk of contracting cancer. A 1000 rem exposure for the whole body over a lifetime (which is entirely possible for

those surviving a nuclear war) brings about an 80% chance of contracting cancer. Cancer from radiation exposure will occur over the entirelifetime of exposed populations. For example, only one-half of the predicted numbers of cancer have occurred in the people exposed to the radiation

produced by the atmospheric weapons tests and the explosions of the US atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that took place 50 to 60 years ago. We

have no idea what the long-term genetic consequences will be from the massive release ofradioactive fallout on a

world-wide basis.Radioactive fallout and toxic pollution would cause a mass extinction event, eliminatinghumans and most complex forms oflife on Earth.



16/22

NEERAJWASHERE

CONTENTION 4: GLOBAL WARMING

A) Warming causes extinction -- scientific consensus its real and anthropogenic.

Morgan, 2009[Dennis Ray, Professor of Current Affairs @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of humancivilization and possible extinction of the human race, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect, BJM]

As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one

consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible world leaders changeCold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On

the other hand, another scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be reversed withina short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization progresses anddevelops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about progress and industrial developmentbased on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realizethat the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated.Though it finally realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail and the frog d ies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not isirrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time thepoliticians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled to gethimself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programmeto assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climatechange, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all priorassessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless,as more andmore research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific

consensus grew stronger that human induced global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years ofimpressive scientific research strongly confirms the 1995 report that humans had grown so large in numbers and

especially in appetite for energy that they were now damaging the most basic of the earths systemsthe balance betweenincoming and outgoing solar energy; . . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report a constant strengthening of the simple

basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel. [17]. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a

stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is very likely human caused, but it also finds that the amount

ofcarbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate even than before and the temperature increases would beconsiderably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to cool the planet. [17].

Furthermore, almost everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer andtherefore holds more water than cold air, and cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have

become more frequent. [17]. Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted

to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent

years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting willinflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously

forecasted. However, what is missing in the IPCC report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the mostdevastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account ofthe dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt[18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction between nature and man as Homo faber has becomeblurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution ofhuman civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human civilization becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricateourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happeningswhose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own - and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-madenatural process -we not only increased our power over nature, or became more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have taken nature into the human world as suchand obliterated the defensive boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in [18]. So, in as much as we act into nature, we carry our ownunpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature increases inproportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human unpredictability into the future with aprecarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with.

Nature may yet have her revenge and the last word, as the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere

reach a tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no return .This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist, inventor,and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers

around the world, . . . which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earths physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid

fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earths family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave

danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been therebefore and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions

and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve

for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earths surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. .

. . Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This global dimming is

transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the

heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fools climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and

before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive



17/22

NEERAJWASHERE

will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the

task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish

and arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to

maintain the conditions right for lif e. It is as impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with failing kidneysknow the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys [19]. Lovelock concludes his analysison the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do our best to survive, bu t sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they

are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate [19]. Lovelocksforecast for climate change is based on asystems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that appropriately reflects

the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it takes into account positive feedback loopsthat lead to runaway conditions. This mode of analysis is consistent with recent research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on ascientific study by an international consortium, reported that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after repeatedstudies of ecological change) that stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something entirely different, according to Stephen Carpenter, alimnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, We realize that there is a common pattern were seeing in ecosystems around the world, . . .Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, youre over into another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse. [20]. Ifecosystems are in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author ofthe Nature report, puts it, Nature isnt linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camels back. Also, once the flip occurs, as Foleymaintains, then the catastrophic change is irreversible. [20]. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, its frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that couldbreak the camels back? Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global heating (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictableand perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in Nature, concerns the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbondioxide. Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback

loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in ways that could very well prove to be the tipping point of no return. S eth Borenstein of the Associated Pressdescribes this

disturbing positive feedback loop of permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming . already

under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed

permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap

heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on. [21]. Thesignificance and severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that the amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called yedoma is much more prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [myemphasis] the amount of carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels [21]. Of course, it wont come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the several decades that scientists sayit will probably take to come out can just as well be considered all at once. Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted Schuur, a professor ofecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a slow motion time bomb. [21]. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is under dry ground will be releasedas carbon dioxide. Scientists arent sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbondioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, isthat there are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off [21].14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks describes the effects as huge and, unless we

have a major cooling, - unstoppable [22]. Also, theres so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: Its coming out a lot and theres a lot more to come out . [22]. 4. Is it the end of human

civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the

fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of global warming: Once we learn

that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble,because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we noranyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and thecertainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When weconsider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival

seem even smaller. Who knows, even if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the future.A remnant of

mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human

civilization has been destroyed, and the question concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus,

we have no other choice but to consider the finality of it all, as Schell does: Death lies at the core of each persons privateexistence, but part of deaths meaning is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives. [23].16 But what if the world itselfwere to perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of second death the death of the species a possibility that the vast majority of the human race

is in denial about? Talbot writes in the review of Schells book that it is not only the death of the species, not just of the earths

population on doomsday, but of countless unborn generations. They would be spared literal death but would nonetheless be victims . . . [23]. That is thesecond death of humanity the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects that there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schells book, he writes that since we have not made apositive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one ofuncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness. [23].17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we

relinquish the fire and our use of it to dominate the Earth and each other, orwill we continue to gamble with our future at this game of

Russian roulette while time increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival?



18/22

NEERAJWASHERE

B) Reliance on current data models are flawed our earth observing instruments

arent calibrated correctly for accurate readings causing them to fail DSCOVR

solves

Anderson, 2010[Mitchell, Staff Writer, The Tyee News, OpinionThis Satellite Could Help Save Humanity, http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/01/20/DSCOVRSatellite/, BJM]

Let's start with perhaps the most widely distributed and misunderstood of the stolen emails, of October 12, 2009 from Dr. Keith Trenberth to Michael Mann,

which reads: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty

that we can't ." Out of more than a thousand emails dating back 13 years, this single sentence was

seized on by some commentators as evidence that decades of climate research by hundreds of scientists is instead a

global conspiracy. If you are going to put that much weight on a single email, you may as well finish reading it. Here's what Trenberth

says in the following sentence: "The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on

2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is

inadequate." Allow me to translate this dense jargon into English. CERES stands for Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System -- a five-satellite

network launched by NASA dating back to 1997 to monitor heat flow in the upper atmosphere. The story you haven't heard is that scientists can't get

the numbers to add up using existing climate satellites. After billions of research dollars spent and over a decade of trying, the

energy budget of planet as measured by CERES and other low-Earth orbit satellite systems is out of

whackby about six watts per square meter. That stubborn error in the satellite data is about six times larger than

what is scientifically possible, and several times larger than the effect scientists are trying to see, namely planetary warming

caused by continued massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere . While this is a very big deal, it does NOTremotely suggest that climate change is a hoax. For evidence of that, you don't need a satellite, you can look out your kitchen window. Sea ice is disappearing from the arctic so fast it could be gone forever inas little as 30 years. The Met Office predicts 2010 may be the hottest year on record and that this decade was the hottest ever "by far". Australia is currently enduring the hottest six months since record keepingbegan in the 1800s. What Trenberth is saying in this now infamous email is that it is a "travesty" that scientists cannot accurately measure from space what is plainly obvious here on Earth. More than that, he is

lamenting that our "observing system" is inadequate to be able to accurately balance the planet's energy budget. An ideal device for studying climate shift Dr. Trenberth is one of the

world's most respected climate researchers. To hear him directly explain this problem himself, have a look at this video. If you happento have a PhD in atmospheric physics (or just have trouble sleeping) you may also want to read his thorough research paper on the topic. It's not that the CERES

experiment is a bad project or staffed by incompetent people. But the fact of the matter is that our satellite systems have

failed to provide coherent data to explain the defining issue of the 21st century. This important but esoteric problem islargely unknown to the public, but widely acknowledged within the scientific community. So what's the problem with the data? In science, such unexplained phenomena are not a "problem" -- they are the mostinteresting things to look at. They reveal clues about things we don't yet fully understand, or hint that long-accepted methods of measurement need to be reassessed. Which brings us back to the limitations of

CERES and other low Earth orbit instruments.

These satellites are traveling at more than seven kilometers a second and seeour planet in thin strips as narrow as ten kilometers wide. Most take about 24 hours to get back

where they started. From this vantage it is like trying to map an elephant using a microscope. By the

time you look at the same spot twice, the Earth (and the elephant) is doing something else. There are far better

instruments for observing elephants: Binoculars. The long-mothballed DSCOVR spacecraft, still languishing in clean storage here on

Earth, is just such an instrument. Rather than seeing the planet from hundreds of kilometers away,

DSCOVR was designed to track our orbit around the Sun from 1.5 million kilometers away. From a

unique gravitational dimple called "L1", the spacecraft would continuously monitor the entire sunlit

disc of our planet, providing an entirely new way of collecting data on the Earth's energy budget.

This coincident data would compliment and calibrate more detailed measurements from CERES

and other satellites that observe the Earth from much closer. A galaxy of excuses Yet of the $160 billion given to

NASA from the U.S. taxpayer since DSCOVR was built in 2000, they have stubbornly maintained that launching this already

fully completed spacecraft is either too expensive or simply not important. For the record, the most inflated

estimate to launch and operate DSCOVR of $250 million would represent 0.15 per cent of that public largesse. In fact, the

true cost to NASA to operate DSCOVR for seven years is likely less than $50 million due to cost

sharing opportunities with other agencies, and use of cheaper launch vehicles such as a SpaceX rocket. The reasons for

NASA's apparent resistance to exploring new methods of Earth observation probably have more to

do with internal bureaucratic inertia than anything else. As they say, old dogs have a hard time learning new tricks and NASA

has being doing low Earth orbit for more than forty years. They recently committed a further $1 billion on a low Earth orbit

replacement to CERES called CLARREO that won't be launched until at least 2016. Whether or not this

experiment will finally make the numbers add up remains to be seen, and the results will not be

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/01/20/DSCOVRSatellite/http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/01/20/DSCOVRSatellite/


19/22

NEERAJWASHERE

known for another six years at the earliest. In the meantime, climate change proceeds apace, "skeptics"

make specious arguments using glaring errors in the satellite data, and DSCOVR dozes in its

storage box here on Earth waiting for 1/20th of the money required for a re-do the failed CERES

experiment. If there is a bright side to the sinister theft of thousands of emails just before the Copenhagen Conference, it is that we can now start to havea more intelligent conversation on the glaring discrepancies in our Earth observation instruments. NASA's wrong trajectory And let's not be too hard on NASA.After eight years of George Bush in the White House and billions diverted from worthwhile science towards inter-planetary photo ops like the manned missionto Mars, the space agency is understandably just now picking up the pieces. The fabulously expensive (and scientifically useless) International Space Stationwill also have funneled off $100 billion in scarce research dollars when it finally plunges into the ocean in 2016. These outside political pressures forced NASA

to drop so many Earth-observing missions that by 2006 leading scientists were warning our climate monitoring system was "at risk of collapse". Four yearslater, the public was granted a rare glimpse of the frustration within the scientific community in Trenberth's now famously misinterpreted message. Afraid ofanswers? What about the stolen emails and global conspiracy theories? I suggest a more plausible alternative: The next time the media encounters such anobvious stick being thrown for them, maybe they should instead chase the mysterious person doing the throwing. As for DSCOVR, it is interesting that anexperiment that could help resolve glaring uncertainties abound this century's defining issue has somehow never been launched. For some powerful interests far

beyond NASA, continued uncertainty can be a very valuable commodity. To quote a notorious leaked strategy document from Big Tobacco when they wereseeking to delay costly regulation of their dangerous industry in the 1960s: "doubt is our product." [Tyee]

C) Predictions are necessary to create plans to combat warmingpeople cant form

effective strategies if theyre trying to fix the wrong problem

Hamre 10 (John, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Earth Observation for Climate Change, June 2010,http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf )

Slowly, painfully,we are developing a new policy framework that we hope will enable our society to

cope with a changing climate. But currently we do not have in place the necess

Saswat's DSCOVR Aff

Documents

Transcript of Saswat's DSCOVR Aff