Forslund/Lazarevic Lab CNDI 2K8Warming False1NC Warming Frontline (1/1.Sats Most Accurate, Show No Warming—Their Data Tainted By Spotty Coverge, Errors, And Heat Islands**[1nc]
(President, Heartland Institute) 2/
[Joseph L., “Eight Reasons Why Global Warming Is a Scam,” .
Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings
of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming)
show no warming since readings began 23years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data fromweather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and thesestations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearbyurban development, and are subject to human error.
2.Any Warming Will Be At Night And In The North – Which Supercharges All Of Our Co2 Links, ReducesExtreme Weather, And Lengthens The Growing SeasonMOORE (Sr. Fellow, Hoover Institution) ‘97[Thomas Gale, Global Warming Opposing Viewpoints, pg. 96//cndi-ef]
A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temper atures at northern latitudes
, with less changenear the equator.
Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming, but it would mitigate harsh weather.
The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm atmosphere on the equator drives storms and muchof the earth’s climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and arctic lows will be diminished.
As a result of moreevaporation from the oceans, a warmer cli mate should intensify cloudiness. More cloud cover will moder ate daytime temperatures while acting at night as an insulating blanket to retain heat
.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found exactly this pattern to hold for the last 40 years, indeed for the whole of the twentieth century. For the Northern Hemisphere in summer months, daytime high temper-atures have actually fallen; but in the fall, winter, and spring, both the maximum and especially the minimum temperatures (night time) have climbed.
Warmer night-time temperatures,
particularly in the spring and fall,
create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricul tural productivity.
Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields inCanada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that
a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that theadded boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent
. Researchers have attributed a burgeoning of forests in Europeto the increased CO2 and the fertilizing effect of nitrogen oxides.
3.Warming Will Be Slow And Linear In The Status QuoMICHAELS IN ‘04(Patrick, res prof of env sci U of Virginia visiting sci w/ Marshall Inst past pres of the Am Assoc of State Climat &frmr program chair Committee on Applied Climat of Am Meteor Society, A.B. & S.M. biol sci & plant ecol U of Chicago, Ph.D. ecol climatology U of Wisc. contrib author & reviewer U N IPCC,
, ed. CATO Institute pg.19-20//cndi-ef)
Ditto for the climate mode
. Having established a greenhouse warming for several decades,
owing to the strong preference for warming of the cold dry air in Siberia and North America, we can simply take the observedwarming, which itself has been highly linear, and project it onto the other forecasts
. It becomes very clear that,unless the central tendency for linearity (funded by about $20 billion in climate science research over the years) is dead wrong, then
we already know the warming rate to avery small error. As a result, scientists know quite precisely how much the climate will warmin the policy-foreseeable future of 50 years, a modest three quarters of a degree
(°C) (1.4°F) (see Figure 2.7 in color insert).
NASA's James Hansen, whom many credit with lighting the fire over the greenhouse issu
e withhis incendiary 1988 congressional testimony
this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Future global warming can be predicted
than is generally realized . . .
we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of ¾°C ± 1/4°C
, a warming rate of 0.15°C ± 0.05°C per decade.
That warming rate is about four times less than the lurid topfigure widely trumpeted by the U
ations in its 2001 compendium on climate change and repeated ad infinitum in the press. Why wasn't it front-page news that the scientistwho was responsible for much of the global warming furor was now predicting, with high confidence, only a modest warming? Hansen went on to write in the following online journal Natural Science: Emphasis on extremescenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were rela- tively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate . . . scenariosconsistent with what is realistic under current conditions. With that remarkable statement, Hansen declared that scientists exaggerating to draw public attention to global warming was just fine.