* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download observed climate changes in georgia georgia temperature history
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Future sea level wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Georgia www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org ♦ (202) 288-5699 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS ...............................................................................3 OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES IN GEORGIA ..............................................................4 GEORGIA TEMPERATURE HISTORY ...........................................................................4 ANNUAL TEMPERATURES .....................................................................................4 SEASONAL TEMPERATURES ...................................................................................5 QUALITY OF TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS..............................................................5 GEORGIA MOISTURE HISTORY ................................................................................6 ANNUAL PRECIPITATION ......................................................................................6 DROUGHT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................7 SEA LEVEL RISE ...................................................................................................10 TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES ....................................................................12 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS .....................................................................................21 TEMPERATURE-RELATED MORTALITY ....................................................................21 “TROPICAL” DISEASE ........................................................................................24 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA ..............28 CLIMATE IMPACTS ...............................................................................................28 EXTENDING THE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS TO ALL 50 STATES .........................................31 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...........................................................................................33 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................35 2 SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS The observations we have detailed herein illustrate that climate variability from year-to-year and decade-to-decade plays a greater role in Georgia’s climate than any long-term trends. Such short-term variability will continue dominating Georgia’s climate into the future. At the century timescale, Georgia’s climate shows no statically significant trend in statewide average annual temperature, statewide total annual precipitation, or in the frequency and/or severity of droughts. In stead, observations show that the first part of the 20th century was warmer than the latter half — an indication that “global warming” is anything but “global” and also provides strong evidence that local and regional processes are more important than global ones in determining local climate and local climate variations and changes. The same is true for tropical cyclones impacting Georgia and the United States — there is a great degree of annual and decadal variability that can be traced long into the past, but no 20th century trends in frequency, intensity, or damage (when adjusted for demographic changes). Global sea levels are rising at a pace that is not dissimilar to that experienced and adapted to during the 20th century. And climate change is shown to have little, if any, detectable impacts on the overall health of Georgia’s population. Application of direct measures aimed at combating the negative impacts of heat waves and vector-borne diseases prove far and away to be the most efficient and effective methods at improving the public health. A cessation of all of Georgia’s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of no more than five thousandths of a degree Celsius. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible. A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from Georgia will result in a global sea-level rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.08 cm, or about three hundredths of an inch. Again, this value is climatically irrelevant. At the century timescale, Georgia’s climate shows no statically significant trend in statewide average annual temperature, statewide total annual precipitation, or in the frequency and/or severity of droughts. A cessation of all of Georgia’s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of no more than five thousandths of a degree Celsius. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible. A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from Georgia will result in a global sea-level rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.08 cm, or about three hundredths of an inch. Again, this value is climatically irrelevant. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about the economic impact of emissions regulations, which, for Georgia (and every other state) have been projected to be large and negative. As such, state and/or federal plans aimed at limiting the state’s greenhouse gas emissions presents a perfect recipe for an all pain, no gain outcome for Georgia’s citizens. 3 OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES IN GEORGIA GEORGIA TEMPERATURE HISTORY ANNUAL TEMPERATURES Averaged across the state of Georgia, the long-term annual temperature history shows that the first half of the 20 th century was, in general, much warmer than the most recent 50 year period. Obviously, “global warming” has not had much of an effect on the temperatures here as there has been an overall cooling tendency during the past 116 years. While it is often reported that globally the last 10 years were the hottest on record, the story is much different in Georgia where not a single one of the 10 hottest years on record statewide occurred during the past 10 years. Four of the state’s 10 all-time hottest years, including the hottest year on record, occurred during the 1920s—more than 75 years ago. Further, while only 13 of the most recent 50 years were above the long-term average, 38 of the first 50 years of the 20th century were warmer than average. Averaged across the state of Georgia, the long-term annual temperature history shows that the first half of the 20th century was, in general, much warmer than the most recent 50 year period. Obviously, “global warming” has not had much of an effect on the temperatures here as there has been an overall cooling tendency during the past 116 years. Four of the state’s 10 all-time hottest years, including the hottest year on record, occurred during the 1920s— more than 75 years ago. Georgia Annual Temperatures, 1895-2010 Figure 1. Georgia’s long-term statewide annual average temperature history, 1895-2010, as compiled and maintained by the National Climate Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ cag3/ga.html). 4 SEASONAL TEMPERATURES An examination of Georgia’s statewide temperature history within the four seasons, shows no evidence of any “global warming” throughout any portion of the year. Recent temperatures are generally unremarkable reflecting short-term variability and no long-term warming trends are present. In fact, within every season, the temperature trend from 1895-20010 is negative, indicating a general cooling tendency. Georgia Seasonal Temperatures, 1895-2010 Winter Spring Summer Fall Figure 2. Georgia’s long-term statewide average temperature history, 1895-2010, by season, as compiled and maintained by the National Climate Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ research/cag3/ga.html). QUALITY OF TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS When examining the temperature history of Georgia, it is important to recognize that the trends that appear in the long-term compiled temperature history of the state may not be purely the result of regional (or large-scale) climate change, but instead may be caused by nonclimatic influences on the local thermometers. Such influences may include changes in instrumentation, as well as changes in the local environment surrounding the thermometer location. That such changes have occurred that may impact the local temperature readings across the state has been documented in the report “Is the U.S. surface temperature record 5 reliable?” by researcher Anthony Watts. Watts provides examples of some of the poor siting of the various “official” thermometers around the state, illustrating issues that may call into question the accuracy of the state’s long-term temperature history (Figure 3). The surroundings of Georgia’s other “official” observing stations are detailed in the material contained in the pages of the website surfacestations.org (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php? g2_itemId=100). A scientific study by Pielke et al. (2007) also documents problems with longterm U.S. temperature datasets that may give rise to anomalously high rates of warming. Figure 3. Examples of poor situated “official” temperature recording stations in Georgia. The photograph shows the immediate surroundings of the thermometer and the graph below shows the temperature history from the observing location (source: Watts, 2009). GEORGIA MOISTURE HISTORY ANNUAL PRECIPITATION Averaged across the state of Georgia for each of the past 116 years, statewide annual total precipitation exhibits no longterm trend, averaging about 50 inches per year. Georgia’s annual precipitation is quite variable from year to year, and has varied from as much as 70.66 inches falling in 1964 and as little as 30.99 inches in 1954. Recent year’s totals show nothing unusual when compared to the observed historical record. Averaged across the state of Georgia for each of the past 116 years, statewide annual total precipitation exhibits no long-term trend, averaging about 50 inches per year. 6 Georgia Annual Precipitation, 1895-2010 Figure 4. Georgia’s statewide long-term annual precipitation history as compiled and maintained by the National Climate Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/ga.html). DROUGHT CONDITIONS As is evident from Georgia’s long-term observed precipitation history, there are oftentimes strings of dry years, for instance, in the mid-1950s. Several dry years in a row can lead to widespread drought conditions. However, as is also evident from Georgia’s precipitation history, there is no long-term trend in the total precipitation across the state. Consequently, neither has there been any long-term trend in drought conditions there (as indicated by the history of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)—a standard measure of moisture conditions that takes into account both inputs from precipitation and losses from evaporation). Instead of a long-term trend, the PDSI is dominated by shorter term variations which largely reflect the state’s precipitation variability. Droughts in the mid-1920s, mid-1950s and late 1990s-early 2000s mark the most significant events of the past century. 7 Figure 5. Georgia’s statewide long-term monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index values as compiled and maintained by the National Climate Data Center (http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisional Select.jsp). According to Dr. David Stooksbury, the Georgia State Climatologist, drought is a normal part of Georgia’s climate. In a recent article titled “Historical Droughts in Georgia and Drought Assessment and Management” Dr. Stooksbury wrote: According to Dr. David Stooksbury, the Georgia State Climatologist, drought is a normal part of Georgia’s climate. Drought is a normal component of the Southeastern US climate system. Many of Georgia’s native ecosystems depend on drought for health and survival. While drought is a natural component of the climate system, its negative impacts on the state’s environmental, economic, and social systems can be major. The droughts of the 1920s accelerated the mass migration of poor farmers from rural Georgia. Many rural counties reached their peak population in 1920 and have remained below the 1920 level since then. The period from the middle 1950s through the middle 1990s was relatively benign in climate history. During this period droughts were relatively infrequent and of short duration. However, the 1998-2002 drought was more in line with past Georgia climate patterns. Since the 1998-2002 drought is more indicative of the climate record than the 1956-1997 period, planners need to use long-term records for proper planning. 8 In other words, recent drought conditions appear unusual only when consulting a short record. For instance, on the whole, the past several decades prior to 1998 were relatively drought free in Georgia. Examining a longer term record, however, shows that extended drought conditions are not unusual, and places recent drought conditions in their proper climate context. Thus, there is no evidence of any recent behavior that is out of the ordinary within the long-term perspective. This fact can be further evidenced by examining an even longer-term record of moisture conditions in Georgia. Using information contained in tree rings, Dr. Edward Cook and colleagues were able to reconstruct a summertime PDSI record for central Georgia that extends back in time more than 1500 years. That paleoclimate record of moisture indicates that alternating multi-decadal periods of wet and dry conditions have occurred with regularity during the past 1500 years, emphasizing the point made by the Georgia State Climatologist, that droughts are a normal part of the region’s climate system. Figure 6. The reconstructed summer (June, July, August) Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for central Georgia from 400 A.D. to 2003 A.D. depicted as a 20-yr running mean. (National Climate Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html). 9 SEA LEVEL RISE Over the course of the past 50 years or so, Georgia’s coastline has experienced a relative sea-level rise of around six inches. This is the same order of magnitude as the one that is forecast to occur during the next 50 years. The relative sea level along the Georgia coast has changed due to a combination of the land slightly sinking and the ocean slightly rising. The relative sea level along the Georgia coast has changed due to a combination of the land slightly sinking and the ocean slightly rising (Aubrey and Emery, 1991; Wöpplemann et al., 2007). Georgia’s coastal residents have successfully adapted to this change, as the unprecedented high (and growing) population of coastal Georgia attests. From 1970 to 2000, the population of Georgia’s 10 coastal counties grew by 62%, increasing from 342,750 residents to 558,350. Projections for the coming decades, produced by the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development at the Georgia Institute of Technology, project that the coastal population will increase by another 51% reaching a total of 844,161 people by the year 2030. Georgia's Coastal Population 900000 Population 800000 700000 1970 600000 1980 500000 1990 400000 300000 2000 200000 2030 2015 100000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2015 2030 Year Figure 7. Georgia’s coastal population from census figures (blue bars) and from future projections (red bars). Data from Georgia Coast 2030, 2006. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) on climate change published by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the potential sea level rise over the course of the 21st century lies between 7 and 23 inches, depending of the total amount of 10 global warming that occurs. The IPCC links a lower sea level rise with lower future warming. The established warming rate of the earth is 0.17ºC per decade, which is near the low end of the IPCC range of projected warming for the 21st century of from 0.11 to 0.64ºC per decade. Therefore, since we observe that the warming rate is tracking near the low end of the IPCC projections, we should also expect that the rate of sea level rise should track near the low end of the range given by the IPCC—in this case, a future rise much closer to 7 inches than to 23 inches. Thus, the reasonably expected rate of sea level rise in the coming decades is not much different from the rate of sea level rise that Georgia’s coastlines have adapted to for more than a century. Figure 8. Range of sea level rise projections (and their individual components) for the year 2100 made by the IPCC AR4 for its six primary emissions scenarios. There are a few eccentric individuals who argue that sea level rise will accelerate precipitously in the future and raise the level of world oceans to such a degree that they inundates low-lying areas along the Georgia coast and other low-lying areas around the world, clamoring that the IPCC was far too conservative in its projections. However, these rather alarmist views are not based upon the most reliable scientific information, ignoring what our best understanding of how a warmer world might impact ice loss/gain on Greenland and Antarctica and correspondingly, global sea level. All of the extant models of the future of Antarctica indicate that a warmer climate leads to more snowfall there (the majority of which remains for hundreds to thousands of years because it is so cold), acting to slow the rate of global sea level rise (because the water remains trapped in ice and snow). New data suggest that the risk of rapid ice loss from increased glacial flow in Greenland is low (e.g., Sundal et al., 2011). Scenarios of disastrous rises in sea level are predicated on Antarctica and Greenland losing 11 massive amounts of snow and ice in a very short period of time—an occurrence with a likelihood of zero. An author of the IPCC AR4 chapter dealing with sea level rise projections, Dr. Richard Alley, recently testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology concerning the state of scientific knowledge of accelerating sea level rise and pressure to exaggerate what it known about it: This document [the IPCC AR4] works very, very hard to be an assessment of what is known scientifically and what is well-founded in the refereed literature and when we come up to that cliff and look over and say we don’t have a foundation right now, we have to tell you that, and on this particular issue, the trend of acceleration of this flow with warming we don’t have a good assessed scientific foundation right now. [Emphasis added.] Thus the IPCC projections of future sea level rise, which average only about 15 inches for the next 100 years, stand as the best projections that can be made based upon our current level of scientific understanding.1 These projections are far less severe that the alarming projections of many feet of sea level rise that have been made by a few individuals whose views lie outside of the scientific consensus. TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES Despite the recent increase in hurricane frequency and intensity in the Atlantic Ocean, only one hurricane has made landfall on Georgia’s coast in the past 50 years and it has been more than a century since the last major (category 3, 4, or 5) hurricane hit Georgia. Only one hurricane has made landfall on Georgia’s coast in the past 50 years and it has been more than a century since the last major (category 3, 4, or 5) hurricane hit Georgia. Thanks largely to its geographic positioning; Georgia’s coastline is among the least likely places for hurricanes to make landfall along the U.S. coast from Brownsville, Texas to the Chesapeake Bay. Data from the National Hurricane Center indicates that the average time between hurricane passages (hurricanes passing within 86 miles of the coast) ranges from about 11 years at the southern portion of coastal Georgia to about 14 years along its northern part. The average time between direct hurricane landfalls is even less. Consider that in the 111 years between 1900 and 2010, only 4 hurricanes made landfall in Georgia (the last being Hurricane David in 1979). 1 Additional information and a literature survey on potential rates of future sea level rise can be found in the article “The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature” which is available from the Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/the_role_of_ greenland_in_sea_level_rise_a_summary_of_the_current_literature.html). 12 Figure 9. Return period (in years) of a category 1 hurricane making landfall at various locations along the southeast coast. (National Hurricane Center, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/returns.html). But this is not to say that Georgia is immune from the impacts of hurricanes and tropical storms. Quite the contrary. Between 1881 and 1898 three strong hurricanes made landfall in Georgia and two of them rank among the top-10 deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. On August 27, 1881 a strong category 2 storm made landfall just south of Savannah, at Ossabaw Island, and killed between 300 and 700 people and on August 27-28, 1893, a category 3 storm – the “Sea Islands Hurricane” – made landfall just south of Tybee Island, directly to the east of Savannah and killed up to 2,500 people along the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, ranking it as the 5th deadliest hurricane ever to strike the United States. And even if the state is not subject to a direct hurricane landfall, tropical cyclones can wreak havoc. For instance, in 1994 tropical storm Alberto came ashore along the Florida panhandle, but stalled in its passage over Georgia, dumping 27.61 inches of rain on the town of Americus (21.10 inches of which fell in a 24-hr period setting the state’s all-time 24-hr rainfall record). The flooding that resulted from the widespread torrential rains resulted in 33 deaths and $500 million in damages. Just over a year later, the remnants of Hurricane Opal traversed the state and the associated high winds, heavy rains, and tornadoes killed 14 people and 50 counties were declared major disaster areas. 13 THE TERRIBLE STORM OF 1893 http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=80160. “On August 27, 1893, a ferocious storm was approaching the coast of Georgia. Storm warnings were up but the storm was much stronger that what could have ever been imagined. The people of Tybee battened down the hatches and prepared for "Another one" as hurricanes were a semi common storm during this period. But the storm proved to be too much for many of the people on the islands that day as winds continued to accelerate to beyond 100 mph then 120 and perhaps gusting even up to 150 mph! “For those who stayed, their worse fears became reality. As the eye of the storm moved overhead, the winds suddenly died and a period of tranquility existed on the island. The residents being "Storm-wise" knew that the winds would hit again and at the same force except from the opposite direction very shortly. They also knew of a terrible storm surge that was now just moments away. This would be an awful wall of water like a 20 foot tide crashing onshore in less than 30 minutes with waves of 20-25 feet on top of it! The ferocious winds earlier had already greatly weakened their homes; they knew there was not much chance of surviving in them. Their only chance for survival would be to climb the tallest trees and tie themselves in and hope and pray that they would be above the water and not be blown away. They eye of the storm went right over Tybee and into South Carolina bringing in that expected storm surge and it inundated all land east of the Wilmington river. When it was all over, more than 2,000 persons died in that storm from Savannah northward to Charleston, many washed out to sea.” So, despite its rather sheltered shoreline, Georgia is still quite susceptible to devastating impacts from tropical storms and hurricanes. Therefore, any changes in the frequency, intensity, or preferred tracks of Atlantic tropical cyclones may be of particular interest to Georgia’s coastal and inland residents, alike. Since 1995 there has been an increase in both the frequency and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin at large. While some scientists have attempted to link this increase to anthropogenic global warming, others have pointed out that Atlantic hurricanes exhibit natural, long-term cycles, and that this latest upswing is simply a return to conditions that characterized earlier decades in the 20th century. 14 One recent research group has gone even further, and provides evidence that cycles of hurricanes impacting Georgia can be traced back several centuries. Dana Miller and colleagues recently published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they describe their research efforts in using chemical tracers stored in tree rings collected near Valsota, Georgia to determine when hurricanes passed nearby. The authors explain how the isotopic make-up of tropical cyclone precipitation differs from that of other types of precipitation that falls at Valdosta. This chemical marker of the precipitation is stored in the annual growth rings of longleaf pine trees growing in the region and careful analysis of the chemical make-up of the wood within each ring provides an indication as to whether tropical cyclone precipitation fell that year in the study location. Using this technique applied to tree rings records extending back to the late 18 th century, the researchers find indications of tropical cyclone passages that tend to occur in clumps, indicating alternations between active and inactive periods. Miller’s team writes that the proxy record “shows close agreement with instrumental records that the 1950 decade was the busiest for hurricane activity in the 20th century. The proxy record further supports historical records that suggest significant tropical cyclone activity for the southeastern United States between 1865–1880. The isotope proxy detects six storms in the 1870 decade, although only one (1871; the largest 1870 decade anomaly) appears to have made direct landfall on the Georgia coast. Other decades of apparent activity include the 1840 and 1850 decades, 1800–1820 decades, and 1770s decade. Periods of relative quiescence in Georgia appear to be the 1781–1805 (except 1793 and 1795) and the 1970 decade.” They go on to describe ‘‘Great Hurricanes’’ of 1780, 1847, and 1857. Furthermore, they note that “Over the period 1855–1940, the isotope proxy indicates 22 years with tropical cyclones, 21 of which are reported in the historical record to have affected the general study area. For the period 1770–1855, the proxy suggests many more years (25 years) affected by one (or more) tropical cyclones.” There were 2.9 storms per decade from 17701885 but only 2.5 storms per decade from 1855-1940. 15 Figure 10. Tree ring record of tropical cyclone passages near Valdosta, Georgia, 1770-1990 (from Miller et al., 2006). There are many lessons from this tropical cyclone reconstruction. First, it is obvious that large hurricanes have impacted southern Georgia throughout the past 220 years, and some of the storms were larger than any storm in recent years. But more importantly, the record shows that some periods are active, others are quiet, and that this has been the case for a long time into the past (i.e. prior to any large-scale anthropogenic climate influences). This means that there is now more reason to believe that variations during the 20th century in the frequency and intensity of Atlantic tropical cyclones are very likely to have a significant natural component to them. 16 And based upon the statistics from natural variations alone, Georgia is long overdue for a And based upon the statistics direct strike from a major hurricane as it is from natural variations alone, been more than a century since the last one Georgia is long overdue for a directly struck the state. And when the next major hurricane does hit Georgia, it will direct strike from a major encounter a state whose population hurricane as it is been more demographics, as evidenced by the large than a century since the last influx of people to the state’s coastal counties, one directly struck the state. have changed enormously since the last major storm impact. A direct strike from a major hurricane (or any hurricane for that matter) will likely lead to significantly more damage and destruction now that it did in the past. While this gives the impression that storms are getting worse, in fact, it simply may be that there are a greater number of assets that lie in their path. New research by a team of researchers led by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (2008) sheds some light on how population changes underlay hurricane damage statistics. Dr. Pielke’s research team examined the historical damage amounts from tropical cyclones in the United States from 1900 to 2005. What they found when they adjusted the reported damage estimates only for inflation was a trend towards increased amounts of loss, peaking in the years 2004 and 2005, which include Hurricane Katrina as the record holder for the most costliest storm, causing 81 billion dollars in damage. Figure 11. U.S. tropical cyclone damage (in 2005 dollars) when adjusted for inflation, 1900-2005 (from Pielke Jr., et al., 2008). 17 However, many changes have occurred in hurricane prone areas since 1900 besides inflation. These changes include a coastal population that is growing in size as well as wealth. When the Pielke Jr. team made adjustments considering all three factors, they found no long-term change in damage amounts. And, in fact, the loss estimates in 2004 and 2005, while high, were not historically high. The new record holder, for what would have been the most damaging storm in history had it hit in 2009, was the Great Miami hurricane of 1926, which they estimated would have caused 180 billion dollars worth of damage. In fact, the combination of the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes places the damages in 1926-35 more than 10% higher than 2000-2009, the last decade Pielke Jr. and colleagues studied. Figure 12. U.S. tropical cyclone damage (in 2009 dollars) when adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth, 1900-2009 (updated from Pielke Jr., et al., 2008) This result by the Pielke Jr. team, that there has not been any long-term increase in tropical cyclone damage in the United States, is consistent with other science concerning the history of Atlantic hurricanes. One of Dr. Pielke co-authors, Dr. Chris Landsea, from the National Hurricane Center, has also found no trends in hurricane frequency or intensity when they strike the U.S. While there has been an increase in the number of strong storms in the past decade, there were also a similar number of major hurricanes in the 1940s and 1950s, long before such activity could be attributed to global warming. 18 As Pielke writes, “The lack of trend in twentieth century hurricane losses is consistent with what would expect to find given the lack of trends in hurricane frequency or intensity at landfall.” Even in the absence of any long-term trends in hurricane landfalls along the Georgia or the U.S. coast, or damage to U.S. coastlines when population demographics are taken into account, the impact from a single storm can be enormous as residents of Georgia know well. The massive build-up of the coastline has vastly raised the potential damage that a storm can inflict. Recently, a collection of some of the world’s leading hurricane researchers issued the following statement that reflects the current thinking on hurricanes and their potential impact (http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Hurricane_ threat.htm): As the Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the possible influence of climate change on hurricane activity is receiving renewed attention. While the debate on this issue is of considerable scientific and societal interest and concern, it should in no event detract from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions. These demographic trends are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters, especially in this era of heightened activity. Scores of scientists and engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climate change was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was (and is) inevitable even in a stable climate. Rapidly escalating hurricane damage in recent decades owes much to government policies that serve to subsidize risk. State regulation of insurance is captive to political pressures that hold down premiums in risky coastal areas at the expense of higher premiums in less risky places. Federal flood insurance programs likewise undercharge property owners in vulnerable areas. Federal disaster policies, while providing obvious humanitarian benefits, also serve to promote risky behavior in the long run. We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much of the current controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. But the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention. We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes. However, all impacts from tropical cyclones in Georgia are not negative. In fact, precipitation that originates from tropical systems and that eventually falls over the state of Georgia proves often to be quite beneficial to the state’s 8 All impacts from tropical cyclones in Georgia are not negative. In fact, precipitation that originates from tropical systems and that eventually falls over the state of Georgia proves often to be quite beneficial to the state’s 8 billion dollar/year agriculture industry. 19 billion dollar/year agriculture industry. The late summer months is the time during the year when, climatologically, the precipitation deficit is the greatest and crops and other plants are the most moisture stressed. A passing tropical cyclone often brings much needed precipitation over large portions of the state during these late summer months. In fact, recent research shows that Georgia, on average, receives almost 20 percent of its normal September precipitation, and about 9 to12 percent of its total June through November precipitation from passing tropical systems. And since about three-quarters of Georgia’s field crops such as corn, wheat, cotton, and soybeans are grown under non-irrigated conditions, widespread rainfall from a tropical cyclone becomes almost an expected and relied upon late summer moisture source. Figure 13. Percentage of June through November precipitation that comes from tropical systems (Knight et al., 2007). 20 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS TEMPERATURE-RELATED MORTALITY A number of studies have shown that during the several decades, the population in major U.S. cities has grown better adapted, and thus less sensitive, to the effects of excessive heat events (Davis et al., 2003ab). Each of the bars of the illustration below represents the annual number of heat-related deaths in 28 major cities across the United States. There should be three bars for each city, representing, from left to right, the decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990. For nearly all cities, the number of heat-related deaths is declining (the bars are get smaller), and in many cities in the southeastern United States, there is no bar at all in the 1990s, indicating that there were no statistically distinguishable heat-related deaths during that decade (the most recent one studied). In other words, the population of those cities has become nearly completely adapted to heat waves. Figure 14. Annual average excess summer mortality due to high temperatures, broken down by decade, for 28 major cities across the United States. For each city each of the three bars represents the average mortality during successive decades (left bar 1964-66 + 1973-79; middle bar 1980-89, right bar 1990-98). Bars of different color indicate a statistically significant difference. No bar at all means that no temperature/ mortality relationship could be found during that decade/city combination (taken from Davis et al., 2003b). 21 This adaptation is most likely a result of improvements in medical technology, access to air-conditioned homes, cars, and offices, increased public awareness of potentially dangerous weather situations, and proactive responses of municipalities during extreme weather events. A notable exception to this pattern of declining sensitivity to heat waves is found in Atlanta, Georgia. In Atlanta, there seems to have been little difference in the mortality rate from extreme heat events from the 1960s to the 1990s. In Atlanta, there seems to have been little difference in the mortality rate from extreme heat events from the 1960s to the 1990s. The actual reason behind this anomalous behavior is presently unclear. However, it most likely represents some rather unique situation that is local to the city of Atlanta. As other surrounding cities all have become better adapted to the occurrence of high temperature events, even in light of the rising temperature which accompany landscape changes associated with urban and suburban growth. Atlanta’s lack of adaptation perhaps suggests that more proactive measures need to be developed in the Atlanta metropolitan area—improved watch/warning systems, more available cooling centers, etc.—to make the public better aware of the threats that can accompany heat waves. As the period of record in the Davis et al. (2003b) study ended in 1998, it is possible that in the intervening years, Atlanta has improved its measures to respond to high temperature events, if not, perhaps this situation presents an opportunity for steps that can readily be taken to improve the city’s response to heat waves, to better prepare themselves not only for any future climate warming, but simply for the extremes of summertime temperatures that are natural to the climate of Georgia. In general, the overall pattern of the distribution of heat-related mortality shows in cities across the United States indicates that in locations where extremely high temperatures are more commonplace, such as along the southern tier states, the prevalence of heat-related mortality is much lower than in the regions of the country where extremely high temperatures are somewhat rarer (e.g. the northeastern U.S.). This provides another demonstration that populations adapt to their prevailing climate conditions. If temperatures warm in the future and excessive heat events become more common, there is every reason to expect that adaptations will take place to lessen their impact on the general population. In a subsequent study, Davis et al. (2004) focused not just on summertime heat/mortality relationships, but looked across all months of the year. Davis et al. (2004) found that, in Atlanta, like in most cities across the United States, higher temperatures in the months of July and August were often associated with increased mortality, but that in the most other months, the association ran in the opposite direction, that is, cooler temperatures were associated with mortality increases. 22 Relationship between Monthly Average Temperature and Monthly Average Mortality for Atlanta, Georgia Figure 15. Relationship between average monthly temperature and total monthly mortality in Atlanta. Positive bars mean high temperatures lead to higher mortality, while negative bars mean lower temperatures lead to high mortality. Only the bars shaded in black represent statistically significant relationships (from Davis et al., 2004). The figure above (taken from Davis et al., 2004) illustrates this pattern of temperature/ mortality relationships for Atlanta. Negative bars indicate a negative relationship between temperature and mortality, that is, the colder it is, the more people die and vice versa for warmer than average conditions (i.e., the warmer it is, the fewer people die). Solid bars mean the relationship is statistically significant. Positive bar indicate positive relationships between temperature and mortality, that is more people die when it is hotter than normal, and few die when it is below normal. For the most part, Atlanta exhibits more negative bars than positive ones, with the cold season months showing negative relationships and a couple months in summer showing weak positive relationships. Taken together, this indicates that if the future was marked by a warming climate, especially one in which winters warmed a greater degree than summers (in character, matching the pattern of warming that has been observed in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 50 years or so), that this would result in fewer temperaturerelated deaths in Atlanta and probably throughout Georgia. All told, however, the total annual number of direct weather-related deaths, whether as a result of cold or warm conditions, is quite small compared to the annual overall mortality. For instance, in general, in the United States, the annual mortality rate is a bit less than 1% per year, meaning that about 8,000 to 9,000 people die each year out of every million persons. In Atlanta, the net effect of the weather in a typical year is about 1,000 times less, or fewer than ±10 deaths per million people. So, despite proclamations to the contrary, the weather and climate have only an exceedingly small impact on overall mortality when the population at large is considered. This is true now and will remain true into the future, no matter how the climate evolves. 23 “TROPICAL” DISEASE Tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever have been erroneously predicted to spread due to global warming. In fact, they are related less to climate than to living conditions. These diseases are best controlled by direct application of sound, known public health policies. Tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever have been erroneously predicted to spread due to global warming. The two tropical diseases most commonly cited as spreading as a result of global warming, malaria and dengue fever, are not in fact “tropical” at all and thus are not as closely linked to climate as many people suggest. For example, malaria epidemics occurred as far north as Archangel, Russia, in the 1920s, and in the Netherlands. Malaria was common in most of the United States prior to the 1950s (Reiter, 1996). In fact, in the late 1800s, a period when it was demonstrably colder in the United States than it is today, malaria was endemic in most of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains—a region stretching from the Gulf Coast all the way up into Northern Minnesota—including the southern half of Georgia. In 1878, about 100,000 Americans were infected with malaria; about onequarter of them died. By 1912, malaria was already being brought under control, yet persisted in the southeastern United States well into the 1940s. Malaria Distribution in the United States Figure 16. Shaded regions indicate locations where malaria was endemic in the United States (from Zucker et al., 1996). In fact, in 1946 the Congress created the Communicable Disease Center (the forerunner to the current U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for the purpose of eradicating malaria from the regions of the U.S. where it continued to persist. The CDC was located in Atlanta, Georgia primarily because this region was the primary one which was still affected by the disease. By the mid-to-late 1950s, the Center had achieved its goal and malaria was effectively eradicated from the United States. This occurred not because of climate change, but because of 24 technological and medical advances. Better anti-malaria drugs, air-conditioning, the use of screen doors and windows, and the elimination of urban overpopulation brought about by the development of suburbs and automobile commuting were largely responsible for the decline in malaria (Reiter, 1996; Reiter, 2001). Today, the mosquitoes that spread malaria are still widely present in the Unites States, but the transmission cycle has been disrupted and the pathogen leading to the disease is absent. Climate change is not involved. Figure 17. Mortality rate in the United States from malaria (deaths per 100,000) from 1900 to 1949, when it was effectively eradicated from the country. (Figure from http://www.healthsentinel.com/ graphs.php?id=4&event=graphcats_print_list_item). The effect of technology is also clear from statistics on dengue fever outbreaks, another mosquito-borne disease. In 1995, a dengue pandemic hit the Caribbean and Mexico. More than 2,000 cases were reported in the Mexican border town of Reynosa. But in the town of Hidalgo, Texas, located just across the river, there were only seven reported cases of the disease (Reiter, 1996). This is just not an isolated example, for data collected over the past several decades has shown a similarly large disparity between the high number of cases of the disease in northern Mexico and the rare occurrences in the southwestern United States (Reiter, 2001). There is virtually no difference in climate between these two locations, but a world of difference in infrastructure, wealth, and technology—city layout, population density, building structure, window screens, air-conditioning and personal behavior are all factors that play a large role in the transmission rates (Reiter, 2001). 25 Dengue Fever at the Texas/Mexico Border from 1980 to 1999 Figure 18. Number of cases of Dengue Fever at the Texas/Mexico border from 1980 to 1999. During these 20 years, there were 64 cases reported in all of Texas, while there were nearly 1,000 times that amount in the bordering states of Mexico. (figure from Reiter, 2001). Another “tropical” disease that is often (falsely) linked to climate change is the West Nile Virus. The claim is often made that a warming climate is allowing the mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus to spread into Georgia. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Another “tropical” disease that is often (falsely) linked to climate change is the West Nile Virus. West Nile Virus was introduced to the United States through the port of New York City in the summer of 1999. Since its introduction, it has spread rapidly across the country, reaching Georgia by 2001 and the West Coast a year later and has now been documented in every state as well as most provinces of Canada. This is not a sign that the U.S. and Canada are progressively warming. Rather, it is a sign that the existing environment is naturally primed for the virus. 26 Spread of the West Nile Virus across the United States after its Introduction in New York City in 1999 1999 2002 2005 2000 2003 2006 2001 2004 2007 Figure 19. Spread of the occurrence of the West Nile Virus from its introduction to the United States in 1999 through 2007. By 2003, virtually every state in the country had reported the presence of virus. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/Mapsactivity/surv&control07Maps.htm). The vector for West Nile is mosquitoes; wherever there is a suitable host mosquito population, an outpost for West Nile virus can be established. And it is not just one mosquito species that is involved. Instead, the disease has been isolated in over 40 mosquito species found throughout the United States. So the simplistic argument that climate change is allowing a West Nile carrying mosquito species to move into Georgia is simply wrong. The already-resident mosquito populations of Georgia are appropriate hosts for the West Nile virus—as they are in every other state. Clearly, as is evident from the establishment of West Nile virus in every state in the contiguous U.S., climate has little, or nothing, to do with its spread. The annual average temperature from the southern part of the United States to the northern part spans a range of more than 40ºF, so clearly the virus exists in vastly different climates. In fact, West Nile virus was introduced in New York City—hardly the warmest portion of the country—and has spread westward and southward into both warmer and colder and wetter and drier climates. This didn’t happen because climate changes allowed its spread, but because the virus was introduced to a place 27 that was ripe for its existence—basically any location with a resident mosquito population (which describes basically anywhere in the U.S). Since the disease spreads in a wide range of both temperature and climatic regimes, one could raise or lower the average annual temperature in Georgia by many degrees or vastly change the precipitation regime and not make a bit of difference in the aggression of the West Nile Virus. West Nile virus now exists in Georgia because the extant climate/ecology of Georgia is one in which the virus can thrive. The reason that it was not found in the state in the past was simply because it had not been introduced. Climate change in Georgia has absolutely nothing to do with it. By following the virus’ progression from 1999 through 2007, one clearly sees that the virus spread from NYC southward and westward, it did not invade slowly from the (warmer) south, as one would have expected if warmer temperatures were the driver. Since the disease spreads in a wide range of both temperature and climatic regimes, one could raise or lower the average annual temperature in Georgia by many degrees or vastly change the precipitation regime and not make a bit of difference in the aggression of the West Nile Virus. Science-challenged claims to the contrary are not only ignorant but also dangerous, serving to distract from real epidemiological diagnosis which allows health officials critical information for protecting the citizens of Georgia. IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA CLIMATE IMPACTS Globally, in 2008, humankind emitted 30,314 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (mmtCO 2: EIA, 2011a), of which emissions from Georgia accounted for 174.5 mmtCO2, or a mere 0.58% (EIA, 2011b). The proportion of manmade CO2 emissions from Georgia will decrease over the 21st century as the rapid demand for power in developing countries such as China and India rapidly outpaces the growth of Georgia’s CO2 emissions (EIA, 2010). During the past 10 years, global emissions of CO2 from human activity have increased at an average rate of 2.8%/yr (EIA, 2011a), meaning that the annual increase of anthropogenic global CO2 emissions is about 5 times greater than Georgia’s total emissions. This means that even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Georgia will be completely subsumed by global emissions growth within 2-3 month’s time! In fact, China alone adds about 2.5 Georgia’s-worth of new emissions to its annual emissions total each and every year. Clearly, given the magnitude of the global emissions and global emission growth, regulations prescribing a reduction, or even a complete cessation, of Georgia’s CO2 emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate. This means that even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Georgia will be completely subsumed by global emissions growth within 2-3 month’s time! 28 Wigley (1998) examined the climate impact of adherence to the emissions controls agreed under the Kyoto Protocol by participating nations, and found that, if all developed countries meet their commitments in 2010 and maintain them through 2100, with a mid-range sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in CO2, the amount of warming “saved” by the Kyoto Protocol would be 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. The global sea level rise “saved” would be 2.6 cm, or one inch. Even a complete cessation of CO2 emissions in Georgia is only a tiny fraction of the worldwide reductions assumed in Dr. Wigley’s global analysis, so its impact on future trends in global temperature and sea level will be only a minuscule fraction of the negligible effects calculated by Dr. Wigley. To demonstrate the futility of emissions regulations in Georgia, we apply Dr. Wigley’s methodology to the state of Georgia, assuming that the ratio of U.S. CO2 emissions to those of the developed countries which have agreed to limits under the Kyoto Protocol remains constant at 39% throughout the 21st century. We also assume that developing countries such as China and India continue to emit at an increasing rate. Consequently, the annual proportion of global CO2 emissions from human activity that is contributed by human activity in the United States will decline. Finally, we assume that the proportion of total U.S. CO2 emissions in Georgia – now 3.0% – remains constant throughout the 21st century. With these assumptions, we generate the following table derived from Wigley’s (1998) mid-range emissions scenario (which itself is based upon the IPCC’s scenario “IS92a”): Table 1 Projected Annual CO2 Emissions (mmtCO2) Year 2000 2025 2050 2100 Global emissions: Wigley, 1998 26,609 41,276 50,809 75,376 Developed countries: Wigley, 1998 14,934 18,308 18,308 21,534 U.S. (39% of developed countries) 5,795 7,103 7,103 8,355 Georgia (3.0% of U.S.) 174 213 213 251 Note: Developed countries’ emissions, according to Wigley’s assumptions, do not change between 2025 and 2050: neither does total U.S or Georgia emissions. In Table 2, we compare the total CO2 emissions saving that would result if Georgia’s CO2 emissions were completely halted by 2025 with the emissions savings assumed by Wigley (1998) if all nations met their Kyoto commitments by 2010, and then held their emissions constant throughout the rest of the century. This scenario is “Kyoto Const.” Table 2 Projected Annual CO2 Emissions Savings (mmtCO2) Year 2000 2025 2050 2100 Georgia 0 213 213 251 Kyoto Const. 0 4,697 4,697 7,924 29 Table 3 shows the proportion of the total emissions reductions in Wigley’s (1998) case that would be contributed by a complete halt of all Georgia’s CO2 emissions (calculated as column 2 in Table 2 divided by column 3 in Table 2). Table 3 Georgia’s Percentage of Emissions Savings Year 2000 2025 2050 2100 Georgia 0.0% 4.5% 4.5% 3.2% Using the percentages in Table 3, and assuming that temperature change scales in proportion to CO2 emissions, we calculate the global temperature savings that will result from the complete cessation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Georgia: Table 4 Projected Global Temperature Savings (ºC) Year 2000 2025 2050 2100 Kyoto Const. 0 0.03 0.07 0.15 Georgia 0 0.001 0.003 0.005 A cessation of all of Georgia’s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant and undetectable global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of about five thousandths of a degree Celsius. This number is so low that it is equivalent to zero. Accordingly, a cessation of all of Georgia’s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant and undetectable global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of about five thousandths of a degree Celsius. This number is so low that it is equivalent to zero. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible: Table 5 Projected Global Sea-Level Rise Savings (cm) Year 2000 2025 2050 2100 Kyoto Const. 0 0.2 0.9 2.6 Georgia 0 0.009 0.041 0.083 30 A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from Georgia will result in a global sealevel rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.08 cm, or about three hundredths of an inch. Again, this value is climatically irrelevant and virtually zero. Even if the entire United States were to close down its economies completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China and India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade. In this context, any cuts in emissions from Georgia would be extravagantly pointless. Georgia’s carbon dioxide emissions, in their sum total, effectively do not impact world climate in any way whatsoever. EXTENDING THE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS TO ALL 50 STATES Following a similar procedure (as outline above), these results can be extended to all 50 states and to the U.S. as a whole. The results of such an extension are presented in Table 6. In perusing the contents of Table 6, several key points, become immediately identifiable: • If the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction, or a “savings”, of approximately 0.11°C by the year 2050 and 0.16°C by the year 2100— amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible. • The impact of a complete and immediate cessation of all CO2 emissions from the U.S. on projections of future sea level rise would be similarly small—a reduction of the projected sea level rise of only 1.4cm by 2050 and 2.7cm (slightly more than one inch) by the year 2100. • The current growth rate in CO2 emissions from other countries of the world will quickly subsume any reductions in U.S. CO2 emissions. Based on trends in CO2 emissions growth over the past decade, global growth will completely replace any elimination of all CO2 emissions from the U.S. in just 7 years, while growth in emissions from China alone will replace an elimination of all U.S. emissions in just 12 years. Subsuming a reduction (rather than a complete cessation) of U.S. emissions will occur even more quickly. • As the CO2 emissions from individual states are considerably less than the U.S. total, so too are the potential “savings” of global warming and sea level rise that any individual state can expect through reducing or even completely eliminating all CO2 emissions originating from within its borders. The current growth rate in CO2 emissions from other countries of the world will quickly subsume any reductions in U.S. CO2 emissions. 31 Table 6 Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions (for 2008) and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise State AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY U.S. Total 2008 Emissions (million metric tons CO2) Percentage of Global Total 39.4 139.1 64.8 103.0 392.3 97.5 38.1 2.3 16.4 240.4 174.4 19.7 88.1 15.6 241.7 232.0 77.3 154.9 174.8 75.5 74.4 18.8 176.2 103.8 137.8 63.7 36.0 150.1 53.0 46.2 18.9 127.8 57.6 41.0 190.9 262.3 112.1 43.0 265.1 10.7 86.0 14.9 120.1 622.7 69.9 118.4 6.1 79.4 105.9 112.9 66.9 0.13 0.46 0.21 0.34 1.29 0.32 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.79 0.58 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.80 0.77 0.26 0.51 0.58 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.58 0.34 0.45 0.21 0.12 0.50 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.42 0.19 0.14 0.63 0.87 0.37 0.14 0.87 0.04 0.28 0.05 0.40 2.05 0.23 0.39 0.02 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.22 5,814.4 19.18 Time until Total Emissions Cessation Subsumed by Foreign Growth (days) Global Growth 17 59 28 44 167 42 16 1 7 102 74 8 38 7 103 99 33 66 74 32 32 8 75 44 59 27 15 64 23 20 8 54 25 17 81 112 48 18 113 5 37 6 51 265 30 50 3 34 45 48 28 2476.58 (6.8 yrs) China Growth 31 108 50 80 304 76 30 2 13 186 135 15 68 12 187 180 60 120 135 58 58 15 136 80 107 49 28 116 41 36 15 99 45 32 148 203 87 33 205 8 67 12 93 482 54 92 5 62 82 87 52 4502.53 (12.3 yrs) Temperature “Savings” (ºC) Sea Level “Savings” (cm) 2050 2100 2050 2100 0.0007 0.0025 0.0012 0.0019 0.0071 0.0018 0.0007 0.0000 0.0003 0.0044 0.0032 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0.0044 0.0042 0.0014 0.0028 0.0032 0.0014 0.0014 0.0003 0.0032 0.0019 0.0025 0.0012 0.0007 0.0027 0.0010 0.0008 0.0003 0.0023 0.0010 0.0007 0.0035 0.0048 0.0020 0.0008 0.0048 0.0002 0.0016 0.0003 0.0022 0.0113 0.0013 0.0022 0.0001 0.0014 0.0019 0.0021 0.0012 0.0011 0.0038 0.0018 0.0028 0.0107 0.0027 0.0010 0.0001 0.0004 0.0065 0.0047 0.0005 0.0024 0.0004 0.0066 0.0063 0.0021 0.0042 0.0048 0.0021 0.0020 0.0005 0.0048 0.0028 0.0037 0.0017 0.0010 0.0041 0.0014 0.0013 0.0005 0.0035 0.0016 0.0011 0.0052 0.0071 0.0030 0.0012 0.0072 0.0003 0.0023 0.0004 0.0033 0.0169 0.0019 0.0032 0.0002 0.0022 0.0029 0.0031 0.0018 0.0092 0.0326 0.0152 0.0241 0.0918 0.0228 0.0089 0.0005 0.0038 0.0563 0.0408 0.0046 0.0206 0.0037 0.0566 0.0543 0.0181 0.0363 0.0409 0.0177 0.0174 0.0044 0.0412 0.0243 0.0323 0.0149 0.0084 0.0351 0.0124 0.0108 0.0044 0.0299 0.0135 0.0096 0.0447 0.0614 0.0262 0.0101 0.0620 0.0025 0.0201 0.0035 0.0281 0.1458 0.0164 0.0277 0.0014 0.0186 0.0248 0.0264 0.0157 0.0186 0.0656 0.0305 0.0486 0.1850 0.0460 0.0180 0.0011 0.0077 0.1133 0.0822 0.0093 0.0415 0.0074 0.1140 0.1094 0.0364 0.0730 0.0824 0.0356 0.0351 0.0089 0.0831 0.0489 0.0650 0.0300 0.0170 0.0707 0.0250 0.0218 0.0089 0.0603 0.0272 0.0193 0.0900 0.1237 0.0528 0.0203 0.1250 0.0050 0.0406 0.0070 0.0566 0.2936 0.0329 0.0558 0.0029 0.0375 0.0499 0.0532 0.0315 0.1059 0.1582 1.3610 2.7414 32 ECONOMIC IMPACTS And what would be the potential costs to Georgia of federal actions designed to cap greenhouse gas emissions? A comprehensive analysis was recently completed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) examining the economic impact of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454). The Waxman-Markey bill is typical of federal proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NAM/ACCF commissioned the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to assess the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and the overall economy. The NAM/ACCF study accounts for all federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February 2009 are included in the study. The 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill proposed targets that would reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020; 42% below 2005 levels by 2030; and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. For a complete description of these findings please visit: publications/126/accf-nam-study. http://www.accf.org/ In general, for the U.S., the NAM/ACCF found: Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030) Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030 Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030 Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030. All this economic hardship—in the midst of a recession—would come with absolutely no detectable impact on the course of future climate. This is the epitome of an all pain and no gain scenario. The NAM/ACCF also analyzed the economic costs on a state by state basis. For Georgia, in particular, they found that by the year 2020, average annual household disposable income would decline by $87 to $199 and by the year 2030 the decline would increase to between $516 and $930. The state would stand to lose between 47,722 and 64,993 jobs by 2030. At the same time energy prices would rise substantially. Gasoline prices could increase by 26%, electricity prices by 53% and natural gas by up to 64%. Georgia’s Gross State Product could decline by 2030 by as much as $15.6 billion/yr. 33 Figure 16. Examples of the economic impacts in Georgia of federal legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions green. (Source: National Association of Manufacturers, 2009; http://www.accf.org/media/ docs/nam/2009/Georgia.pdf) And all this economic hardship—in the midst of a recession—would come with absolutely no detectable impact on the course of future climate. This is the epitome of an all pain and no gain scenario. GEORGIA SCIENTISTS REJECT UN’S GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS At least 612 Georgia scientists have petitioned the US government that the UN’s human caused global warming hypothesis is “without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.” They are joined by over 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs. The petition and entire list of US signers can be found here: http://www.petitionproject.org/ index.html. 34 REFERENCES Aubrey, David G, and K.O. Emery, 1991. Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges, SpringerVerlag, New York, NY, 237pp. Blake, E.S., et al., 2007. The deadliest, costliest, and most intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2006 (and other frequently requested hurricane facts). NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf. Cook, E.R., Woodhouse, C.A., Eakin, C.M., Meko, D.M., and Stahle, D.W. 2004. Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science, 306, 1015-1018. Cook, E.R., Meko, D.M., Stahle, D.W. and Cleaveland, M.K. 1999. Drought reconstructions for the continental United States. Journal of Climate, 12, 1145-1162. Davis, R.E., et al., 2003a. Decadal changes in summer mortality in the U. S. cities. International Journal of Biometeorology, 47, 166-175. Davis, R.E., et al., 2003b. Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111, 1712-1718. Davis, R.E., et al., 2004. Seasonality of climate-human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change, Climate Research, 26, 61-76. Energy Information Administration, 2011a. International Energy Statistics,. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90& pid=44&aid=8. Energy Information Administration, 2011b. State CO2 Emissions. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/state/state_emissions.html. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2010. International Energy Outlook 2010. http:// www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html. Georgia Coast 2030: Population projection for the 10-county coastal region, 2006. Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, http://www.cqgrd.gatech.edu/PDFs/coastal_ga_pop_ projections.pdf. Howat, I.M., et al. 2007. Rapid changes in ice discharge from Greenland outlet glaciers. Science, 315, 1559-1561. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Summary for Policymakers, (http:// www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf). 35 Knight, D.E, and R.E. Davis, Climatology of tropical cyclone rainfall in the Southeastern United States, Physical Geography, in press. Landsea, C. W., 2005. Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11-13. Miller, D.L., C.I. Mora, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, C.J. Mock, M.E. Uhle, and Z. Sharp, 2006. Tree-ring isotope records of tropical cyclone activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 14,294-14,297. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. National/State/Divisional Data, (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/climate/climatedata.html). Pielke Jr., R. A., et al., 2008. Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review, 9, 29-42. Pielke Sr., R. A., et al., 2007. Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, June 2007, 913-928. Reiter, P., 1996. Global warming and mosquito-borne disease in the USA. The Lancet, 348, 662. Reiter, P., 2001. Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 141-161. Sandrik, A., and Landsea, C., 2003. Chronological listing of tropical cyclones affecting North Florida and Coastal Georgia, 1565-1899. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/ history/index.html. Energy Information Administration, 2007a. International Energy Annual, 2005. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/contents.html. Energy Information Administration, 2007b. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 2006. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., http://www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/0573(2006).pdf. Sundal, A. V., et al., 2011. Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage. Nature, 469 (7331): 521 DOI: 10.1038/nature09740. Watts, A., 2009. Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable? http://wattsupwith that.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2285-2288. 36 Cover photos from wunderground.com. 37