Download observed climate changes in georgia georgia temperature history

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