Download Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of

Observed Climate Change and
the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas
Emission Limits
in the State of Ohio
Updated 4-20-11
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org ♦ (202) 288-5699
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS .............................................................................................. 3
OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES IN OHIO..................................................................................... 4
OHIO TEMPERATURE HISTORY ........................................................................................... 4
ANNUAL TEMPERATURES ............................................................................................ 4
SEASONAL TEMPERATURES .......................................................................................... 5
QUALITY OF TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS .................................................................... 7
OHIO’S MOISTURE HISTORY .............................................................................................. 8
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION ............................................................................................. 8
DROUGHT CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 9
PALEO-DROUGHT CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 10
OTHER CLIMATE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 11
THE GREAT LAKES.................................................................................................... 11
CROP YIELDS .......................................................................................................... 12
OZONE POLLUTION .................................................................................................. 13
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS................................................................................................ 14
HEAT WAVES ......................................................................................................... 14
VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES .......................................................................................... 15
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE STATE OF OHIO .......................................... 18
CLIMATE IMPACTS......................................................................................................... 18
EXTENDING THE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS TO ALL 50 STATES ...................................................... 21
ECONOMIC IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 23
OHIO SCIENTISTS REJECT UN’S GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS............................................. 24
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 25
2
SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS
In this report, we examine the historical observations of weather and climate in Ohio. We find
that climate variability from year-to-year and decade-to-decade plays a greater role in Ohio’s
climate than do long-term trends. Such short-term variability will continue dominating Ohio’s
climate into the future.
We find that there is little, if any, indication from the state’s observed climate history that
“global warming” has manifest itself in any detectable (much less negative) way on the climate
of Ohio or its inhabitants:
 There has been no trend in statewide average temperature for more than 85 years
 The long-term trend in precipitation is upwards, increasing water availability for
everyone
 Lake Erie water levels have slightly risen over the past 50 years
 The state’s agricultural yields have been rising
 Ground level ozone concentrations have been declining
 The population’s sensitivity to heat waves has been declining
 Diseases such as West Nile Virus have not been spreading due to “global warming”
Most significantly, we find that Ohio’s greenhouse gas emissions have virtually no effect on
global climate. In fact, if Ohio were to immediately cease all carbon dioxide emissions, now and
forever, the rate of year-over-year growth in global carbon dioxide emissions (primarily fueled
by massive emissions increases in China) would completely subsume Ohio’s emissions cessation
in just about four months’ time. Further, a halt to all of Ohio’s CO2 emissions would result in a
climatically-irrelevant global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of seven thousandths of a
degree Celsius. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible. A complete cessation of all
anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Ohio will result in a global sea-level rise savings by the year
2100 of an estimated 0.12 cm, or about five 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 Ohio (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 Ohio’s citizens.
3
OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES IN OHIO
OHIO TEMPERATURE HISTORY
ANNUAL TEMPERATURES
The historical time series of statewide annual temperatures in Ohio begins in 1895. Over the
past 116 years there has been a slight overall rise in temperatures of about 1ºF. However, much
of this rise took place during the early years of the 20th century—nearly 100 years ago. In fact,
for the past 90 years (1921-2010), there has been absolutely no long-term temperature change
in Ohio—the first decade of the 21st century is similar in character to the decades of the 1930s
and 1940s, and as such, does not stand out as being unusual when viewed in its proper
historical perspective. The statewide average temperature for 2010, 51.8ºF, lies just above the
long-term mean. Ohio’s temperature history is better described by multi-decadal variations
rather than long-term trends—the decades of the early 20th century were relatively cool, the
1920s through the 1940s were relatively warm, temperatures cooled from the 1950s through
the 1970s, and warmed again from the 1980s to the present.
Ohio Annual Temperatures, 1895-2010
Figure 1. Annual statewide average temperature history for Ohio, 1895-2010 (available from the
National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/oh.html).
4
Ohio Annual Temperatures, 1921-2010
Figure 2. Annual statewide average temperature history for Ohio, 1921-2010 (bottom) (available from
the National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/oh.html).
SEASONAL TEMPERATURES
When Ohio’s temperature history is examined for each of the four seasons of the year, it can be
seen that the same general patterns persist. There is a slight, overall, long-term increase in
temperatures during the winter and spring seasons, while the temperature history of summer
and autumn show no overall change. Instead of strong long-term trends, the temperature
records are dominated by year-to-year, and decade-to-decade variability. Recent temperatures
do not stand out as being particularly unusual when properly set among long-term
temperatures and temperature variability characteristic of Ohio’s natural climate.
5
Ohio Seasonal Temperatures, 1895-2010
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Figure 3. Seasonal statewide average temperature history of Ohio (source: National Climatic Data
Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/oh.html).
6
QUALITY OF TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS
When closely examining the temperature history of Ohio, it is important to recognize that the
entirety of the variability and trends that appears in the long-term compiled temperature
history of the state may not be evidence of regional (or larger-scale) climate change, but
instead may be caused by non-climatic 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 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.
The surroundings of most of Ohio’s “official” observing stations are detailed at the website
surfacestations.org (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=215). A scientific
study by Pielke et al. (2007) also documents problems with long-term U.S. temperature
datasets that may give rise to anomalously high rates of warming.
Figure 4. Examples of poorly situated “official” temperature recording stations in Ohio. The photograph
shows the immediate surroundings of the thermometer and the graph below shows the temperature
history from the observing location (source: Watts, 2009).
7
OHIO’S MOISTURE HISTORY
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Averaged across the state of Ohio for each of the past 116 years, statewide annual total
precipitation shows a long-term rise which has resulted in about a 5-10% increase in the yearly
average precipitation. Much of the overall rise is driven by the recent string of wetter than
normal years. But, to even a greater degree than temperatures, year-to-year variability in total
precipitation stands out as an obvious feature of Ohio’s climate. Ohio’s annual precipitation has
varied from as much as 51.36 inches falling in 1990 to a little as 26.59 inches in 1930.
Ohio Annual Precipitation, 1895-2010
Figure 5. Statewide average precipitation history of Ohio, 1895-2010 (source: National Climatic Data
Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/oh.html).
8
DROUGHT CONDITIONS
Since 1895, there has been an overall trend towards wetter conditions—and away from
drought conditions—across the state of Ohio. The incidence of extreme drought has been
lower during recent decades than during any other time of the past 116 years.
Monthly mean Palmer Drought Severity Index values—a standard measure of moisture
conditions that reconciles inputs from precipitation and losses from evaporation—show an
upward trend during the past 116 years, and also reveal that the state’s climate is characterized
by short-term variations which illustrate that both dry periods and wet periods are not
uncommon in the climate of Ohio. The long-term increase in moisture availability is a positive
climate trend as the demand for water—for residential, agricultural, and industrial uses—
continues to grow
Ohio Drought Severity, 1895-2010
Palmer Drought Severity Index
Figure 6. Monthly statewide average values of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for the state of
Ohio, 1895-2010 (data from the National Climate Data Center, www.ncdc.noaa.gov).
9
PALEO-DROUGHT CONDITIONS
The droughts experienced during the past 116 years (primarily during the early-to-mid 20th
century) in Ohio pale in comparison to the megadroughts that have occurred there in the past.
The character of past climates can be judged from analysis of climate-sensitive proxies such as
tree-rings. Using precipitation information about past precipitation contained in tree rings, Dr.
Edward Cook and colleagues have been able to reconstruct a summertime PDSI record for Ohio
that extends back in time more than 1,500 years.
Interestingly, the overall trend over the past millennium and a half has been towards generally
wetter conditions. But rather than anomalously wet periods, the most remarkable
characteristic of the reconstructed drought history of Ohio is the prolonged dry periods and
“megadroughts” that occurred in past centuries—droughts that dwarfed any conditions
experienced in recent memory. In fact, most of the past 1,500 years is characterized by
conditions that are drier than the average conditions of the 20th century. Another characteristic
of Ohio’s past climate are the large swings from conditions that exceeded the 20th century in
terms of wetness to dry conditions that were far more intense and a far greater duration than
any that have been experienced since the state was settled.
The paleo-climate record gives us clear indication that droughts as well as abnormally wet
periods are a natural part of Ohio’s climate system.
Ohio’s Reconstructed Paleo-drought Severity
Figure 7. The reconstructed summer (June, July, August) Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for Ohio
from 367 A.D. to 2003 A.D. depicted with a 20-yr low pass filter. (National Climate Data Center,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html.)
10
OTHER CLIMATE IMPACTS
THE GREAT LAKES
There is much alarm that future climate change will negatively impact the Great Lakes,
including Lake Erie with which Ohio shares a shoreline. The primary concern is that warmer
summers and less precipitation will act together to lower the lake levels, and in doing so harm
wetlands and adversely impact other lake ecosystems and human activities on the lakes.
However, blaming climate change on the lake level trends doesn’t make much sense. As we
have seen, the summer temperatures across Ohio exhibit no long-term trend (Figure 3) and the
annual precipitation across the state has been increasing (Figure 5). These trends hardly
support a large climate pressure to lower lake levels.
The long-term history of the water level of Lake Erie shows a pattern of multi-decadal rise and
fall, but no strong signal that lake levels are being drawn downward from long-term climate
change. Current water levels in Lake Erie are near the long-term average.
Historical Water Levels in Lake Erie
Figure 8. The history of water levels in Lake Erie (Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html).
A recent scientific paper demonstrates this point further. Two hydrologic engineers examined
the hydrology of the Great Lakes, including a 70-year history of total precipitation, temperature
and streamflow into and through the lakes (McBean and Motiee, 2008). They found statistically
significant increases in precipitation over four of the five lakes (no change in precipitation
across Superior), no significant increases in temperatures over any lake, and generally increases
in streamflow through the lakes. These findings indicate that the observed hydroclimate of the
Great Lakes over the past 70 years has not followed the pattern predicted by climate models
which project lake declines to occur with an increasing greenhouse effect. Thus, the declines in
water levels in some of the Great Lakes must be related to other factors besides anthropogenic
climate change—natural water level variations, land-use alterations, changes to the outflow
channels, bathymetric changes, etc.
11
CROP YIELDS
In Ohio, the annual yields from the state’s major cash crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans
have risen dramatically during the past 50+ years (USDA). In the 1950s, the state’s corn crop
was yielding 50-60 bushels per acre, now it routinely yields more than 150 bushels per acre.
Farmers’ yields from their wheat and soybean crops have also more than doubled over the
same time period. While there have been some long-term trends in temperature and
precipitation across the state, generally, these trends are insufficient to explain rapid rise in
crop yields. In fact, factors other than climate and climate change are largely responsible for
this big yield increase.
Ohio Crop Yields, 1950-2010
Figure 9. History of crop yields (1950-2010) of three of the state’s economically significant crops, corn
(top), wheat (middle), and soybeans (bottom). There is no indication that long-term climate changes are
negatively impacting crop yields. (Data from the National Agricultural Statistic Service, http://www.
nass.usda.gov/.)
12
Crop yields increase primarily as a result of technology—better fertilizer, more resistant crop
varieties, improved tilling practices, modern equipment, and so on. The level of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, a constituent that has proven benefits for plants, has increased as well. The
relative influence of weather is minimal compared with those advances. Temperature and
precipitation show only relatively weak trends; they are instead responsible for some of the
year-to-year variation in crop yields about the long-term upward trend. Even under the worst of
circumstances, minimum crop yields continue to increase. Through the use of technology,
farmers are adapting to the climate conditions that traditionally dictate what they do and how
they do it and producing more output than ever before. There is no reason to think that such
adaptations and advances will not continue into the future. Thus, projections of negative
impacts to Ohio’s agriculture that may result from climate change are largely pessimistic and
unfounded.
OZONE POLLUTION
Despite claims that “global warming” will increase the concentrations of low-level ozone
pollution across Ohio and negatively impact human health, observations show the exact
opposite has been going on during the past decade. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency:
“On average [across Ohio], ozone adjusted for weather conditions declined 15
percent between 1997 and 2008. The level of ozone improvement varies from
site to site.” (http://epa.gov/oar/airtrends/weather/region05.pdf#page=11)
And over the longer-term, the EPA reports more of the same, not just across Ohio, but across
much of the United States. The figure below shows the difference in low-level ozone
concentrations in recent years compared with that in the early 2000s. By and large, ozone
pollution levels have declined—all during a period of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas
levels and “global warming.”
13
Low Level Ozone Concentration Changes
Figure 10. Change in ozone concentrations in ppm, 2001-2003 vs. 2006-2008 (3-year average of annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations). (Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/
report/ozone.pdf.)
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
HEAT WAVES
The population of Ohio has become less sensitive to the impacts of excessive heat events over
the course of the past 30-40 years. This is true in most major cities across the United States—a
result of the increased availability and use of air-conditioning and the implementation of social
programs aimed at caring for high-risk individuals—despite rising urban temperatures.
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., 2003a, 2003b). Each of the bars in Figure 11 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). This is true
for Cleveland, the Ohio city included in the Davis et al. studies, as well as in most cities in states
in the northeastern and Midwestern United States that were part of the investigation. All the
nearby cities show that the heat-related mortality in the 1990s was significantly less, on a per
14
capita basis, than the heat-related mortality in the 1960s and 1970s—meaning that the
population of those cities has become better adapted to heat waves. 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.
Heat-related Mortality Trends Across the U.S.
Figure 11. Annual heat-related mortality rates (excess deaths per standard million population). Each
histogram bar indicates a different decade (from left to right, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s). Source: Davis et al.,
2003b.
The pattern of the distribution of heat-related mortality shows 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. Contrary
to pessimistic projections of increasing heat-related mortality, 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.
VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES
Malaria, dengue fever, and West Nile Virus, which have been erroneously predicted to spread
owing to “global warming,” are not tropical diseases. Climate change will accordingly have a
negligible effect on their transmission rates. These diseases are readily controlled by wellknown public health policies.
15
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 until the 1950s (Reiter, 1996).
In the late 1800s, when the United States was colder than today, malaria was endemic east of
the Rocky Mountains—a region stretching from the Gulf Coast all the way up into northern
Minnesota and including much of Ohio.
In 1878, 100,000 Americans were infected with malaria, and some 25,000 died. Malaria was
eradicated from the United States in the 1950s not because of climate change (it was warmer in
the 1950s than in the 1880s), but because of technological advances. 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).
Malaria Occurrence in the United States, 1880s
Figure 12. In the late 19th century malaria was endemic in shaded regions, including the entire state of
Ohio. (Source: Reiter, 2001.)
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 (Reiter, 1996). This is
just not an isolated example. Data collected over the past decade have shown a similarly large
disparity between incidence of disease in northern Mexico and in the southwestern United
States, though there is very little climate difference.
Another disease that is often wrongly 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
16
spread into Ohio. This reasoning is incorrect. West Nile Virus, a mosquito-borne infection, was
introduced to the United States through the port of New York in summer 1999. Since its
introduction, it has spread rapidly, reaching the West Coast by 2002. Incidence has now been
documented in every state as well as most provinces of Canada.
Spread of the West Nile Virus across the United States
after its Introduction in New York City in 1999
1999
2002
2005
2000
2001
2003
2004
2006
2007
Figure 13. 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 rapid spread of West Nile Virus across the U.S. and Canada is not a sign that temperatures
are progressively warming. Rather, it is a sign that the existing environment is primed for the
virus. In the infected territories, mean temperature has a range more than 40ºF. The virus can
thrive from the tropics to the tundra of the Arctic – anywhere with a resident mosquito
population. The already-resident mosquito populations of Ohio are appropriate hosts for the
West Nile virus—as they are in every other state.
17
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE STATE OF OHIO
CLIMATE IMPACTS
Globally, in 2008, humankind emitted 30,314 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (mmtCO2:
EIA, 2011a), of which emissions from Ohio accounted for 262.3 mmtCO2, or a mere 0.87% (EIA,
2011b). The proportion of manmade CO2 emissions from Ohio 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 Ohio’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 3 times greater than Ohio’s total emissions. This means that even a
complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Ohio will be completely subsumed by global
emissions growth in about 4 month’s time! In fact, China alone adds nearly 2 Ohio’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 Ohio’s CO2 emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate.
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. A complete cessation of CO2 emissions in Ohio 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.
We now apply Dr. Wigley’s results to CO2 emissions in Ohio, 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% (25% of global emissions) 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 Ohio – now 4.5% – 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”):
18
Table 1
Projected Annual CO2 Emissions (mmtCO2)
Year
Global Emissions
Developed Countries
United States
Ohio
(Wigley, 1998)
(Wigley, 1998)
(39% of developed countries)
(4.1% of US)
2000
2025
2050
2100
26,609
41,276
50,809
75,376
14,934
18,308
18,308
21,534
5,795
7,103
7,103
8,355
262
320
320
376
Note: Developed countries’ emissions, according to Wigley’s assumptions,
do not change between 2025 and 2050: neither does total U.S or Ohio emissions.
In Table 2, we compare the total CO2 emissions saving that would result if Ohio’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
Ohio
0
320
320
376
Kyoto Const.
0
4,697
4,697
7,924
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 Ohio’s CO2 emissions (calculated as column 2 in
Table 2 divided by column 3 in Table 2).
Table 3
Ohio’s Percentage of Emissions Savings
Year
2000
2025
2050
2100
Ohio
0.0%
6.8%
6.8%
4.7%
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 Ohio:
19
Table 4
Projected Global Temperature Savings (ºC)
Year
2000
2025
2050
2100
Kyoto Const.
0
0.03
0.07
0.15
Ohio
0
0.002
0.005
0.007
Accordingly, a cessation of all of Ohio’s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant
global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of about seven thousandths of a degree Celsius.
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
Ohio
0
0.01
0.06
0.12
A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from Ohio will result in a global sea-level
rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.12 cm, or five hundredth of an inch. Again, this
value is climatically irrelevant.
In this context, any cuts in emissions from Ohio would be extravagantly pointless. Ohio’s carbon
dioxide emissions, in their sum total, effectively do not impact world climate in any way
whatsoever.
20
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.
21
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
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
(6.8 yrs)
(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
22
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
And what would be the potential costs to Ohio 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: http://www.accf.org/publications/
126/accf-nam-study.
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.
The NAM/ACCF also analyzed the economic costs on a state by state basis. For Ohio, in
particular, they found that by the year 2020, average annual household disposable income
would decline by $133 to $261 and by the year 2030 the decline would increase to between
$873 and $1,419. The state would stand to lose between 79,700 and 108,600 jobs by 2030. At
the same time energy prices would rise substantially. Gasoline prices could increase by 26%,
electricity prices by 60% and natural gas by up to 79%. Ohio’s Gross State Product could decline
by 2030 by as much as $18.9 billion/yr.
23
Figure 14. Examples of the economic impacts in Ohio of federal legislation to limit greenhouse gas
emissions green. (Source: National Association of Manufacturers, 2009; http://www.accf.org/media/
docs/nam/2009/Ohio.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.
OHIO SCIENTISTS REJECT UN’S GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS
At least 1,441 Ohio 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 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029
PhDs.
The petition and entire list of US signers can be found here: http://www.petitionproject.org/.
Names of the Ohio scientists who have signed the petition can be viewed here: http://petition
project.org/signers_by_state_main.php.
24
REFERENCES
Cook, E.R., et al. 2008. North American Summer PDSI Reconstructions, Version 2a. IGBP
PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2008-046.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/
pub/data/paleo/drought/NAmericanDroughtAtlas.v2/readme-NADAv2-2008.txt.
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.
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.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Summary for Policymakers, (http://
www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
McBean, E., and H. Motiee, 2008. Assessment of impact of climate change of water resources: a
long term analysis of the Great Lakes of North America. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
12, 239-255.
National Climatic Data Center, U.S. National/State/Divisional Data, (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
oa/climate/climatedata.html).
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.
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.
25
26