* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
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