observed climate change and the negligible global effect of greenhouse-gas emissions limits in the...

Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emissions Limits in the State of ArkansasRobert FergusonScience & Public Policy Institute, President

Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in Arkansas

Commission on Global Warming

• Presumably, the name would imply that the Commission was interested in the climate and climate change

• Lacking in the Commission Report is any review of the historical climate of Arkansas and how global warming has manifest itself to date (greenhouse gases have been building up in the global atmosphere for at least a century)

• Lacking in the Commission Report is a quantitative analysis of how its recommended actions will influence its long list of future climate impacts

• If mitigating “global warming” is the goal, then let’s see the projected results!


Global Warming

• Arkansas makes up about 1.5% of the land area of the United States

• The U.S. makes up about 2% of the area of the globe

• In describing the climate of Arkansas and the influences on it, local and regional processes, are much more important than “global” ones

• Arkansas’s climate does not vary or change in lock step with the global climate


Global vs. Arkansas Climate• “Global temperatures have risen ~2°F in the past 100 years”

• “9 of the last 10 years were the warmest on record”

• “2005 was the warmest year ever”

• Not in Arkansas -- 1 of the past 10 years was among the warmest on record

• Not in Arkansas -- 1921 was the warmest year ever

1921

Arkansas Average Annual Temperature, 1895-2008

• Not in Arkansas -- Slight decline in statewide annual average temperature


A variety of impacts will affect Arkansas and the southeastern United States, particularly if emissions of GHGs are not limited. These impacts include the following:

• There will be increased storminess, with increases in floods, windstorms, and, in some places, ice storms.• Floodplains will likely increase in extent as larger floods increase in frequency.• Ground-level ozone pollution will be exacerbated.• Tropical and insect-borne diseases will move north.• There will be increased heat-related deaths and decreased cold-related deaths.• Although less likely to impact Arkansas directly, there will be adverse impacts on winter sports that will reduce the snow season in resorts.• There will be strains on water supplies, particularly in western states, which will witness a decreased snowpack.• There will be increased drought stress, because there will be less precipitation during summer months and more during winter months, putting further stress on water supplies.• The increases in drought stress and storminess are likely to have an adverse impact upon agriculture and forestry.• Sea levels will rise, putting stress on coastal areas and causing salt-water intrusion into coastal aquifers. Sea levels are expected to rise by 1–2 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion, alone. However, the sea level rise could be much greater due to melting of the Greenland or Antarctic glaciers.• Rising sea levels, increased drought stress, and impacts on agriculture will also become “a [national security] threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.” This insecurity may affect Arkansas.• Cold-water fisheries will decline.• Coral reefs and related fisheries will be adversely affected by ocean acidification caused by increased carbon dioxide levels.• Climatic hardiness zones will move north and the distribution of vegetation and wildlife will change. This will likely put stress upon vulnerable species.

Chapter 8: Review of Current Scientific Literature on Causes and Impacts of Global Warming

On-going observations point to virtually none of these happening in Arkansas


Actual Climate Trends in Arkansas• No long-term trend in statewide average temperature

• No significant long-term trend in statewide total annual precipitation

• No long-term trend in drought

• Worse droughts in the distant past

• No real change in tornado occurrence

• No climate-related change in vector-borne diseases

• Ever upward trend in agricultural yields

• Declining sensitivity to heat waves

No evidence of “global climate change” in Arkansas despite a global build-up greenhouse gases that has been ongoing for many decades.


Arkansas Temperature History• A slight cooling from 1895-2008• Multi-decadal variability• Warmest period was the 1920s and 1930s• Warmest Year on Record: 1921• 2008 was 20th coldest year since 1895

Statewide Average Annual Temperature

2008


Arkansas Precipitation History

• Slight (statistically insignificant) overall increase in precipitation, 1895-2008• Year-to-year variability dominates long-term trend• Wettest year: 1957 with 71.01 inches• Driest Year: 1963 with 32.35

Statewide Average Annual Precipitation


Arkansas Drought History• Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)

Incorporates Precipitation Input and Evaporative (Temperature) Losses

• No overall long-term trend, 1895-2008

• High level of short-term variability

Palmer Drought Severity Index


Arkansas Paleo-drought History• Reconstructed Summer PDSI from Tree Rings

• 996 AD to 2003 AD: more that 1,000 years (20-yr smoothing)

• Century-scale variations are obvious

• Most recent century relatively wet compared with some previous ones

• Large natural variability in state’s moisture budget

Palmer Drought Severity Index

Drier than Present

20th Century


Extreme Weather Events (Floods, Hurricanes, Tornadoes)

• There is an increase in property loss and damage from extreme weather events across the country. This leads some to claim that “global warming” is the cause. BUT, when changes in population demographics are taken into account (numbers, wealth, etc.) the upward trend vanishes.

• Analyses that do not take into account population and other types of changes produce misleading results and inaccurate assessments of the future.


Floods – U.S.

• Losses from floods have been increasing across the U.S.

• The increase disappears when changes in population and wealth are accounted for

Total Flood Damage1934-2000

Per Capita Flood Damage1934-2000

Flood Damage per Unit Wealth1934-2000

(Downton et al., 2005)


Tornado History - Arkansas• 2008 was a busy tornado year in

Arkansas (and across the country)• 81 tornadoes and 21 fatalities• Apparent upward trend in tornadoes

Doppler Radar, Storm Chasers, Better Investigation, Greater Population, etc.

• No trend in strong (F3, F4, F5) tornadoes (less likely to be missed)

• No trend in tornado fatalities

Tornado Alley

(Storm Prediction Center, NOAA)


Crop History - Arkansas• State’s major cash crops (cotton, rice,

soybeans) show strong upward trends in yields

• Weak trends in climate variables

• Crop yields improve through the development and adoption of new technologies and crop varieties

• Weather can explain some year-to-year variation, but little of the overall trend

• Carbon dioxide has a fertilization effect on most plant (and crop) species

• Not recognizing this leads to inaccurate projections of the Arkansas future agricultural outlook, such as “The increases in drought stress and storminess are likely to have an adverse impact upon agriculture and forestry.”

Arkansas Crop Yields

(National Agriculture Statistics Service)


Heat Waves – U.S.• Populations in major cities across the U.S. are becoming less sensitive to extreme

heat events• Improvements in medical technology, access to air-conditioning, increased public

awareness, and proactive responses• Locations where extremely high temperatures are commonplace, have less heat-

related mortality than places where extremely high temperatures are somewhat rarer

• If heat waves becomes more common in the future, we should expect that people will better prepared for them

• Not understanding these relationships lead to inaccurate assessments of the future such as “There will be increased heat-related deaths and decreased cold-related deaths.”

(Davis et al., 2003)


Low Level Ozone – U.S.

• Trends in low level ozone are on the decline across the U.S. since the 1980s – despite “global warming”

• Not taking these trends into account leads to inaccurate projections of the future such as “Ground-level ozone pollution will be exacerbated.”

Change in ozone concentrations in ppm, 1990-1992 vs. 2004-2006

(EPA, 2009)


Vector-borne disease

• Diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and West Nile Virus which have been predicted to spread due to global warming, are related less to climate than to living conditions.

• These diseases are best controlled by direct application of sound, known public health policies.

• Not understanding these relationships lead to inaccurate assessments of the future such as “Tropical and insect-borne diseases will move north.”


Malaria• Malaria in the late 19th century was present in most of the eastern 2/3rds of the United States,

including all of Arkansas

• The late 19th century was a cool period

• Malaria was eradicated not because of climate change, but because of new technologies.

• 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

Endemic Malaria in the United States


Dengue Fever• 62,000+ cases in Mexican border states, 64 cases in Texas (1980-1999)

• Little difference in climate between Texas and northern Mexico

• Big difference in infrastructure, wealth, and technology


West Nile Virus• Introduced in New York City in 1999

• Rapidly spread from the (cold) Northeast southward and westward across the rest of the country

• Resident mosquito populations, not climate change

Spread of West Nile Virus


Climate Change In Arkansas

• Global average climate conditions are not a good indicator of local/regional climate conditions (nor vice versa)

• Little climate change obvious in Arkansas despite global increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels

• Perceived “climate” impacts are often not climate impacts at all but arise from changes in observing practices, population demographics, etc.

Summary


Climate Impacts of Emissions Limitations in Arkansas

If the goal of the Commission is to mitigate the impacts of potential global warming in Arkansas, then they should have presented the bottom line -- what are the projected impacts on climate that stem from the set of proposed emission reduction measures?

The answer, as I will show, it that there are none.

Global Warming Commission’s report describes a host of options for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but greenhouse gases are not climate.



• Arkansas emitted 61.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (mmtCO2) in 2005 (and 85.4 mmtCO2e)

• U.S. CO2 emissions were 5,990 mmtCO2 (Arkansas made up 1.03%)• China CO2 emissions were 6,018 mmtCO2

• Global emissions were 28,484 mmtCO2 (Arkansas made up 0.22%)

2005 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

61.2

5990 6018

28485

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Arkansas U.S. China Global

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s (M

MT

CO

2)



• China has surpassed the U.S. in annual CO2 emissions

• China’s emissions have been growing rapidly in recent years

• U.S. emissions are leveling off

• At the current rate of increase, China will add new emissions equivalent to the total annual U.S. emissions in 8 years.

United States

China

Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1980-2006



• Averaged over 2001-2006, China added 8.3 “Arkansas’-worth” (61.2 mmt) of new CO2 emissions each year

• China adds an Arkansas’-worth of new emissions every 1.5 months• From 2001-2006 China has added 50 “Arkansas’-worth” of new emissions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

New

Em

issi

on

s

= 61.2 mmtCO2

China Emissions Growth, New Emissions 2001-2006



• China emitted ~100 Arkansas’-worth of CO2 in 2006

• Arkansas Plan calls for a reduction of 50% of its emissions by 2035

= Arkansas Reduction Goal--50% reduction by 2035

2006 CO2 Emissions from China



• Actions in Arkansas will have no meaningful impact on the future course of global greenhouse gas emissions—they are overwhelmed by foreign growth

• A complete cessation of all CO2 emissions from Arkansas will be subsumed by growth in CO2 emissions from China alone in 1.5 months

• Plans aimed at merely reducing CO2 emissions from Arkansas will fare even worse

• Thus, actions in Arkansas will have no meaningful impact of the future course of global climate

What does this mean for emissions limits in Arkansas?


Final Thoughts

• There is little relationship between Arkansas’ climate history and global conditions

• There is little impact that emission cuts in Arkansas will have on global climate

• Zero times zero is zero

• The set of proposed greenhouse gas emissions measures from the Governor’s Committee on Global Warming will result in no meaningful effect on the climate or Arkansas or anywhere else


End of Presentation(some additional slides follow)



• Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research published a paper in 1998 in which he calculated the total climate impact of a complete adherence of every nation in the world to its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions

• He calculated that the annual global emissions reduction under the Kyoto Protocol would be 4,697 mmtCO2 by 2050 and 7,924 mmtCO2 by 2100

• He calculated that this would result in a total global temperature “savings” of 0.07ºC by 2050 and 0.15ºC by 2100.

• He calculated that this would result in a total global sea level “savings” of 0.2 cm by 2050 and 2.6 cm (1 inch) by 2100.

• The total annual emissions from Arkansas are only a tiny fraction of the global reduction calculated by Wigley and thus only result in a tiny fraction of the temperature and sea level “savings”…

For those who want the nitty-gritty details…



• A complete cessation of all greenhouse gas emissions from Arkansas from this day forward would result in the following impacts of global climate:

The results…

YearTemperature

Savings

Sea Level Rise

Savings

2050 0.001ºC 0.02 cm

2100 0.002ºC 0.03 cm

These values are so small as to be scientifically negligible and irrelevant.


Final Thoughts

A similar or identical precautionary standard appears in many sections of the federal Clean Air Act. Thus, section 202(a)(1), which was construed by the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency provides as follows:

“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

The applicable science meets this standard, and no skeptic says that there is a reasonable scientific certainty that there will not be adverse impacts from rising GHG levels.

Commission Report, Chapter 8, Final Paragraphs:


Final Thoughts -continued

• Michaels, Knappenberger, and Davis: 120 pages of critique of the EPA science document on Endangerment and another 100+ pages on other federal documents it relied upon

• Dr. Craig Idso: 800+ pages of critique of the EPA science document on Endangerment

• These and other comments can be found at regulations.gov

So contrary to what the authors of the Arkansas Governor’s Commission on Global Warming Report claim, there are plenty of scientists (whether you want to call them “skeptics” or not is up to you) and plenty of more reasons why growing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide don’t lead, in net, to endangerment of human health and/or welfare in the United States. Primary among them, is that people adapt to the prevailing conditions. Giving short shrift to our adaptive potential necessarily lead to inaccurate projections of our future response and unnecessary calls for actions to do something about “global warming.”


Arkansas Temperature History – Seasonal

• No long-term warming trend in any season

• Year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability

• Recent years unremarkable

Winter Spring

Summer Fall


Hurricanes – U.S.

• Damages from hurricanes are increasing

• But not when you take demographic changes into account

• Thus, it is not the weather, but population changes that are responsible for the increased damages

(Pielke Jr. et al., 2008)

observed climate change and the negligible global effect of greenhouse-gas emissions limits in the...

Documents