1

Observed Climate Change and the NegligibleGlobal Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission

Limits in the State of South Carolina

www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

[202] 288-5699

2

Introduction

oncern over the potential impacts of climate change led South Carolina GovernorMark Sanford to issue an Executive Order on February 16, 2007 to create a Climate,

Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee tasked with developing an Action Plan forthe state of South Carolina in order to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. GovernorSanford cited as a need for such action the “potential effects of global climatechange…including more frequent and severe storm events and flooding; sea level rise,water supply disruption, agricultural crop yield changes and forest productivity shifts;water and air quality degradation; and threats to coastal areas, tourism, and infrastructure- could significantly impact South Carolina's economy, level of public expenditures, andquality of life.”

In the Preamble to the Executive Order, Governor Sanford cited as an example of theimpacts of a changing climate his personal observations of changes in the forest line ofhis Beaufort County farm and the burdensome levels of smog in the air during a recentvisit he made to Beijing, China. Together with a collection of scientific reports, thisinformation led him to become concerned with the impacts of human activities on theclimate of the earth, and more specifically, on the climate of South Carolina. However,had he taken a broader look at the history of the climate and climate impacts in the statehe governs, he would have found out that on average, temperatures in South Carolina arelittle different now, than during the first half of the 20th century, that the state receivesabout the same average amount of precipiation now as it did then, that major droughtshave become less severe, that agriculture yields are rising, forest industry developmentand investment are a record levels, and that the tourism industry is strong and growing.Additionally, there has been no trend in hurricanes landfalls, intensity, or impacts, andthe rate of sea level rise along the coast has been relatively constant and for more than100 years and dominated by land subsidence and natural processes rather thananthropogenic global warming.

Further, no action by South Carolina will have any detectable effect on the future rate ofglobal climate change and/or its impacts on the climate of South Carolina.

C

3

Observed Climate Change in South Carolina

HERE IS no observational evidence of unusual long-term climate changes in SouthCarolina. No emissions reductions by South Carolina will have any detectableregional or global effect whatsoever on climate change.

Annual temperature: The historical time series of statewide annual temperatures inSouth Carolina begins in 1895. Over the entire record, there is no statistically significanttrend. Instead, the record is dominated annual and decadal-scale variability. Despite aslight warming trend during the past 30 years, the statewide average temperature stilllargely remains at or below the average temperature during the first half of the 20th

century.

South Carolina Annual Temperatures, 1895-2007Annual mean temperatures

Figure 1. South Carolina statewide annual average temperature history, 1895-2007. The state’s temperature historyis better characterized by multidecadal variations than by a long-term trend (source: National Climatic DataCenter, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3sc.html).

T

4

Seasonal temperatures: Likewise, there are no statistically significant long-termseasonal temperature trends evident across South Carolina. Instead, year-to-year and/ordecade-to-decade variability is most obvious. In no season do recent temperatures appearunusual compared with observed temperature history. There is no evidence of “climatechange.”

South Carolina’s Seasonal Temperatures, 1895-2007Seasonal mean temperatures

Figure 2. Seasonal statewide average temperature history of South Carolina (source: National Climatic DataCenter, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3sc.html).

WinterSpring

Summer Fall

5

Precipitation: As with temperature, there is no statistically significant overall trend intotal annual precipitation averaged across South Carolina. Instead the record is dominatedby large interannual variations—ranging from over 70 inches of precipitation in 1964 tounder 33 inches in 1954. Despite the dry year of 2007, overall, recent years are notunusual when viewed against the long-term history.

South Carolina Annual Precipitation, 1895-2007Total annual precipitation

Figure 3. South Carolina statewide average annual total precipitation history, 1907-2006 (Data Source: NationalClimatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/sc.html). The statewide precipitationhistory is better characterized by large interannual variations than any long-term trend.

6

Drought: As can be surmised from the state’s long-term precipitation history, during thepast 113 years of record keeping, there has been no long-term trend in statewideincidence of drought in South Carolina.

South Carolina Drought History, 1895-2007Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)

Figure 4. South Carolina statewide average monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), 1907-2007 (DataSource: National Climatic Data Center).

According to records compiled by the National Climatic Data Center, statewide monthlyaverage Palmer Drought Severity Index values—a standard measure of moistureconditions that takes into account both inputs from precipitation and losses fromevaporation—show no long-term trend during the past 100 years. The period of record isdominated by short term variations, although some longer-term signals are present, suchas the extended period of drought in the late 1920s and again in the mid-1950s. Theincidence and duration of extreme drought has typically been less in the latter half of thepast century than it was during the early half.

Crop Yields: In South Carolina, the annual yields from crops such as cotton, corn andsoybeans have risen dramatically during the past 80 years (USDA), while the climate

7

there has changed relatively little. This indicates that factors other than climate arelargely responsible for the rapid yield rise.

South Carolina Crop Yields, 1926-2007

Figure 5. History of crop yields (1926-2007) of three economically significant crops in South Carolina, cotton (top),corn (middle), soybeans (bottom). There is no indication that long-term climate changes are negatively impactingcrop yields.

Crop yields increase primarily as a result of technology—better fertilizer, more resistantcrop varieties, improved tilling practices, modern equipment, and so on. The level of

8

atmospheric carbon dioxide, a constituent that has proven benefits for plants, hasincreased as well. The relative influence of weather is minimal compared with thoseadvances. Temperature and precipitation show only weak or non-existent long-termtrends; they are instead responsible for some of the year-to-year variation in crops yieldsabout the long-term upward trend. Even under the worst of circumstances, minimum cropyields continue to increase. Through the use of technology, farmers are adapting to theclimate conditions that traditionally dictate what they do and how they do it andproducing more output than ever before. There is no reason to think that such adaptationsand advances will not continue into the future. Thus, projections of negative impacts toSouth Carolina’s agriculture that may result from climate change are unfounded.

Hurricanes: Despite the recent increase in hurricane frequency and intensity in theAtlantic Ocean, the number of hurricanes affecting South Carolina shows no long-termtrend, but instead shows multi-decadal variability.

South Carolina Hurricane Landfalls, 1900-2007

Figure 6. Landfalling hurricanes in South Carolina, 1900-2007. Category 1 and 2 storms are indicated by bluebars, category 3 or higher storms are indicated by red bars and are labeled.

Since 1900, 16 hurricanes have made direct landfall in South Carolina. Four of thesestorms have been major hurricanes (category 3 or higher)—1906 (cat 3), Hazel (1954,cat. 4), Gracie (1959, cat. 3) and Hugo (1989, cat. 4). There have been only 5 hurricanesthat have made landfall in South Carolina during the past 48 years.

9

Since 1995 there has been an increase in both the frequency and intensity of tropicalstorms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin at large. While some scientists have attemptedto link this increase to anthropogenic global warming, others have pointed out thatAtlantic hurricanes exhibit long-term cycles, and that this latest upswing is simply areturn to conditions that characterized earlier decades in the 20th century.

One prominent scientist who has been trying to place the current hurricane activity in thelonger term perspective is the University of South Carolina’s Dr. Cary Mock. In 2005,Dr. Mock was the recipient of a $300,000 grant from the National Science Foundation toreconstruct the hurricane history of the U. S. from historic archives (newspapers, diaries,ships logs, etc.). The grant will allow him to expand his emphasis from South Carolina tothe entire U.S. and Caribbean Atlantic and Gulf shorelines. In his work to date, Dr. Mockhas found that there have marked variations in the multi-decadal frequencies of Atlantictropical storms and hurricanes dating back into the 1700s. In South Carolina, inparticular, Dr. Mock finds that there have been several periods in that past 200-300 yearsduring which the state has been impacted (both in terms of frequency and intensity) bytropical cyclones to a greater degree than they have been during recent decades. Theseactive periods include the first half of the 19th century, a multi-decadal period centeredabout 1900 and again from the mid-1940 to the mid-1960s. These periods of enhancedactivity occurred despite the fact that global average temperatures were cooler then thanthey are currently and demonstrate that there are many processes besides globaltemperatures that act to influence South Carolina’s vulnerability to tropical cyclones.

10

Figure 7. Reconstructed tropical cyclone frequencies (top) and hurricane frequencies (bottom) for South Carolinafrom 1769-2003. Thick lines represent centered 10-year running frequencies. Vertical bars represent annualfrequencies with respect to the right axes. In the bottom graph, category 3 hurricanes are represented by arrowsand the years listed. The historical record is dominated by multi-decadal variability and does not exhibit a long-term trend (Source, Mock et al. 2004).

Dr. Mock’s research indicates that the strongest storm ever to hit South Carolina probablyoccurred in September 1752, when records kept by the British Royal Navy indicate that astrong category 4 storm blew ashore. Also, Dr. Mock has determined that during a 20year period in the early 1800s, three category 3 storms hit the state, two came ashore nearCharleston, and the third near Georgetown. Based upon these past frequencies, Dr. Mockis of the opinion that South Carolina’s coastline is naturally “long overdue” for a directhit from a major hurricane.

And when the next major hurricane hits South Carolina, it will encounter a state whosepopulation demographics have changed quite a bit since the last major storm impact. Adirect strike from a major hurricane (or any hurricane for that matter) will likely lead tomore damage and destruction now that it did in the past. While this gives the impressionthat storms are getting worse, in fact, it simply may be that there are a greater number ofassets that lie in their path. New research by a team of researchers led by Dr. RogerPielke Jr. (2007) sheds some light on how population changes underlay hurricane damagestatistics. Dr. Pielke’s research team examined the historical damage amounts from

11

tropical cyclones in the United States from 1900 to 2005. What they found when theyadjusted the reported damage estimates only for inflation was a trend towards increasedamounts of loss, peaking in the years 2004 and 2005, which include Hurricane Katrina asthe record holder for the most costliest storm, causing 81 billion dollars in damage.

Total U.S. Losses from Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1900-2005

Figure 8. U.S. tropical cyclone damage (in 2005 dollars) when adjusted for inflation, 1900-2005 (from Pielke Jr., etal., 2007)

However, many changes have occurred in hurricane prone areas since 1900 besidesinflation. These changes include a coastal population that is growing in size as well aswealth. When the Pielke Jr. team made adjustments considering all three factors, theyfound no long-term change in damage amounts. And, in fact, the loss estimates in 2004and 2005, while high, were not historically high. The new record holder, for what wouldhave been the most damaging storm in history had it hit in 2005, was the Great Miamihurricane of 1926, which they estimated would have caused 157 billion dollars worth ofdamage. After the Great Miami hurricane and Katrina (which fell to second place), theremaining top-ten storms (in descending order) occurred in 1900 (Galveston 1), 1915(Galveston 2), 1992 (Andrew), 1983 (New England), 1944 (unnamed), 1928 (LakeOkeechobee 4), 1960 (Donna/Florida), and 1969 (Camille/Mississippi). There is noobvious bias towards recent years. In fact, the combination of the 1926 and 1928hurricanes places the damages in 1926-35 nearly 15% higher than 1996-2005, the lastdecade Pielke Jr. and colleagues studied.

12

Normalized Losses from Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1900-2005

Figure 9. U.S. tropical cyclone damage (in 2005 dollars) when adjusted for inflation, population growth andwealth, 1900-2005 (from Pielke Jr., et al., 2007).

This result by the Pielke Jr. team, that there has not been any long-term increase intropical cyclone damage in the United States, is consistent with other science concerningthe history of Atlantic hurricanes. One of Dr. Pielke co-authors, Dr. Chris Landsea, fromthe National Hurricane Center, has also found no trends in hurricane frequency orintensity when they strike the U.S. While there has been an increase in the number ofstrong storms in the past decade, there were also a similar number of major hurricanes inthe 1940s and 1950s, long before such activity could be attributed to global warming.

As Pielke writes, “The lack of trend in twentieth century hurricane losses is consistentwith what would expect to find given the lack of trends in hurricane frequency orintensity at landfall.”

Even in the absence of any long-term trends in hurricane landfalls along the SouthCarolina or the U.S. coast, or damage to U.S. coastlines when population demographicsare taken into account, the impact from a single storm, such as 1989’s Hurricane Hugo,can be enormous as residents of South Carolina know well. The massive build-up of thecoastline has vastly raised the potential damage that a storm can inflict. Recently, acollection of some of the world’s leading hurricane researchers issued the followingstatement that reflects the current thinking on hurricanes and their potential impact(http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Hurricane_threat.htm):

13

As the Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the possible influence ofclimate change on hurricane activity is receiving renewed attention. Whilethe debate on this issue is of considerable scientific and societal interest andconcern, it should in no event detract from the main hurricane problemfacing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population andwealth in vulnerable coastal regions. These demographic trends are settingus up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricanedisasters, especially in this era of heightened activity. Scores of scientistsand engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climatechange was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was(and is) inevitable even in a stable climate.

Rapidly escalating hurricane damage in recent decades owes much togovernment policies that serve to subsidize risk. State regulation ofinsurance is captive to political pressures that hold down premiums in riskycoastal areas at the expense of higher premiums in less risky places. Federalflood insurance programs likewise undercharge property owners invulnerable areas. Federal disaster policies, while providing obvioushumanitarian benefits, also serve to promote risky behavior in the long run.

We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much ofthe current controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. Butthe more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requiresimmediate and sustained attention. We call upon leaders of government andindustry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, andinsurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve topromote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.

However, all impacts from tropical cyclones in South Carolina are not negative. In fact,precipitation that originates from tropical systems and that eventually falls in SouthCarolina proves often to be quite beneficial to the state’s agriculture industry. The latesummer months is the time during the year when, climatologically, the precipitationdeficit is the greatest and crops and other plants are the most moisture stressed. A passingtropical cyclone often brings much needed precipitation over large portions of the stateduring these late summer months. In fact, recent research shows that South Carolina, onaverage, receives about 25% percent of its normal September precipitation, and about 10to15 percent of its total June through November total precipitation from passing tropicalsystems. And since more than 90% of South Carolina’s field crops such as corn, cotton,and soybeans are grown under non-irrigated conditions, widespread rainfall from atropical cyclone becomes almost an expected and relied upon late summer moisturesource.

14

Figure 10. Percentage of June through November precipitation that comes from tropical systems (Knight andDavis, 2007).

Sea Level Rise: Over the course of the last century or so, South Carolina’s coastline hasexperienced a relative sea-level rise of about 10 to 12 inches from a combination of landsubsidence and actual rising seas. This rise is similar to the rise that is expected to occurthere during the next 50 to 100 years as a result of global climate changes resulting froman enhancing greenhouse effect.

The relative sea level along the South Carolina coast has changed due to a combination ofthe land slightly sinking the ocean slightly rising (Aubrey and Emery, 1991; SouthCarolina Sea Grant Consortium, 2007). Over time, the sediments that have been washeddown from upland areas and that underlie South Carolina’s coastal region slowlycompact under their own weight. Additionally, the damming of rivers and the widespreadbuilding of revetments and bulkheads along tidal streams and marshes acts to effectivelyprohibit new sediment from being carried into the coastal wetlands and replenishing thecompacting ground. Together, these processes have led to subsidence of coastal SouthCarolina, and they drive a relative sea level rise. Acting on top of the sinking of the land,is a rise in global sea level from a combination of natural cycles and warming seas. Yet,despite this slowly rising level of the oceans, South Carolina’s residents havesuccessfully adapted, as the growing population of coastal South Carolina attests.

15

The latest projections of future sea level rise, as given in the Fourth Assessment Report(AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggest a potential sealevel rise in the coming century of between 7 and 23 inches, depending of the totalamount of warming that occurs. The IPCC links a lower sea level rise with lower futurewarming. The established warming rate of the earth is 0.18ºC per decade, which is nearthe low end of the IPCC range of projected warming for the 21st century which is from0.11 to 0.64ºC per decade. Therefore, since we observe that the warming rate is trackingnear the low end of the IPCC projections, we should also expect that the rate of sea levelrise should track near the low end of the range given by the IPCC—in this case, a futurerise much closer to 7 inches than to 23 inches. Thus, the reasonably expected rate of sealevel rise in the coming decades is not much different to the rate of sea level rise thatSouth Carolina coastlines have been experiencing for more than a century—and haveadapted to.

Projected Global Sea Level Rise 2000-2100

Figure 11. Range of sea level rise projections (and their individual components) for the year 2100 made by theIPCC AR4 for its six primary emissions scenarios.

There are a few individuals who argue that sea level rise will accelerate precipitously inthe future and raise the level of the ocean to such a degree that it inundates portions ofcoastal South Carolina and other low-lying areas around the world and they clamor thatthe IPCC was far too conservative in its projections. However, these rather alarmist

0

1

2

30

4

16

views are not based upon the most reliable scientific information, and in fact, ignore whatour best understanding of how a warmer world will impact ice loss/gain on Greenlandand Antarctica and correspondingly, global sea level. It is a fact, that all of the extantmodels of the future of Antarctica indicate that a warmer climate leads to more snowfallthere (the majority of which remains for hundreds to thousands of years because it is socold) which acts to slow the rate of global sea level rise (because the water remainstrapped in ice and snow). And new data suggest that the increasing rate of ice loss fromGreenland observed over the past few years has started to decline (Howat et al., 2007).Scenarios of disastrous rises in sea level are predicated on Antarctica and Greenlandlosing massive amounts of snow and ice in a very short period of time—an occurrencewith virtual zero likelihood.

In fact, an author of the IPCC AR4 chapter dealing with sea level rise projections, Dr.Richard Alley, recently testified before the House Committee on Science and Technologyconcerning the state of scientific knowledge of accelerating sea level rise and pressure toexaggerate what it known about it. Dr. Alley told the Committee:

This document [the IPCC AR4] works very, very hard to be an assessment of whatis known scientifically and what is well-founded in the refereed literature andwhen we come up to that cliff and look over and say we don’t have a foundationright now, we have to tell you that, and on this particular issue, the trend ofacceleration of this flow with warming we don’t have a good assessedscientific foundation right now. [emphasis added]

Thus the IPCC projections of future sea level rise, which average only about 15 inchesfor the next 100 years, stand as the best projections that can be made based upon ourcurrent level of scientific understanding. These projections are far less severe that thealarming projections of many feet of sea level rise that have been made by a fewindividuals whose views lie outside of the scientific consensus.

17

Heatwaves: The population of South Carolina has likely become less sensitive to theimpacts of excessive heat events over the course of the past 30-40 years. This is true inmost major cities across the United States—a result of the increased availability and useof air-conditioning and the implementation of social programs aimed at caring for high-risk individuals—despite rising urban temperatures.

Heat-related mortality trends across the U.S.

Figure 12. Annual heat-related mortality rates (excess deaths per standard million population). Each histogram barindicates a different decade (from left to right, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s). (Source: Davis et al., 2003b).

A number of studies have shown that during the several decades, the population in majorU.S. cities has grown better adapted, and thus less sensitive, to the effects of excessiveheat events (Davis et al., 2003ab). Each of the bars of the illustration above represents theannual number of heat-related deaths in 28 major cities across the United States. Thereshould be three bars for each city, representing, from left to right, the decades of the1970s, 1980s and 1990. For nearly all cities, the number of heat-related deaths isdeclining (the bars are get smaller). And although there are no cities from South Carolinathat were included in the Davis et al. studies, in most cities in states in the southern andsoutheastern United States that were part of the investigation, there is not a bar present atall in the 1990s (see for instance, the closest city to South Carolina included in the

18

studies, Charlotte, North Carolina, indicated by CHL in the figure above). This indicatesthat there are no statistically distinguishable heat-related deaths during that decade (themost recent one studied)—meaning that the population of those cities has become nearlycompletely adapted to heat waves. This is likely to be the case in South Carolina cities aswell, as these cities share characteristics of the climate of those of the cities noted above.This adaptation is most likely a result of improvements in medical technology, access toair-conditioned homes, cars, and offices, increased public awareness of potentiallydangerous weather situations, and proactive responses of municipalities during extremeweather events.

The pattern of the distribution of heat-related mortality shows that in locations whereextremely high temperatures are more commonplace, such as along the southern tierstates, the prevalence of heat-related mortality is much lower than in the regions of thecountry where extremely high temperatures are somewhat rarer (e.g. the northeasternU.S.). This provides another demonstration that populations adapt to their prevailingclimate conditions. If temperatures warm in the future and excessive heat events becomemore common, there is every reason to expect that adaptations will take place to lessentheir impact on the general population.

Vecter-borne Diseases: “Tropical” diseases such as malaria and dengue fever have beenerroneously predicted to spread due to global warming. In fact, they are related less toclimate than to living conditions. These diseases are best controlled by direct applicationof sound, known public health policies.

Malaria Distribution in the United States

Figure 13. Shaded regions indicate locations where malaria was endemic in the United States (from Zuckeret al., 1996).

The two tropical diseases most commonly cited as spreading as a result of globalwarming, malaria and dengue fever, are not in fact “tropical” at all and thus are not asclosely linked to climate as many people suggest. For example, malaria epidemics

19

occurred as far north as Archangel, Russia, in the 1920s, and in the Netherlands. Malariawas common in most of the United States prior to the 1950s (Reiter, 1996). In fact, in thelate 1800s, a period when it was demonstrably colder in the United States than it is today,malaria was endemic in most of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains—a regionthat includes most of the (non-mountainous portions) of South Carolina. In 1878, about100,000 Americans were infected with malaria; about one-quarter of them died. By 1912,malaria was already being brought under control, yet persisted in the southeastern UnitedStates well into the 1940s. In fact, in 1946 the Congress created the CommunicableDisease Center (the forerunner to the current U.S. Centers for Disease Control andPrevention) for the purpose of eradicating malaria from the regions of the U.S. where itcontinued to persist. By the mid-to-late 1950s, the Center had achieved its goal andmalaria was effectively eradicated from the United States. This occurred not because ofclimate change, but because of technological and medical advances. Better anti-malariadrugs, air-conditioning, the use of screen doors and windows, and the elimination ofurban overpopulation brought about by the development of suburbs and automobilecommuting were largely responsible for the decline in malaria (Reiter, 1996; Reiter,2001). Today, the mosquitoes that spread malaria are still widely present in the UnitedStates, but the transmission cycle has been disrupted and the pathogen leading to thedisease is absent. Climate change is not involved.

U.S. Mortality Rates From Malaria, 1900-1949

Figure 14. Mortality rate in the United States from malaria (deaths per 100,000) from 1900 to 1949, when it waseffectively eradicated from the country.(http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=4&event=graphcats_print_list_item)

The effect of technology is also clear from statistics on dengue fever outbreaks, anothermosquito-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

20

town of Hidalgo, Texas, located just across the river, there were only seven reportedcases of the disease (Reiter, 1996). This is just not an isolated example, for data collectedover the past several decades has shown a similarly large disparity between the highnumber of cases of the disease in northern Mexico and the rare occurrences in thesouthwestern United States (Reiter, 2001). There is virtually no difference in climatebetween these two locations, but a world of difference in infrastructure, wealth, andtechnology—city layout, population density, building structure, window screens, air-conditioning and personal behavior are all factors that play a large role in thetransmission rates (Reiter, 2001).

Dengue Fever at the Texas/Mexico border from 1980 to 1999

Figure 15. Number of cases of Dengue Fever at the Texas/Mexico border from 1980 to 1999. During these 20years, there were 64 cases reported in all of Texas, while there were nearly 1,000 times that amount in thebordering states of Mexico (Figure from Reiter, 2001).

Another “tropical” disease that is often (falsely) linked to climate change is the West NileVirus. The claim is often made that a warming climate is allowing the mosquitoes thatcarry West Nile Virus to spread into South Carolina. However, nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.

West Nile Virus was introduced to the United States through the port of New York Cityin the summer of 1999. Since its introduction, it has spread rapidly across the country,reaching the West Coast by 2002 and has now been documented in every state as well asmost provinces of Canada. This is not a sign that the U.S. and Canada are progressively

21

warming. Rather, it is a sign that the existing environment is naturally primed for thevirus.

Spread of the West Nile Virus across the United States after itsIntroduction in New York City in 1999

Figure 16. Spread of the occurrence of the West Nile Virus from its introduction to the United States in 1999through 2007. By 2003, virtually every state in the country had reported the presence of virus. (source:http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/Mapsactivity/surv&control07Maps.htm).

The vector for West Nile is mosquitoes; wherever there is a suitable host mosquitopopulation, an outpost for West Nile virus can be established. And it is not just onemosquito species that is involved. Instead, the disease has been isolated in over 40mosquito species found throughout the United States. So the simplistic argument thatclimate change is allowing a West Nile carrying mosquito species to move into SouthCarolina is simply wrong. The already-resident mosquito populations of South Carolinaare appropriate hosts for the West Nile virus—as they are in every other state.

2000 20011999

20022003 2004

2005 2006 2007

22

Clearly, as is evident from the establishment of West Nile virus in every state in thecontiguous U.S., climate has little, or nothing, to do with its spread. The annual averagetemperature from the southern part of the United States to the northern part spans a rangeof more than 40ºF, so clearly the virus exists in vastly different climates. In fact, WestNile virus was introduced in New York City—hardly the warmest portion of thecountry—and has spread westward and southward into both warmer and colder andwetter and drier climates. This didn’t happen because climate changes allowed its spread,but because the virus was introduced to a place that was ripe for its existence—basicallyany location with a resident mosquito population (which describes basically anywhere inthe U.S).

West Nile virus now exists in South Carolina because the extant climate/ecology of SouthCarolina is one in which the virus can thrive. The reason that it was not found in SouthCarolina in the past was simply because it had not been introduced. Climate change inSouth Carolina, which is demonstrably small compared to the natural variability of thestate’s climate history, has absolutely nothing to do with it. By following the virus’progression from 1999 through 2007, one clearly sees that the virus spread from NYCsouthward and westward, it did not invade slowly from the (warmer) south, as one wouldhave expected if warmer temperatures was the driver.

Since the disease spreads in a wide range of both temperature and climatic regimes, onecould raise or lower the average annual temperature in South Carolina by many degreesor vastly change the precipitation regime and not make a bit of difference in theaggression of the West Nile Virus. Science-challenged claims to the contrary are not onlyignorant but also dangerous, serving to distract from real epidemiological diagnosiswhich allows health officials critical information for protecting the citizens of SouthCarolina.

Impacts of climate-mitigation measures in South Carolina

lobally, in 2003, humankind emitted 25,780 million metric tons of carbon dioxide(mmtCO2: EIA, 2007a), of which South Carolina accounted for 79.2 mmtCO2, or

only 0.3% (EIA, 2007b). The proportion of manmade CO2 emissions from SouthCarolina will decrease over the 21st century as the rapid demand for power in developingcountries such as China and India outpaces the growth of South Carolina’s CO2

emissions (EIA, 2007b).

During the past 5 years, global emissions of CO2 from human activity have increased atan average rate of 3.5%/yr (EIA, 2007a), meaning that the annual increase ofanthropogenic global CO2 emissions is more than 10 times greater than South Carolina’stotal emissions. This means that even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in SouthCarolina would be entirely subsumed by rising global emissions in just one month’s time.

G

23

A fortiori, regulations prescribing a reduction, rather than a complete cessation, of SouthCarolina’s CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate.

Wigley (1998) examined the climate impact of adherence to the emissions controlsagreed under the Kyoto Protocol by participating nations, and found that, if all developedcountries 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 globalsea level rise “saved” would be 2.6 cm, or one inch. A complete cessation of CO2

emissions in South Carolina is only a tiny fraction of the worldwide reductions assumedin Dr. Wigley’s global analysis, so its impact on future trends in global temperature andsea 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 South Carolina, assuming thatthe ratio of U.S. CO2 emissions to those of the developed countries which have agreed tolimits 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 andIndia continue to emit at an increasing rate. Consequently, the annual proportion ofglobal CO2 emissions from human activity that is contributed by human activity in theUnited States will decline. Finally, we assume that the proportion of total U.S. CO2

emissions in South Carolina – now 1.4% – remains constant throughout the 21st century.With these assumptions, we generate the following table derived from Wigley’s (1998)mid-range emissions scenario (which itself is based upon the IPCC’s scenario “IS92a”):

Table 1Projected annual CO2 emissions (mmtCO2)

YearGlobalemissions:Wigley, 1998

Developedcountries:Wigley, 1998

U.S. (39% ofdevelopedcountries)

South Carolina(1.4% of U.S.)

2000 26,609 14,934 5,795 792025 41,276 18,308 7,103 992050 50,809 18,308 7,103 992100 75,376 21,534 8,355 117

Note: Developed countries’ emissions, according to Wigley’s assumptions, do not changebetween 2025 and 2050: neither does total U.S or South Carolina emissions.

In Table 2, we compare the total CO2 emissions saving that would result if SouthCarolina’s CO2 emissions were completely halted by 2025 with the emissions savingsassumed by Wigley (1998) if all nations met their Kyoto commitments by 2010, and then

24

held their emissions constant throughout the rest of the century. This scenario is “KyotoConst.”

Table 2Projected annual CO2 emissions savings (mmtCO2)

Year South Carolina Kyoto Const.2000 0 02025 99 4,6972050 99 4,6972100 117 7,924

Table 3 shows the proportion of the total emissions reductions in Wigley’s (1998) casethat would be contributed by a complete halt of all South Carolina’s CO2 emissions(calculated as column 2 in Table 2 divided by column 3 in Table 2).

Table 3South Carolina’s percentage of emissions savings

Year South Carolina2000 0.0%2025 2.1%2050 2.1%2100 1.5%

Using the percentages in Table 3, and assuming that temperature change scales inproportion to CO2 emissions, we calculate the global temperature savings that will resultfrom the complete cessation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in South Carolina:

Table 4Projected global temperature savings (ºC)

Year Kyoto ConstSouthCarolina

2000 0 02025 0.03 0.00062050 0.07 0.0012100 0.15 0.002

Accordingly, a cessation of all of South Carolina’s CO2 emissions would result in aclimatically-irrelevant global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of no more than twothousandths of a degree Celsius. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible:

25

Table 5Projected global sea-level rise savings (cm)

Year Kyoto ConstSouthCarolina

2000 0 02025 0.2 0.0042050 0.9 0.022100 2.6 0.04

A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from South Carolina will result in aglobal sea-level rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.04 cm, or less than twohundredths of an inch. Again, this value is climatically irrelevant.

Even if the entire United States were to close down its economy completely and revert tothe Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from Chinaand India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade. In this context,any cuts in emissions from South Carolina would be extravagantly pointless.

Costs of Federal Legislation

nd what would be the potential costs to South Carolina of legislative actionsdesigned to cap greenhouse gas emissions? An analysis was recently completed by

the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), under contract from theAmerican Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers(ACCF and NAM), using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS); the samemodel employed by the US Energy Information Agency to examine the economicimpacts.

For a complete description of their findings please visit:http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/cost-of-climate-change-policies/

To summarize, SAIC found that by the year 2020, average annual household income inSouth Carolina would decline by $778 to $2522 and by the year 2030 the decline wouldincrease to between $3279 and $5978. The state would stand to lose between 18,000 and28,000 jobs by 2020 and between 52,000 and 69,000 jobs by 2030. At the same time gasprices could increase by nearly $5 a gallon by the year 2030 and the states’ GrossDomestic Product could decline by then by as much as $7.7 billion/yr.

And all this economic hardship would come with absolutely no detectable impact on thecourse of future climate. This is the epitome of a scenario of all pain and no gain.

A

26

Figure 17. The economic impacts in South Carolina of federal legislation to limit greenhouse gasemissions green. (Source: Science Applications International Corporation, 2008,

http://www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/fullstudy031208.pdf)

South Carolina Scientists Reject UN’s Global WarmingHypothesis

At least 351 South Carolina scientists have petitioned the US government that the UN’s human caused globalwarming hypothesis is “without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesiswould unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment ofthe Earth.”

They are joined by over 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs.

The petition and entire list of US signers can be found here:http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Names of the South Carolina scientists who signed the petition:

Daniel Otis Adam, PhD, Louis W. Adams, PhD, Gary N. Adkins, Donald R. Amett, Douglas J. Anderson,MD, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Gregory B. Arnold, Luther Aull, PhD, Ricardo O. Bach, PhD, Carl WilliamsBailey, PhD, J. Austin Ball, MD, Frederic M. Ball, Tom Bane, Seymour Baron, PhD, Charles WilliamBauknight Jr., PhD, Norman Paul Baumann, PhD, Richard C. Beckert, Wallace B. Behnke Jr., Warrem C.Bergmann, William H. Berry, Robert G. Best, PhD, Minnerd A. Blegen, William Bleimeister, James A.Bloom, Elton T. Booth, Dwight L. Bowen, DVM, Robert Foster Bradley, PhD, Richard G. Braham, RobertS. Brown, PhD, Robert E. Brown, Jay B. Bruggeman, Carl Brunson, Philip Barnes Burt, PhD, Jake D. Butts,Ed F. Byars, PhD, Vincent J. Byrne, Edward C. Cahaly, Michael J. Cain, Thomas L. Campisi, Howard L.Carlson, Nelson W. Carmichael, George R. Caskey, PhD, Rex L. Cassidy, Curtis A. Castell, Frederick J.Chapman, Ken A. Chatto, Thomas Clement Cheng, PhD, Emil A. Chiarito, J. D. Chism, Frank M.Cholewinski, PhD, Allen D. Clabo, PhD, Hugh Kidder Clark, PhD, Fred R. Clayton, PhD, Daniel Codespoti,PhD, William Weber Coffeen, PhD, Benjamin Theodore Cole, PhD, B. Theodore Cole, PhD, Floyd L.Combs, J. J. Connelly, B. M. Cool, PhD, Bingham Mercur Cool, PhD, Horace Corbett, John J. Corcoran,MD, Leon W. Corley, William H. Courtney 3rd, PhD, Andrew K. Courtney, William G. Cousins, Norman J.

27

Cowen, MD, Garnet Roy Craddock, PhD, Irving M. Craig, Steven P. Crawford, Van T. Cribb, George T.Croft, PhD, Carl J. Croft, Donald C. Cronemeyer, PhD, Peter M. Cumbie, PhD, James L. Current, Bobby L.Curry, William C. Daley, Robert F. Dalpiaz, Colgate W. Darden, PhD, William E. Dauksch, Francis Davis,PhD, Murray Daw, PhD, John D. Deden, Joseph V. Depalma, George T. Deschamps, MD, Jerry B. Dickey,Charles R. Dietz, William R. Dill, Dennis R. Dinger, PhD, Thomas J. Dipressi, Louis Dischler, Barry K.Dodson, Richard M. Dom, PhD, Henry Donato, PhD, Theron W. Downes, PhD, Frank E. Driggers, PhD,William W. Duke, MD, Travis K. Durham, Martin D. Egan, Eric P. Erlanson, Laurie N. Ervin, Henry S.Famy, Pauline Farr, Charles J. Fehlig, Jeff S. Feinstein, Oren S. Fletcher, Peter J. Foley, Dennis MartinForsythe, PhD, R. S. Frank, David E. Franklin, William R. Frazier, Donley D. Freshwater, Carlos WayneFrick, Jerry F. Friedner, S. Funkhouser, PhD, Joseph E. Furman, MD, Alfred J. Garrett, PhD, Alan A.Genosi, Eric Gerstenberger, George F. Gibbons, John H. Gilliland, Y. H. Gilmore, John H. Gilmore, LewisW. Goldstein, Charles Gooding, PhD, Stephen H. Goodwin, Nicholas W. Gothard, Christian M. Graf, SuttonL. Graham, Michael Gray, PhD, Ted W. Gray, John T. Gressette, Edwin N. Griffin, Paul P. Griffin, MD,Fredrick Grizmala, Peter P. Hadfalvi, Gerhard Haimberger, Christian M. Hansen, Henry E. Harling, Eric W.Harris, Don Harris, Jim L. Harrison, Grover C. Haynes, Thomas P. Henry, Walter J. Henson, Don Herriott,Arnold L. Hill, Norman E. Hill, Theodore C. Hilton, Kearn H. Hinchman, John C. Hindersman, MD, StanleyH. Hix, Robert Charles Hochel, PhD, Louis J. Hooffstetter, Jeffrey Hopkins, Alvin J. Hotz Jr., Vince Howel,Monte Lee Hyder, PhD, Robert Hiteshew Insley, Walter F. Ivanjack, Wade Jackson, Doyle J. Jaco, WilliamJohn Jacober, PhD, Jim J. Jacques, Alfred S. Jennings, PhD, S. Tonebraker Jennings, PhD, Wayne H. Jeus,PhD, Roger E. Jinkins, MD, Edwin R. Jones, PhD, Jay H. Jones, DVM, Henry S. Jordan, MD, John W.Kalinowski, Noel Andrew Patrick Kane-Maguise, PhD, Randy F. Keenan, Douglas E. Kennemore, MD, JereDonald Knight, PhD, James F. Knight, MD, Charles F. Knobeloch, Harry E. Knox, Jacob John Koch,Lawrence A. Kolze, Norman L. Kotraba, Karl Walter Krantz, PhD, Lois B. Krause, PhD, Thomas A.Krueger, Kenneth F. Krzyzaniak, Donald Gene Kubler, PhD, Jerry Roy Lambert, PhD, Carl Leaton Lane,PhD, Louis Leblanc, Burtrand Insung Lee, PhD, Victoria Mary Leitz, PhD, W. Leonard, Lionel E. Lester,Donald F. Looney, Robert Irving Louttit, PhD, Thomas G. MacDonald, MD, D. E. Maguire, Robert E.Malpass, Robert Arthur Malstrom, PhD, Gregory J. Mancini, PhD, Donald G. Manly, PhD, Ronald Marks,PhD, Leif E. Maseng, George T. Matzko, PhD, James Thomas McCarter, Kevin F. McCrary, F. JosephMcCrosson, PhD, David K. McCurry, James D. McDowall, Roger D. Meadows, Tarian M. Mendes, MD,Paul J. Miklo, John D. Miles, Nawin C. Mishra, PhD, Adrian A. Molinaroli, Al Montgomery, RichardMorrison, PhD, William S. Morrow, PhD, Duane Mummett, Edward A. Munns, Julian M. Murrin, John D.Myers, George D. Neale, Robert Nerbun, PhD, Chester Nichols, PhD, K. Okafor, PhD, Thomas E. O'Mara,Russell O'Neal, PhD, George Franci O'Neill, PhD, Errol Glen Orebaugh, PhD, Terry L. Ortner, Joseph E.Owensby, John Michael Palms, PhD, Chanseok Park, PhD, David W. Peltola, Mark Perry, Edward A. Pires,Branko N. Popov, PhD, William F. Prior, MD, William A. Quarles, Robert C. Ranew, Margene G. Ranieri,PhD, Charles H. Ratterree 3rd, Robert H. Reck, MD, Chester Q. Reeves, William J. Reid III, PhD, ProfessorReid, PhD, George M. Rentz, Harry E. Ricker, PhD, John S. Riley, PhD, Elizabeth S. Riley, MD, Samuel E.Roberts, Robert E. Robinson, PhD, R. E. Robinson, PhD, Neil E. Rogen, PhD, Emil Roman, George MooreRothrock, PhD, Carl Sidney Rudisill, PhD, Harvey R. Ruggles, Raymond J. Rulis, Terry W. Ryan, David J.Salisbury, Hubert D. Sammons, MD, Robert M. Sandifer, Marshall C. Sasser, MD, Frederick CharlesSchaefer, PhD, Stephen Schaub, Robert C. Schnabel, James F. Scoggin Jr., PhD, Doug P. Seif, DVM, Joe R.Selig, Taze Leonard Senn, PhD, Jerry W. Shaw, Thomas A. Sherard, Phillip A. Shipp, John E. Shippey, MD,Jonathan R. Shong, DVM, Jack S. Sigaloff, Michael R. Simac, Edwin K. Simpson, Joseph L. Skibba, PhD,Thomas E. Slusher, Glendon C. Smith, Levi Smith III, DVM, Robert W. Smithem, William H. Spence, PhD,Roland B. Spressart, Nesan Sriskanda, PhD, Robert G. Stabrylla, Paul R. Staley, MD, Edwin H. Stein, PhD,Neil I. Steinberg, PhD, Jeff Stevens, Keith C. Stevenson, William Hogue Stewart, PhD, G. David Stewart,Robert M. Stone, PhD, Roger William Strauss, PhD, Terry A. Strout, PhD, Ronald K. Stupar, JohnSulkowski, Arthur B. Swett, William B. Sykes, John L. Tate, Victor Terrana, PhD, Wayne Therrell, Hugh S.Thompson, MD, Jerry R. Tindal, Reuben R. Tipton, Laura L. Tovo, PhD, Dean B. Traxler, James S.Trowbridge, Larry S. Trzupek, PhD, Roy R. Turner, Jerry A. Underwood, Ivan S. Valdes, George C. Varner,PhD, Henry E. Vogel, PhD, Peter John Vogelberger, J. Rex Voorhees, Stanley K. Wagher, Earl K. Wallace,MD, Michael F. Warren, Linda A. Weatherell, DVM, James W. Weeg, Joel D. Welch, William B. Wells,William J. Westerman, PhD, Edward Wheaton, Robert L. Whitehead, Lisa C. Williams, James C.Williamson, Nigel F. Wills, Charles A. Wilson, PhD, David N. Wilson, Rick l. Wilson, John E. Wilson,Robert W. Wise, Walter P. Witherspoon Jr., Herbert S. Wood, MD, Roberta L. Wood, Bruce D. Woods, John

28

J. Woods, James M. Woodward, Walt Worsham, PhD, Stephen L. Wythe, PhD, Franklin Arden Young, PhD,William M. Zobel

Summary

The observations we have detailed in this report illustrate that climate variability fromyear-to-year and decade-to-decade plays a greater role in South Carolina’s climate thanany long-term trends. Such short-term variability will continue dominate SouthCarolina’s climate into the future. At the century timescale, South Carolina’s climateshows no statically significant trend in statewide average annual temperature, statewidetotal annual precipitation, or in the frequency and/or severity of droughts—an indicationthat “global warming” is anything but “global” and also strong evidence that local andregional processes are more important than global ones in determining local climate andlocal climate variations and changes. The same is true for tropical cyclones impactingSouth Carolina and the United States—there is a great degree of annual and decadalvariability that can be traced long into the past, but no 20th century trends in frequency,intensity, or damage. Global sea levels are indeed rising, but they are rising, and shouldcontinue to rise, at a pace that is not dissimilar to the pace of rise experienced andadapted to during the 20th century. And climate change is shown to have little, if any,detectable impacts on the overall health of South Carolina’s population. Instead,application of direct measures aimed at combating the negative impacts of heat wavesand vector-borne diseases prove far and away to be the most efficient and effectivemethods at improving the public health. Further, no emissions reductions by SouthCarolina will have any detectable regional or global effect whatsoever on climate change.

References

Aubrey, David G, and K.O. Emery, 1991. Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges,Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 237pp.

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, 2007a. International Energy Annual, 2005. U.S.Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/contents.html

29

Energy Information Administration, 2007b. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in theUnited States, 2006. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/0573(2006).pdf

Howat, I.M., et al. 2007. Rapid changes in ice discharge from Greenland outlet glaciers.Science, 315, 1559-1561.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Summary for Policymakers,(http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

Knight, D.E, and R.E. Davis, 2007. Climatology of tropical cyclone rainfall in theSoutheastern United States, Physical Geography, 28, 126-147.

Landsea, C. W., 2005. Hurricanes and global warming. Nature, 438, E11-13.

Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2006. Global, Regional, and National CO2

Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon DioxideInformation Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Mock, C.J. et al., 2004. Reconstructing South Carolina tropical cyclones back to the midEighteenth century. In: Preprints, Twenty Sixth Conference on Hurricanes and TropicalMeteorology, Miami Beach, FL. American Meteorological Society, Boston MA, pp. 671-672.

National Climatic Data Center, U.S. National/State/Divisional Data,(www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html)

Pielke Jr., R. A., et al., 2007. Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review, in press.

Reiter, P., 1996. Global warming and mosquito-borne disease in the USA. The Lancet,348, 662.

Reiter, P., 2001. Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Environmental HealthPerspectives, 109, 141-161.

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Coastal Heritage, Rising Tide: Will ClimateChange Drown Coastal Wetlands? Volume 21, Number 3, Winter 2007,http://www.scseagrant.org/Content/?cid=149.

30

Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications.Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2285-2288.

Zucker, J.R., Changing Patterns of Autochthonous Malaria Transmission in the UnitedStates: A Review of Recent Outbreaks. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2, 37-43.