Climate Change: A Step Toward Realism

1
Climate Change A Step Toward Realism

• Joel Schwartz
• Visiting Fellow
• American Enterprise Institute
• Industrial Environment/California Manufacturers
  and Technology Association Annual Meeting
• November 8, 2007
• San Diego, California

2
Environmentalists claim air pollution will
increase in future due to greenhouse warming
3
Back in the real world Rising
TemperaturesDeclining Air Pollution
Ozone 8-hour exceedance days/year PM2.5 annual
average. Temperature and pollution levels are
national averages.
4
More driving, more energyless air pollution (1)
Change in ambient pollution levels, 1980-2005
Sources EPA, DOT, DOE
5
More driving, more energyless air pollution (2)
Change in pollutant emissions, 1980-2005
Sources EPA, DOT, DOE
6
Air pollution will continue to decline

• Motor vehicle standards will eliminate more than
  80 of vehicle NOx, VOC and PM, even after
  accounting for growth in driving
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will eliminate
  more than 70 of SO2 and more than 50 of NOx
  during the next two decades
• MACT rules eliminate most emissions from a wide
  range of industrial sources
• Overall, existing requirements will eliminate at
  least 70-80 of remaining air pollution during
  next 20 years or so

7
Long-term ambient, on-road, and stack
measurements confirm pollution reductions

• On-road emissions
• Average automobiles emissions are dropping VOC
  -12/yr NOx -6/yr CO -10/yr.
• Heavy-duty diesel trucks NOx -4/yr soot -8/yr
• Rate of NOx and soot declines will accelerate as
  vehicles built to new Tier 2 (2004) and
  heavy-duty (2007) emissions standards begin to
  permeate the on-road fleet
• Power plant emissions
• NOx SIP Call recently reduced coal-fired NOx
  emissions nearly 60 below 1998 level. SO2 down
  23 since 1998.
• Ambient levels of directly emitted pollutants
• Steady declines in NO2, CO, SO2, benzene,
  1,3-butadiene, total VOC, etc. All dropping a few
  percent to several percent per year.

8
So how did NRDC come up with rising air pollution
levels in the future?

• NRDCs press release
• Smog Poses Greater Health Risk Because of Global
  Warming
• More Bad Air Days for Southern, Eastern U.S.
  Cities
• WASHINGTON, DC (September 13, 2007) -- People
  living in ten mid-sized metropolitan areas are
  expected to experience significantly more 'red
  alert' air pollution days in coming years due to
  increasing lung-damaging smog caused by higher
  temperatures from global warming.
• Researchers project that, unless action is taken
  to curb global warming, by mid-century people
  living in a total of 50 cities in the eastern
  United States would see
• A doubling of the number of unhealthy red alert
  days
• A 68 percent (5.5 day) increase in the average
  number of days exceeding the current 8-hour ozone
  standard

9
NRDCs Sleight of Hand

• Used the 1996 EPA emissions inventory to
  predict ozone levels in the 2050s
• But 1996 ozone-precursor emissions were more than
  30 higher than 2006 emissions
• In other words, NRDC got higher future ozone
  levels by assuming a large increase in future
  ozone-forming emissions. However, NRDC obscures
  this fact in its report and press release.

10
NRDCs response to Schwartzs critique of Heat
Advisory Deception and evasion

• NRDC The project on which Heat Advisory is
  based kept anthropogenic ozone precursor emission
  levels constant as a way of evaluating the effect
  that climate change alone could have on ozone
  concentrations.
• Misleading Constant really means constant at
  1996 levels, which really means more than 30
  higher than today, and at least four or five
  times higher than emissions in coming decades
• NRDC While we would expect significant
  reductions in precursor emissions over the next
  decade there are no reliable estimates of
  precursor emissions extending to the mid 21st
  century.
• Climate activists assume climate models provide
  accurate predictions of future temperatures
  without batting an eye. But when it comes to
  ozone, NRDC pleads uncertainty and then chooses
  increases in future ozone-forming emissions that
  are patently at odds with any plausible future
  scenario.
• If anything, the statement that there are no
  reliable estimates.extending to the mid 21st
  Century is far more applicable to greenhouse gas
  emissions and climate models predictive skill
  than it is for ozone-forming emissions.
• Imagine NRDCs reaction if climate skeptics
  assumed CO2 emissions would stay constant at 1996
  levels to predict future climate

11

• NRDC then claimed Heat Advisory wasnt really
  making predictions of future ozone levels
• The project on which Heat Advisory is based kept
  anthropogenic ozone precursor emission levels
  constant as a way of evaluating the effect that
  climate change alone could have on ozone
  concentrations. Other researchers may choose
  alternative assumptions about how anthropogenic
  ozone precursors could change in the future, and
  will arrive at different projected ozone
  concentrations. Projections of how global warming
  would affect ozone levels are not predictions of
  what will happen.
• Now look at NRDCs press release
• Smog Poses Greater Health Risk Because of Global
  Warming
• More Bad Air Days for Southern, Eastern U.S.
  Cities
• WASHINGTON, DC (September 13, 2007) -- People
  living in ten mid-sized metropolitan areas are
  expected to experience significantly more 'red
  alert' air pollution days in coming years due to
  increasing lung-damaging smog caused by higher
  temperatures from global warming.
• Researchers project that, unless action is taken
  to curb global warming, by mid-century people
  living in a total of 50 cities in the eastern
  United States would see
• A doubling of the number of unhealthy red
  alert days
• A 68 percent (5.5 day) increase in the average
  number of days exceeding the current 8-hour ozone
  standard

12
NRDC certainly knows that air pollution will
declinetheir press releases highlight the new
regulations

• EPA Rule Means Progress Against Diesel Pollution
  According to Natural Resources Defense Council,
  May 10, 2004
• These standardswill reduce particulate soot and
  nitrogen oxide emissions from non-road diesel
  vehicles by 90-95 percent in most cases
• NEW DIESEL FUEL HITTING PUMPS NATIONWIDE ON
  OCTOBER 15 CUTS POLLUTION, ENABLES NEW
  LOW-EMISSION ENGINE TECHNOLOGY, October 10, 2006
• when combined with a new generation of engines
  hitting the road in January, it will enable
  emission reductions of up to 95 percent,
  according to the Natural Resources Defense
  Council
• EPA touts new, cleaner cars, January 26, 2004 
• Mike Leavitt, head of the Environmental
  Protection Agency, unveiled 17 new cars and
  trucks designed to meet stricter "Tier 2"
  emissions standards set in 1999. The vehicles,
  which burn low-sulfur fuel, are 77 percent to 95
  percent cleaner than current models.

13
What makes Heat Advisory even more egregious is
that the report was actually written by
university and government scientists

• Heat Advisorys authors are from major
  universities and govt agencies
• Activism thinly cloaked in a scientific wrapper

14
Heat Advisorys results have also been published
in two journal articles

• Knowlton et al., Assessing ozone-related health
  impacts under a changing climate, Environmental
  Health Perspectives, 112 (2004) 1557-63
• Bell et al., Climate change, ambient ozone, and
  health in 50 US cities, Climatic Change, 82
  (2007) 61-87
• These studies both manufacture increases in
  future ozone by assuming increases in
  ozone-forming emissions that are patently at odds
  with any plausible future scenario.
• Both studies are peer-reviewed. Both are
  published in prestigious journals. And both have
  nothing to do with reality.

15
Lets pretend is almost standard in
peer-reviewed scientific studies

• Sitch et al., Indirect radiative forcing of
  climate change through ozone effects on the
  land-carbon sink, Nature, 48 (2007).
• Study uses IPCC A2 scenario for future ozone
  precursor emissions.
• But A2 scenario has no relationship to reality.
  A2 assumes rising NOx and VOC in developed
  countriesjust the opposite of the actual trend.

16
Sitch et al.s modeled ozone levels also conflict
with measured levels
17
Only one study has tried to use a realistic
estimate of future air pollutant emissions
18
GA Tech/NESCAUM assumptions results

• Assumptions
• Climate warms about 2.5F by 2050 (IPCC A1B
  scenario)
• NOx and SO2 emissions drop 50 VOC emissions
  drop more than 40
• Results
• The combined effect of climate change and
  emission reductions lead to a 20 decrease
  (regionally varying from 11 to 28) in the mean
  summer maximum daily 8-hour ozone levels (M8hO3)
  over the United States. Mean annual PM2.5
  concentrations are estimated to be 23 lower
  (varies from 9 to 32).
• Modeling suggests warming alone increases ambient
  pollution in some regions of U.S. and decreases
  it in others, but effects are small compared to
  effect of emission reductions

19
GA Tech study is actually too pessimistic

• Future air pollution declines will be greater
  than Georgia Tech/NESCAUM study predicts
• NOx has already declined more from 2001-2006 than
  study assumed for 2001-2020. VOC has already
  declined more than half the amount predicted for
  2001-2020.
• In last six years, the U.S. has achieved more
  than one-fourth the ozone and PM2.5 decline
  predicted for 2001-2050

20
California WildfiresAny Connection with Human
Caused Climate Change?

• Activists and journalists were quick to blame the
  southern California wildfires on drought
  purportedly caused by climate change.
• In factas anyone who lives in southern
  California knowsSoCal has virtually no rain from
  May through September
• In fact, it is wet winters that help create
  conditions amenable to wild fire, by stimulating
  growth of vegetation

21
The Real Causes of SoCal Wildfires

• These SoCal fires often occur in conjunction
  with Santa Ana weather events, which combine high
  winds and low humidity, and tend to follow a wet
  winter rainy seasonover a century of watershed
  reserve management and fire suppression have
  promoted fuel accumulations, helping to shape one
  of the most conflagration-prone environments in
  the world.
• charcoal records from Santa Barbara Channel
  sediments indicate the frequency of wildfires in
  the region has not changed significantly in the
  last 500 years.
• The severity of the immediate human impact of
  the October 2003 wildfires was exacerbated by the
  rapid growth of an extensive wildland-urban
  interface proximate to a population of nearly 20
  million in southern CaliforniaThe intensity of
  the fires and the severity of their ecological
  impact on the regions forests were exacerbated
  by the long-term accumulation of fuels such as
  snags, logs, and heavy brush due to 20th Century
  fire suppression policies and watershed
  preservation efforts since the late 1800s.
• Precipitation tends to be above normal in the
  winter or early spring prior to the fire season,
  suggesting that large fall and winter fires are
  preconditioned two or more seasons in advance.
• Westerling et al., Climate, Santa Ana Winds and
  Autumn Wildfires in Southern California, EOS, 85
  (2004) 289, 296.

22
What about the effect of future warming?

• warmer temperatures might tend to reduce the
  moisture available to plants during the growing
  season.
• In other words, warming less plant growth
  lower fire risk
• Preliminary results of a Santa Ana wind analysis
  indicate, however, that the frequency of Santa
  Ana events in early fall, when temperatures are
  still high, may decrease by the end of the
  century, which would serve to reinforce any
  reductions in southern California fire risks due
  to changes in temperature and precipitation.
• In other words, models suggest warming fewer
  Santa Anas lower fire risk
• Westerling et al. Climate change and wildfire in
  California, Climatic Change, in press

23
Southern California Monthly Precipitation,
2000-2007
24
No human signal in long-term SoCal precipitation
trend
25
According to Cal-EPA...
But note that decline is not volume of runoff,
but percent of total runoff occurring from
April-July (Source Cal-EPA AB1493 briefing
package)
26
Californias Water Supply Is Not Shrinking
Index is unimpaired runoff. Source CA Dept. of
Water Resources
27
No signal of human-caused climate change in
long-term Sacramento River Index
Sacramento River Index, 900-2007
Reconstruction is based on tree-ring
data. Sources Measured runoff CA Dept. of Water
Resources. Reconstructed runoff, NCDC/NOAA
28
According to Cal-EPA
Source Cal-EPA, AB 1493 briefing
True, but sea level has been rising since the
1920sdecades before humans emitted enough GHGs
to affect the climate. Cal-EPAs own graph shows
this. In fact, the graph shows sea level rose as
much from 1860-1885 as it did from 1950-2000.
29
Sea level rise has slowed or stopped since
mid-1980s
San Francisco coastal sea level trend, 1854-2007
Source NOAA, Historic Tide Data
30
World sea levels dont show a global warming
signal

• Sea level has been rising since at least the
  beginning of the 20th Century
• But 94 of all human CO2 emissions occurred after
  1910 90 after 1920
• Rate of sea level increase slowed down during the
  20th Century

31
Rate of sea level rise is 27 lower than IPCC
estimate

• Study used GPS data to measure vertical land
  movements and correct for these movements in
  estimating sea-level trend from tide gauges
• After factoring in vertical land movement,
  average rate of world sea level rise is 27 lower
  than IPCC estimate

32
Reality Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 means
developed world must deindustrialize

• India, at 1 tonne annual CO2 emissions per
  capita, is the only large-sized economy that is
  below the desired carbon emission levels of 2050.
  India should keep it that way and insist that
  the rich countries pay their share of the burden
  in reducing emissions, says Mr Nicolas Stern.
  
• India Times, Nov. 5, 2007

CO2 emissions data source U.S. Energy
Information Administration
33
Wealth requires abundant energy, which in
practice means mainly energy from fossil fuels
CO2/person vs. GDP/person, 2004
Allowable CO2 per capita for stabilization
Source U.S. Energy Information Administration
34

• The relationship between abundant energy and
  prosperity explains why it is so hard to get
  people to produce less CO2, even in countries
  that claim to be very concerned about climate
  change

35
No magic bullets for reducing fossil fuels

• Europeans have been paying 5 or 6 per gallon of
  gasoline for decades. But their cars still run on
  gasoline and diesel.
• They drive smaller cars than we do, and they
  drive them less.
• Europeans pay a pricenot just in Eurosbut in
  less useful and less comfortable cars, and in
  lower mobility

36
How about getting people out of their cars and
into transit? Europe is going in the opposite
direction.
EU15 trend in person-miles per capita by mode

• Transits market share dropped from 25 to 16
  between 1970 and 2000
• Autos account for 78 of travel miles
• Vast majority of new development is suburban

Source European Environment Agency
37
People buy cars as soon as they become wealthy
enough to afford them
Cars/capita vs. GDP/capita, 2002
Its not just Americans who have a love affair
with the automobile Love affair is also the
wrong metaphor. People the world over buy cars
because no other transport mode offers comparable
flexibility, speed, privacy, convenience, or
autonomy
Source Intl Monetary Fund
38
Unintended consequences when governments try to
pick technology winners through a political
process

• New research suggests that N2O from fertilizer
  used to grow fuel crops more than offsets any CO2
  savings
• N2O has about 300x the greenhouse potential of
  CO2

we have shown that, depending on Nitrogen
content, the use of several agricultural crops
for energy production can readily lead to N2O
emissions large enough to cause climate warming
instead of cooling by saved fossil CO2.
39
Energy realism from a climate alarmist

• Ill tell you one of the horrifying facts of
  global warming, and why it is so inexorable.
  Suppose that you and I wantedto guarantee that
  the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
  atmospherewould not go up any more.
• ...Youd have to cut world carbon dioxide
  emissions by 75 percent.
• Thats a horrific number if you think about
  everything that you do whether its talking on
  the telephone, or driving our cars, or heating or
  cooling our homes. Think of everything thats
  manufactured, energy used to extract metals, for
  exampleYou would have to have a radical change
  in your lifestyle.
• In fact, its worse than I talk about, because
  suppose that were able to produce the miracle
  the absolute miracle of reducing 75 in our
  emissions globally. Guess what? Over the next
  hundred years, the Earth would warm up another
  degree Fahrenheit, even though we produced that
  miraculous result.
• its really hard to do something about it in a
  relatively short period of time, say over the
  next three decades. Its really, really hard.
• Jerry Mahlman, NOAA Climate Scientist, Earth
  Sky interview

40
Dont underestimate the benefits of abundant,
inexpensive energy
41

• To contact me
• joel_at_joelschwartz.com
• To read my papers and presentations
• www.joelschwartz.com