THE CASE AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS
Posted on: November 21, 2020
THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE ASSUMED CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP IN CLIMATE SCIENCE BETWEEN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND OBSERVED CHANGE IN ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION. IT IS PRESENTED AS A SYNTHESIS OF THE RELATED POSTS ON THIS SITE.
RELATED POST#1: THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS IN THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING [LINK]
Here NASA scientist Dr. Peter Griffith explains the foundational concept of the science of anthropogenic (AGW) global warming and climate change and the kind of climate action implied by the science that humans must undertake to moderate and control the progress of global warming. He holds up a chunk of coal and explains that “the carbon in this chunk of coal was taken out of the atmosphere 350 million years ago. And since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been taking it out of the ground and using it for fuel and that has released this very old carbon back that is not part of the current account of the carbon cycle into the atmosphere. This external and unnatural perturbation of the delicately balanced carbon cycle causes atmospheric CO2 to go up. What this means is that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is NOT a theory about carbon dioxide emissions in general but a theory specific to the impact of the industrial economy that dug up fossil fuels loaded with carbon from carbon cycles that are millions of years old. This is EXTERNAL CARBON that is not part of the current account of the carbon cycle. The essence of the theory of AGW is that external carbon from very old carbon cycles in fossil fuel emissions cause warming by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and that therefore the amount of warming can be attenuated by reducing fossil fuel emissions. (Hansen, 1981) (Meinshausen, 2009) (Stocker, 2013) (Callendar, 1938) (Lacis, 2010) (Hansen, 2016) (IPCC, 2000) (IPCC, 2014).
At the root of the proposed AGW causation chain is the ability of fossil fuel emissions to cause measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of random natural variability because very old external carbon in fossil fuel emissions acts as a perturbation of the current account of the carbon cycle. AGW climate change theory is specific to the impact of the industrial economy and specific to CO2 from fossil fuels as the ultimate cause of the observed warming since the industrial revolution. Carbon cycle flows are not a factor either in AGW theory or in the design of climate action and carbon budgets needed to attenuate AGW. For example, respiration emissions and photosynthesis absorptions are not a factor in the AGW equation. TO SUMMARIZE: AGW IS NOT A THEORY ABOUT THE EVILS OF CARBON DIOXIDE. IT IS A THEORY ABOUT THE EVILS OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, This evil is understood as the responsiveness of atmospheric composition to fossil fuel emissions. Fossil fuel emissions cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to rise, and rising atmospheric CO2 causes higher temperatures, and the sequence of higher and higher temperatures caused by higher and higher atmospheric CO2 is understood as global warming and because the rise in atmospheric CO2 was due to human activity, the warming is understood as human caused or anthropogenic. A necessary condition for this theory is that atmospheric composition in terms of its CO2 concentration must be responsive to fossil fuel emissions.
RELATED POST#2: MONTE CARLO SIMULATION#1 OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS [LINK]
As explained in the related post, climate science declares uncertainties in carbon cycle flows (shown below) but does not take them into account when making the mass balance. The mass balance made in this way does indicate that the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately half of the annual fossil fuel emissions. This ratio is described in climate science as the RETAINED FRACTION, meaning that half of the fossil fuel emissions remains in the atmosphere net of carbon cycle flows to and from the atmosphere. This positive constant as a retained fraction implies that atmospheric composition is responsive to fossil fuel emissions. However, this retained fraction computation contains a fatal statistical flaw because the uncertainties in carbon cycle flows, though declared, are not taken into account in the estimation of the retained fraction. In the related post, the magnitude of this error is estimated with a Monte Carlo Simulation.
The simulation is used to estimate the highest value of the unknown standard deviations at which we can detect the presence of human emissions in the carbon cycle. For the purpose of this test we propose that an uncertain flow account is in balance as long as the Null Hypothesis that the sum of the flows is zero cannot be rejected. The alpha error rate for the test is set to a high value of alpha=0.10 to ensure that any reasonable ability to discriminate between the flow account WITH Anthropogenic Emissions from a the flow account WITHOUT Anthropogenic Emissions is taken into evidence that the relatively small fossil fuel emissions can be detected in the presence of much larger and uncertain natural flows. The spreadsheet used in this determination is available for download from an online data archive Data Archive Link . In the simulation we assign different levels of uncertainty to the flows for which no uncertainty data are available and test the null hypothesis that the flows balance with anthropogenic emissions (AE) included and again with AE excluded. If the flows balance when AE are included and they don’t balance when AE are excluded then we conclude that the presence of the AE can be detected at that level of uncertainty. However, if the flows balance with and without AE then we conclude that the stochastic flow account is not sensitive to AE at that level of uncertainty because it is unable to detect their presence. If the presence of AE cannot be detected no role for their effect on climate can be deduced from the data at that level of uncertainty in natural flows. The balance is computed from the atmospheric perspective as Balance=Input-Output where Input is flow to the atmosphere and Output is flow from the atmosphere. The p-values for hypothesis tests for uncertainties in the natural flows from 1% of mean to 6.5% of mean are presented below. The tabulation shows that fossil fuel emissions can be detected if the uncertainty in carbon cycle flows is less than 2% of average. Since the IPCC declared uncertainties for carbon cycle flows are greater than 6%, we conclude from this Monte Carlo simulation analysis that relatively small flows of fossil fuel emissions cannot be detected net of uncertainties in carbon cycle flows and that therefore it is not possible that atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsive to fossil fuel emissions.
- Natural: Ocean surface to atmosphere:Mean=78.4,SD=N/A.
- Natural: Atmosphere to ocean:surface:Mean=80.0,SD=N/A
- Human: Fossil fuel emissions:surface to atmosphere:Mean=7.8,SD=0.6
- Human: Land use change:surface to atmosphere:Mean=1.1,SD=0.8
- Natural: Photosynthesis:atmosphere to surface:Mean=123.0,SD=8.0
- Natural: Respiration/fire:surface to atmosphere:Mean=118.7,SD=N/A
- Natural: Freshwater to atmosphere:Mean=1.0,SD=N/A
- Natural: Volcanic emissions surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.1,SS =N/A
- Natural: Rock weathering:surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.3,SD=N/A
RELATED POST#3: MONTE CARLO SIMULATION#2 OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS [LINK]
The charts above show show 150 randomly drawn values of atmospheric CO2 concentration with and without fossil fuel emissions. In the second chart, with fossil fuel emissions included, he airborne fraction is found to be μ=0.477, close to the 0.5 assumed in climate science. However, the standard deviation of the airborne fraction is σ=1.27 in the presence of uncertain carbon cycle flows with their uncertainty taken into account. The large variance implies that the computed retained fraction does not have the statistical significance needed for its interpretation in terms of the phenomena being studied. We conclude from these results that when stated uncertainties in carbon cycle flows are taken into account, no evidence is found that fossil fuel emissions cause changes in atmospheric composition because because the uncertainties in carbon cycle flows are two large to be able to detect the effect of relatively small flows of fossil fuel emissions that are an order of magnitude smaller than carbon cycle flows.
RELATED POST#4: DETRENDED CORRELATION BETWEEN ANNUAL CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION AND ANNUAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS [LINK]
Here we use detrended correlation analysis to study the relationship between annual fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration reported by the Mauna Loa Observatory. Detrending is necessary because it is known that the correlation between time series data derive from two sources – (1) the responsiveness at the time scale of interest, and (2) shared trends. It is necessary to remove the effect of shared trends to measure the responsiveness at the time scale to be studied. An annual time scale is used as it is the norm in climate science for this relationship. The data and their detrended correlation analysis are presented in the charts below.
DISCUSSION: THE SOURCE DATA SHOW A STRONG STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION OF CORR=0.75 BETWEEN ANNUAL CHANGES IN MLO CO2 AND ANNUAL EMISSIONS. THIS CORRELATION APPEARS TO SUPPORT THE USUAL ASSUMPTION THAT CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION ARE CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND THAT THEREFORE THESE CHANGES CAN BE MODERATED WITH CLIMATE ACTION TO CONTROL AND REDUCE THE RATE OF WARMING.
HOWEVER, IT IS KNOWN THAT SOURCE DATA CORRELATION BETWEEN TIME SERIES DATA DERIVE FROM TWO SOURCES. THESE ARE (1) SHARED TRENDS WITH NO CAUSATION IMPLICATION AND (2) RESPONSIVENESS AT THE TIME SCALE OF INTEREST THAT ALONE CONTAINS CAUSATION INFORMATION. .
HERE THE TIME SCALE OF INTEREST IS ANNUAL BECAUSE THE THEORY REQUIRES THAT ANNUAL CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION ARE CAUSED BY ANNUAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. THIS TEST IS MADE BY REMOVING THE SHARED TREND THAT IS KNOWN TO HAVE NO CAUSATION INFORMATION OR IMPLICATION.
HERE WE FIND THAT WHEN THE SHARED TREND IS REMOVED THE OBSERVED CORRELATION DISAPPPEARS. THE APPARENT CORRELATION BETWEEN EMISSIONS AND CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION IS THUS FOUND TO BE SPURIOUS.
CONCLUSION: THE DATA FOR ANNUAL FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND ANNUAL CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION DO NOT SHOW THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAUSE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION TO CHANGE. THE FINDING IMPLIES THAT THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE THEORY OF CLIMATE ACTION. THIS THEORY HOLDS THAT MOVING THE GLOBAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO RENEWABLES WILL MODERATE THE RATE OF INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AND THEREBY MODERATE THE RATE OF WARMING.
THE CARBON ISOTOPE ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONSIVENESS OF OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
IN RELATED POSTS WE PRESENT THE ANALYSIS FOR THE 13C AND 14C ARGUMENTS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE THAT IS PROPOSED AS EVIDENCE FOR THE RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS BECAUSE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS ARE PURE 12C HAVING NOT BEEN IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.
RELATED POST#1: THE 14C CASE
LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/10/14c/
SUMMARY: The data do not provide convincing evidence that the recent datasets are not simply extensions of the Wellington post bomb curve and therefore we find no evidence that the decline in radiocarbon in atmospheric CO2 is the creation of fossil fuel dilution and not explained by the natural exponential decay of bomb 14C.
It should also be considered that it is not possible for carbon isotopic ratios to identify fossil fuel emissions as the source of the rise in atmospheric CO2 because isotopic ratios are unable to distinguish between fossil carbon and geological carbon.
RELATED POST#2: THE 13C CASE
LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/28/13c/
SUMMARY: We conclude that the 13C data do not provide empirical evidence that observed changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions. We further note that the high correlation between cumulative changes in the 13C/12C ratio in atmospheric CO2 and cumulative emissions is unreliable and unacceptable as empirical evidence because of the spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values discussed in a related post[LINK] .
Yet another consideration is that it is not possible for carbon isotopic ratios to identify fossil fuel emissions as the source of the rise in atmospheric CO2 because isotopic ratios are unable to distinguish between fossil carbon and geological carbon.
RELATED POST#1 ON THE ABSENCE OF A RESPONSE IN THE RISE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO CLIMATE ACTION
IN TERMS OF THE GROWTH IN RENEWABLE ENERGY, WE FIND NO RESPONSE IN THE RATE OF RISE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION IN RESPONSE TO THE CLIMATE ACTION DEMANDED BY CLIMATE SCIENCE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF SLOWING THE RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2.
TOTAL INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THIS PERIOD EXCEEDED $2.5 TRILLION AND TOTAL RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY WORLDWIDE MORE THAN DOUBLED. THE EXPRESS CLIMATE ACTION PURPOSE OF THESE INVESTMENTS AND THESE INSTALLATIONS WAS TO SLOW THE RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION. BUT NO SLOWDOWN IS FOUND IN THE DATA. WE FIND IN THIS RELATED POST THAT DURING A DECADE OF STEEPLY RISING RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE RATE OF RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION.
RELATED POST#2 ON THE ABSENCE OF A RESPONSE IN THE RISE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO CLIMATE ACTION
LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/09/11/climate-action-leaders/
CONCLUSION:
NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND THAT ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION IS RESPONSIVE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
POSTSCRIPT
TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN ABOVE IS THAT THE DATA ANALYSIS PRESENTED DOES NOT SHOW THAT ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION IS RESPONSIVE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AT AN ANNUAL TIME SCALE AND THAT THEREFORE, FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE TO CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION IS RESPONSIVE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AT AN ANNUAL TIME SCALE, THE APPROPRIATE DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT SHOW SUCH RESPONSIVENESS MUST BE PRESENTED.
THIS FINDING IS OFTEN MIS-INTERPRETED AS A CLAIM THAT ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
FOR THE RECORD, THIS BLOGGER DOES NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM. THE ONLY CLAIM I HAVE MADE IS THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE DATA PRESENTED ABOVE FOR SUCH RESPONSIVENESS AND THAT IF CLIMATE SCIENCE CAN PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE IT SHOULD DO SO IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP THAT THE WHOLE OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY RESTS ON.
I AM NOT PROPOSING A THEORY. I AM TESTING A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY CLIMATE SCIENCE.
THE CLIMATE SCIENCE EXPERT ON THIS ISSUE IS GLEN PETERS. HIS LECTURE PRESENTS THE DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH THE SO CALLED “AIRBORNE FRACTION” THAT SERVES AS THE EVIDENCE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE THAT ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION IS RESPONSIVE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
GLEN HAS GIVEN MANY ONLINE LECTURES TO PROVE THIS RELATIONSHIP. ONE SUCH LECTURE, ALONG WITH MY CRITICAL COMMENTARY, IS PRESENTED IN A RELATED: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/29/climate-scientist-explains-the-carbon-budget/ . MY FINDING IS THAT WHAT GLEN SAYS MAKES SENSE UNTIL YOU TAKE THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE DATA INTO ACCOUNT.
BOTTOM LINE: CLIMATE SCIENCE ASSUMES THE AIRBORNE FRACTION BUT IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR IT IN A WAY THAT TAKES UNCERTAINTY INTO ACCOUNT.
RELATED PAPERS ON SSRN
The Spuriousness of Correlations between Cumulative Values
Number of pages: 13 Posted: 01 Feb 2016 Last Revised: 08 Feb 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads1,184(21,921)Citation13
Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Updated
Number of pages: 19 Posted: 12 Jul 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads991(28,349)Citation5
Circular Reasoning in Climate Change Research
Number of pages: 18 Posted: 07 Mar 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads701(45,748)
Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions: A Note
Number of pages: 9 Posted: 12 Aug 2015 Last Revised: 21 Aug 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads675(48,167)Citation10
An Empirical Study of Fossil Fuel Emissions and Ocean Acidification
Number of pages: 15 Posted: 06 Oct 2015 Last Revised: 28 Nov 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads564(60,623)Citation5
Uncertain Flow Accounting and the IPCC Carbon Budget: A Note
Number of pages: 7 Posted: 01 Sep 2015 Last Revised: 02 Sep 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads461(77,768)Citation9
Spurious Correlations in Time Series Data: A Note
Number of pages: 10 Posted: 24 Aug 2016 Last Revised: 13 Oct 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads438(82,651)Citation16
Some Methodological Issues in Climate Science
Number of pages: 13 Posted: 23 Nov 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads437(82,881)Citation4
Generational Fossil Fuel Emissions and Generational Warming: A Note
Number of pages: 13 Posted: 02 Oct 2016 Last Revised: 13 Oct 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads389(94,816)Citation7
Dilution of Atmospheric Radiocarbon CO2 by Fossil Fuel Emissions
Number of pages: 14 Posted: 29 Apr 2016 Last Revised: 01 May 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads352(106,216)Citation4
A Test of the Anthropogenic Sea Level Rise Hypothesis
Number of pages: 23 Posted: 23 Aug 2017 Last Revised: 27 Aug 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads351(106,565)Citation1
SDG: Climate Activism Disguised as Development Assistance
Number of pages: 16 Posted: 22 Jul 2016 Last Revised: 07 Aug 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads348(107,592)
Decadal Fossil Fuel Emissions and Decadal Warming: A Note
Number of pages: 11 Posted: 21 Sep 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads321(117,617)Citation12
Limitations of the TCRE: Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions
Number of pages: 17 Posted: 18 Jul 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads317(119,204)Citation9
Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Part 2
Number of pages: 10 Posted: 01 Nov 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads299(126,883)Citation2
Uncertainty in Empirical Climate Sensitivity Estimates 1850-2017
Number of pages: 17 Posted: 14 Feb 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads239(159,249)Citation5
Changes in the 13C/12C Ratio of Atmospheric CO2 1977-2014
Number of pages: 9 Posted: 18 May 2016 Last Revised: 07 Jul 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads232(163,862)Citation3
Unstable Correlations between Atmospheric CO2 and Surface Temperature
Number of pages: 12 Posted: 31 Oct 2016 Last Revised: 06 Nov 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads178(209,022)Citation2
Effective Sample Size of the Cumulative Values of a Time Series
Number of pages: 9 Posted: 17 Oct 2016 Last Revised: 08 Jul 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads172(215,301)Citation8
The OLS Warming Trend at Nuuk, Greenland: A Note
Number of pages: 12 Posted: 10 May 2016Jamal Munshi and G. EdwardsSonoma State University and IndependentDownloads167(220,744)Citation5
Event Attribution and the Precipitation Record for England and Wales
Number of pages: 22 Posted: 11 Mar 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads164(224,137)
From Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Climate Response
Number of pages: 11 Posted: 17 Mar 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads136(261,259)Citation5
Mass Loss in the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets: 2002-2014
Number of pages: 8 Posted: 31 Oct 2015 Last Revised: 01 Nov 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads133(265,758)Citation2
The Charney Sensitivity of Homicides to Atmospheric CO2: A Parody
Number of pages: 11 Posted: 02 May 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads123(281,749)Citation1
The Acid Rain Program Part 1: Lake Acidity in the Adirondacks
Number of pages: 19 Posted: 25 Oct 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads120(286,861)
Correlation of Regional Warming with Global Emissions
Number of pages: 22 Posted: 09 Sep 2017 Last Revised: 19 Sep 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads115(295,509)Citation4
Climate Sensitivity and the Responsiveness of Temperature to Atmospheric CO2
Number of pages: 8 Posted: 15 Oct 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads103(318,971)
The Correlation between Emissions and Warming in the CET
Number of pages: 15 Posted: 24 Apr 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads90(347,793)Citation3
Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: USHCN
Number of pages: 26 Posted: 26 May 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads87(355,141)Citation2
Validity and Reliability of the Charney Climate Sensitivity Function
Number of pages: 10 Posted: 15 May 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads75(387,548)
Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Australia
Number of pages: 39 Posted: 15 May 2017 Last Revised: 16 May 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads73(393,394)Citation10
Atmospheric CO2 and Surface Temperature: A Note
Number of pages: 9 Posted: 25 Oct 2015Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads70(402,563)
Responsiveness of Atmospheric Methane to Human Emissions: A Note
Number of pages: 11 Posted: 14 Oct 2015 Last Revised: 19 Dec 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads70(402,563)Citation1
Shale Gas Production and Atmospheric Ethane
Number of pages: 34 Posted: 17 May 2016 Last Revised: 17 Jul 2016Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads65(418,655)
Does Global Warming Drive Changes in Arctic Sea Ice?
Number of pages: 14 Posted: 17 Aug 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads36(537,081)
Empirical Climate Sensitivity in the Mauna Loa Era: 1959-2017
Number of pages: 10 Posted: 25 Apr 2018Jamal MunshiSonoma State UniversityDownloads30(569,503)Citation1
The Hurst Exponent of Precipitation: England and Wales 1766-2016
Number of pages: 7 Posted: 13 Mar 2017 Last Revised: 17 Jun 2017Jamal MunshiSonoma State University
Thongchai Thailand 
April 19, 2021 at 8:25 am
If we want to err on the side of caution and try to reduce manmade CO2 emissions, let’s not “throw the baby out with the bath water”. There may be a way to scrub oil and natural gas emissions of CO2. We built an Abomb in 3 to 4 years. Let’s put a bunch of engineers and chemists together and tell them to find a solution. I think it can be done.
April 24, 2021 at 3:19 am
An interesting view, sir. Thank you.