I never really had much interest in Spongebob until I learned it was David Bowie's favorite cartoon. He voiced a special extended episode and has a song in Spongebob the musical. David also wished to live in a pineapple. @Tom B will appreciate that though saying someone else is "projecting" makes me feel left out. Now we know Bowie was a great mind so perhaps this episode is the right level for them to understand?
Wow, it was way too easy to get in your head, fake Irishman. Jim Jones Kool-Aid easy. You are a danger to yourself and others around you. Happy Thanksgiving.
If your visiting my head bring some sweet yams? my grandaunt made them when I visited as a kid at thanksgiving. I've not had them since. Enjoy the holiday. Oh and Canada Dry Tahitian soda if it is still around.
the data shows that co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. ocean temps are rising so we expect co2 levels to follow and they have. so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails? Please show us the exact science and link to it.
This is a basic explanation. Have you read this? "When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase." https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both. Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003). Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession). Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis. The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003). To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things: Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3). Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.
That chart is using two different proxies. One to measure global change in temps and one to measure change in Antarctic temps. How the hell do they know for certain that they are measuring what they think they are measuring? There is a new paper (in press in the journal Geophysical Research Letters) that presents a lesson that we all should keep in mind—results based on reconstructions of climate phenomena that are based on once or twice removed “proxy” indicators, may not be as reliable as they appear (or as they are presented) to be. If this brings hockey sticks and salacious emails to mind, you are not alone. The Problem with Proxies www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/30/the-problem-with-proxies/ Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/
So you are saying that this brings Jem's assertion into doubt? bold added: "so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails?"
The aricle provides some nuance to Jem's broad and sweeping statement. And it explains why there is an apparent cart before horse for a percentage of warming in a reasonable manner. I would like to hear Jem's response. However if the proxy data known unknowns/unknown unknowns etc. issues are used fallaciously then the discussion cannot progress. Butwhatabout proxies distracts from discussing the grand scheme energy sources and cycles. Just pointing out, not trying to make argument. The scientists who work on papers don't need to be told there are reasons to be wary of the proxies. They will have pondered this and one can be certain work is being done to improve the data. One of your links is from 2007, they know this (have known from the very first proxy measurements) and are proceeding on what they believe is probably the best data for now. So the scepticalscience response page has it's links to real science. That is something to go on and discuss in response to Gem's point: "so given that every scientist in the world knows that the data shows co2 trials change in ocean temps and air temps. How is that that co2 causes the thing it trails?"
The study you brought up in this thread, the one we have been discussing, is Shaviv's and you happened to mention Salby, so my comment was relevant. Nothing to do with related threads. Miskolczi found little support from his peers many of whom seem to find his 'theory' is based on untenable physics to the point where even his Wiki page has been deleted! CO2 as a plausible mechanism for positive feedback has been known about since the 1800's . To deny that, you might as well deny Evolution. Why you are so keen to accept controversial speculation from the likes of Miskolczi , Shaviv, Salby in place of basic scientific facts is anyone's guess . You are conflating climate sensitivity, (a predicted amount global temperature will rise due to greenhouse effect), with the fact that man made CO2 will cause the Earth to warm. As someone interested in science, surely you should be more reluctant to be attracted to things that fly in the face of it.