Higher heat means a greater amount of dissolved gasses, which means more more acidity due to an ability to capture more co2.
That's why if the ocean keeps warming sometimes in the future it will start emitting back all that carbon it absorbed so far... which is around 31% of our total emissions, leading to more warming...
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/quantifying-ocean-carbon-sink
[1] You can easily test this yourself by taking two bottles of carbonated water. Put both bottles in the fridge for a day or so until they reach the same temperature, the cooler the better. Now carefully open both bottles so as to avoid a pressure shock leading to outgassing. Put one bottle back into the fridge without the cap on and leave the other one out in some warmer spot, also without the cap. Leave them there for a day or so, then put the caps back on. Take the bottle from the fridge and put it next to the one in the warmer spot, both caps on and leave it there for a day or so until it reaches the same temperature. Feel the pressure on both bottles and notice the one from the fridge is higher. Open both bottles and notice more gas pressure has built up in the one from the fridge. Test the water and notice the water from the bottle from the fridge is more heavily carbonated than the water from the other bottle.
Wrong. CO₂ concentration increases lead to increased temperatures.
> Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Please don't confuse the public even more when a lot of people couldn't care less about climate change in the first place. If you confuse the half of the population that still cares about finding solutions to the problem, you'll end up causing more harm than good.
I don't even care if you're correct, but it's vital for the sake of the climate that we maintain a narrative that is simple and consistent over time. Saying "ahktchually, temperature increases are followed by CO₂ concentration increases" plays right in the hands of climate deniers, who will say we can't even get our story straight, and tune off the people who care, 99% of whom don't know more about climate change than I've written above.
In the realm of PR, the small print doesn't matter. People only care about the broad strokes. Save the footnotes and magic tricks for the seminars. And, yeah, PR matters to save the climate. Sorry for being a little confrontational, but I had to get this out.
This attitude is doing more damage than whatever possible misconception the parent comment had. It appears like you are acting on faith, not science. That you don't care about truth, but pushing an agenda.
the current diagram with the tree ring only data [Briffa’s] somewhat contradicts the [Mann] multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.
What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel campaign.
The new program [with people who disagreed] was "unacceptable" to King, says Peter Cox of the U.K.'s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter. "We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism."