As I predicted, the data you provided was from a blog. Go look at your chart where temperature leads CO2. The vast majority of it covers the period before the industrial revolution. That is when the switch occurs and C)2 begins to lead temperature.
First of all, some advice on how to not be considered a troll and frankly, an idiot, don’t begin an argument by swearing. Secondly, you need to provide me with a reason to listen to you above every climate scientist. What are your qualifications?
Phd? BSc? Diploma? Or just a blog reader?
It’s an interesting idea. I’m not entirely sure. If there is research out there with regards to that, I haven’t come across it. The main hindrance to the theory would be the sheer amount of mass that Mercury would have had to lose. Even at its proximity to the sun, the forces acting on it wouldn’t be strong enough to strip so much material off it…
Good questions, Mike.
I think the best bet to getting the answers to those questions in to consult the research paper, linked at the bottom of the article. I could attempt to answer but it would better suit your enquiry to see what the authors say.
Robert, you titled your response “quasars don’t die” and then your first line says “supermassive black holes don’t die”, these two statements are not equal. A quasar is a supermassive black hole accreting material to create a powerful emission. This phase can end when the material is exhausted! This leaves an inactive supermassive black hole like the…