Climate Change - The Roman Warm Period, MWP & LIA were global events proven by proxy data

"The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period."

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Ice_Age_and_medieval_warming_in_South_Africa

Roman Warm Period

"This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

Roman Warm Period was global

"After the 1st century ce there is evidence of a progressive rise in sea level. Roman buildings and peat layers were covered by the marine transgression in the Netherlands, southern England, and parts of the Mediterranean. At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa. Similar alluviation occurred in the American Southwest. This warming and desiccation trend is evident also in the subtropics of the Southern Hemisphere. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/Holocene-Epoch/Classical-Roman-Period

We've had weather satellites for only 50 years. 2K years ago, they would have shown these were global events, even more extreme than the proxy record shows.

 

[martin]

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's a consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't a consensus. Period. The greatest scientists in the world are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." (Michael Crichton, biological anthropologist, "Science" writer and author)

Consensus Science and the Peer Review

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Consensus science" is your term, not his. But it avoids the question, namely why does someone having no or insufficient scientific credentials
choose to accept, even propound, science theories discredited by most scientists, in this case not just "most" but discredited by the vast majority of scientists?

 

[BartenderElite]

Doesn't really matter. We're not going to save the planet at this point.

But, the planet WILL save itself. It's what the planet does.

 

[Bigdog]

How much has the mass extinction accelerated in the last century?

How much more shoreline has disappeared just in the past 30 years?

The planet is NOT fine. Sorry 'bout that.

You post observations that lack context, and thus are woefully wrong.

You are free to attempt to debunk any of the scientific facts I posted. I'll wait.

 

[BartenderElite]

You are free to attempt to debunk any of the scientific facts I posted. I'll wait.

I just did.

 

[Kafka]

"The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period."

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Ice_Age_and_medieval_warming_in_South_Africa

Roman Warm Period

"This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

Roman Warm Period was global

"After the 1st century ce there is evidence of a progressive rise in sea level. Roman buildings and peat layers were covered by the marine transgression in the Netherlands, southern England, and parts of the Mediterranean. At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa. Similar alluviation occurred in the American Southwest. This warming and desiccation trend is evident also in the subtropics of the Southern Hemisphere. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/Holocene-Epoch/Classical-Roman-Period

We've had weather satellites for only 50 years. 2K years ago, they would have shown these were global events, even more extreme than the proxy record shows.

First: a couple points:

1. There are local climatic highs and lows which are unrelated to global warming. These happened many times throughtout geologic history. The link to the Britannica citation does little to truly establish the global nature of the Roman Warm Period other than to note similar "alluviation" in the SW US contemporaneous with the warming around the Med. I'd be interested to see the latest in the estimation of how global the RWP was.

2. Let's assume the global clilmate DID change at that time. We KNOW the climate of the earth is variable. We know this from the extensive work by paleoclimatologists who have found many times when the earth was warmer. And that is how we understand the NATURAL CYCLES which lead to global climate change and there ARE natural cycles which lead to this.

But the key factor is that our CURRENT WARMING cannot be explained solely by natural "forcings". The sun's behavior over the past 150 years cannot be shown to align to the warming we see. And other natural events don't seem to explain the warming.

The thing that exists NOW that DIDN'T in Roman times is mass industrialization spewing gigatons of excess greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Something we KNOW causes global warming. And that factor is human activity.

We can even tell by the isotopes o the carbon in the atmosphere that the current excess is largely due to humans burning fossil fuels.

There's really no question about human activities being able to affect the global climate.

 

[Bigdog]

I just did.

Which one did you debunk? Where's your scientific evidence?

 

[BartenderElite]

Which one did you debunk? Where's your scientific evidence?

500 species gone in the last century alone.

50,000 miles of shoreline have eroded significantly in the past decade.

We could keep on goin'. It won't matter to you. You're convinced that everything we do is sustainable, and that we're all good. I won't change your mind.

 

[Kafka]

and man had nothing to do with it

You and I both know that gunshot wounds to the head are usually fatal. So if you were to go into work tomorrow and find that your boss is dead, will you AUTOMATICALLY assume that he or she was shot in the head?

No. You wouldn't because you aren't an idiot.

There are MANY things which can affect the climate. Natural and man-made. We know a lot about how the natural forcings work by looking at the distant past when humans weren't responsible for gigatons of excess greenhouse gas being pumped into the atmosphere every single year.

Now we have a new forcing: human activity.

It's even got it's own signature which cannot be denied in the carbon isotopes in the atmospheric CO2. Over the past many decades the amount of 13-C vs 12-C is decreasing which is EXACTLY what one would expect from the mass industrial burning of fossil fuels which have a depleted 13-C content. (If you want any additional info on isotopes I'd be glad to provide)

 

[Bigdog]

First: a couple points:

1. There are local climatic highs and lows which are unrelated to global warming. These happened many times throughtout geologic history. The link to the Britannica citation does little to truly establish the global nature of the Roman Warm Period other than to note similar "alluviation" in the SW US contemporaneous with the warming around the Med. I'd be interested to see the latest in the estimation of how global the RWP was.

2. Let's assume the global clilmate DID change at that time. We KNOW the climate of the earth is variable. We know this from the extensive work by paleoclimatologists who have found many times when the earth was warmer. And that is how we understand the NATURAL CYCLES which lead to global climate change and there ARE natural cycles which lead to this.

But the key factor is that our CURRENT WARMING cannot be explained solely by natural "forcings". The sun's behavior over the past 150 years cannot be shown to align to the warming we see. And other natural events don't seem to explain the warming.

The thing that exists NOW that DIDN'T in Roman times is mass industrialization spewing gigatons of excess greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Something we KNOW causes global warming. And that factor is human activity.

We can even tell by the isotopes o the carbon in the atmosphere that the current excess is largely due to humans burning fossil fuels.

There's really no question about human activities being able to affect the global climate.

Carbon 13 isotopes are still at natural levels of 1.1%.

Milankovitch Cycles have not predicted glaciation periods for the last 2 million years. We have no way to predict if the planet should be warming or cooling. There is zero evidence that Warming is catastrophic for the planet.

The Roman Warm period showed up in the Southern hemisphere, as did the MWP and LIA.

 

[Kafka]

Carbon 13 isotopes are still at natural levels of 1.1%.

That isn't the figure I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fractionation of two different isotopes of Carbon so I'm looking at the RATIO of 13C/12C.

Plants, when they fix carbon out of the environment (remember intro biology) they tend to chemically fractionate out the LIGHTER Carbon isotope (12C). So when you burn a bunch of material made up of vegetal stuff (like COAL and OIL) you wind up with a bunch of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere with LOWER RATIOS OF 13C/12C. Meaning there's more 12C.

This is called isotopic fractionation and it's used all across the earth and biological sciences.

(We were seeing a similar effect with regards to 14C in atmospheric CO2 in the 20th cetury but after atmospheric nuclear testing threw off the relative levels of 14C we can't really go with that data anymore. But it's an even more direct view of human forcings)

The Roman Warm period showed up in the Southern hemisphere, as did the MWP and LIA.

The MWP was not global. But I'd be interested in seeing just ANY of your actual science supporting that contention.

 

[Bigdog]

That isn't the figure I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fractionation of two different isotopes of Carbon so I'm looking at the RATIO of 13C/12C.

Plants, when they fix carbon out of the environment (remember intro biology) they tend to chemically fractionate out the LIGHTER Carbon isotope (12C). So when you burn a bunch of material made up of vegetal stuff (like COAL and OIL) you wind up with a bunch of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere with LOWER RATIOS OF 13C/12C. Meaning there's more 12C.

This is called isotopic fractionation and it's used all across the earth and biological sciences.

(We were seeing a similar effect with regards to 14C in atmospheric CO2 in the 20th cetury but after atmospheric nuclear testing threw off the relative levels of 14C we can't really go with that data anymore. But it's an even more direct view of human forcings)



The MWP was not global. But I'd be interested in seeing just ANY of your actual science supporting that contention.

Carbon 13 IS the rarer isotope. Carbon 14 is about a trillion times more rare that c13. C14 is short lived and no one cares about it. Post your scientific evidence that the 13/12 ration is Not 1.1% to 98.9%.

I posted evidence with source in the OP showing the MWP and LIA were in South Africa.

 

[Bigdog]

That isn't the figure I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fractionation of two different isotopes of Carbon so I'm looking at the RATIO of 13C/12C.

Plants, when they fix carbon out of the environment (remember intro biology) they tend to chemically fractionate out the LIGHTER Carbon isotope (12C). So when you burn a bunch of material made up of vegetal stuff (like COAL and OIL) you wind up with a bunch of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere with LOWER RATIOS OF 13C/12C. Meaning there's more 12C.

This is called isotopic fractionation and it's used all across the earth and biological sciences.

(We were seeing a similar effect with regards to 14C in atmospheric CO2 in the 20th cetury but after atmospheric nuclear testing threw off the relative levels of 14C we can't really go with that data anymore. But it's an even more direct view of human forcings)



The MWP was not global. But I'd be interested in seeing just ANY of your actual science supporting that contention.

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America​

ScienceDirect.com
https://www.sciencedirect.com › article › abs › pii


by S Lüning · 2019 · Cited by 75 — Similar MCA warming occurred in coastal seas, except in the year-round upwelling zones of Peru, northern Chile and Cabo Frio (Brazil) where ...

 

[serendipity]

I could list 100 factors, and you'd reply w/ the same lazy counter-arguments. It's why I don't usually respond when someone says "list 3 things" or "list 5 things."

I doubt you even looked anything up, or have even studied anything about this.

I know for sure that you've never studied anything, all you do is regurgitate Dem talking points.

 

[Bigdog]

Doesn't really matter. We're not going to save the planet at this point.

But, the planet WILL save itself. It's what the planet does.

Glad to see you finally concede you were just promoting democrat political fearmongering propaganda.

 

[Kafka]

Carbon 13 IS the rarer isotope. Carbon 14 is about a trillion times more rare that c13. C14 is short lived and no one cares about it. Post your scientific evidence that the 13/12 ration is Not 1.1% to 98.9%.

Dude, you are not tracking on what I'm talking about. But given how far off of the topic you are I'm not going to try any more to explain it to you.

Maybe the folks at NOAA will be able to explain it to you better: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

 

[Bigdog]

Dude, you are not tracking on what I'm talking about. But given how far off of the topic you are I'm not going to try any more to explain it to you.

Maybe the folks at NOAA will be able to explain it to you better: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

Then Post the relevant quote here for all to see, Kafir.

 

[Kafka]

Then Post the relevant quote here for all to see, Kafir.

Gladly. the important bit is in these paragraphs:

n addition, only fossil fuels are consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon in today’s atmosphere. Different kinds of carbon-containing material have different relative amounts of “light” carbon-12, “heavy” carbon-13, and radioactive carbon-14. Plant matter is enriched in carbon-12, because its lighter weight is more readily used by plants during photosynthesis. Volcanic emissions are enriched in carbon-13. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and the ocean are roughly the same. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it decays predictably over time. Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all.

As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen over the past century or more, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen, which means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12. Meanwhile, the relative amount of carbon-14—radioactive carbon—has declined. The record of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is complicated by nuclear bomb testing after 1950, which doubled the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. After the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963, the excess atmospheric carbon-14 began to decline as it dispersed into the oceans and the land biosphere.

In the last four decades, however, the decline of carbon-14 has been noticeably faster than can be explained by continuing dispersal of the bomb-related carbon-14. This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio of 14-carbon dioxide (i.e., carbon dioxide containing a carbon-14 atom) to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

(IBID)

Hopefully that explains it to you. It's a field called isotope fractionation and is used across the sciences to track the origin of materials through given systems. It's really a neat field. I only ever got to take one class in it back in uni but it was neat.

 

[moon]

I know for sure that you've never studied anything, all you do is regurgitate Dem talking points.

Says Mr. Cut-n-Paste obscure Denier claims by certified mushroom growers.

Haw, haw.........................................haw.

 

[Bigdog]

Gladly. the important bit is in these paragraphs:

(IBID)

Hopefully that explains it to you. It's a field called isotope fractionation and is used across the sciences to track the origin of materials through given systems. It's really a neat field. I only ever got to take one class in it back in uni but it was neat.

Thank you. As we see, NOAA provides no actual measurements, no actual data to support their claims.

They can not accurately measure the rate of dispersal of C14 from atomic testing, or c13 from volcanoes. Nor do they provide any historical data for C12/13 ratios which all the current unbiased sites say is ALL natural at the current 1.1 to 98.9 ratio.

Is there a reason NOAA keeps the actual data a secret from the public?

 

[Bigdog]

That isn't the figure I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fractionation of two different isotopes of Carbon so I'm looking at the RATIO of 13C/12C.

Plants, when they fix carbon out of the environment (remember intro biology) they tend to chemically fractionate out the LIGHTER Carbon isotope (12C). So when you burn a bunch of material made up of vegetal stuff (like COAL and OIL) you wind up with a bunch of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere with LOWER RATIOS OF 13C/12C. Meaning there's more 12C.

This is called isotopic fractionation and it's used all across the earth and biological sciences.

(We were seeing a similar effect with regards to 14C in atmospheric CO2 in the 20th cetury but after atmospheric nuclear testing threw off the relative levels of 14C we can't really go with that data anymore. But it's an even more direct view of human forcings)



The MWP was not global. But I'd be interested in seeing just ANY of your actual science supporting that contention.

I am well aware of the theories. I have repeatedly asked for the actual data. But it is a secret. Don't YOU, as a "scientist" want to see the historical data? Unbiased sites report the c12/13 ratio is currently, all natural.

I repeat, the OP contains the evidence that the MWP was in South Africa. I have additionally provided a source that the MWP was in South America, too.