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.

 

[Kafka]

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?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Measuring Greenhouse Gases with Stable Isotopes

The IAEA and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced today their first-ever joint technical cooperation project aimed at supporting experts worldwide in using stable isotopes to measure the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and accurately determine their source.

www.iaea.org

Is this sufficient to get you started?

 

[Bigdog]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

Education - Stable Isotopes NOAA GML

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Measuring Greenhouse Gases with Stable Isotopes

The IAEA and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced today their first-ever joint technical cooperation project aimed at supporting experts worldwide in using stable isotopes to measure the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and accurately determine their source.

www.iaea.org

Is this sufficient to get you started?

Nonsense. I repeat, I just want to see the historical data on c12/13 ratios. As you noted, the C14 record is contaminated by atomic testing.

Unbiased sites say the current c12/13 ratio is natural.

 

[Kafka]

Nonsense. I repeat, I just want to see the historical data on c12/13 ratios. As you noted, the C14 record is contaminated by atomic testing.

Unbiased sites say the current c12/13 ratio is natural.

You will have to first understand what isotopic fractionation actually means. Once you learn this topic then perhaps you will be able to address it.

 

[Bigdog]

You will have to first understand what isotopic fractionation actually means. Once you learn this topic then perhaps you will be able to address it.

I understand fractionation. I was the first to mention C14 is short lived. Just stop it, you stupid Cracka muva fucka, arrogant White Lib pig. Provide the fucking historical c12/13 data.

WHITE muvss like you, think they are better than everyone else. You think I am a subhuman. STOP with the secrets.

I already know you have no "natural" c14 data.

Here's another source for the MWP in S. America.

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America

https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00497/60854/101604.pdf

 

[Bigdog]

Kafir and the rest of the WHITEs' goal is to take $266 trillion dollars from taxpayers by 2050. This is why gov't organizations keep the data a secret, and use made up, fudged data for the computer models.

That is confiscate about $10 trillion every year for the gov't coffers and cronies. There has never been an "environmental" movement so profitable!!!! for gov't.


Nov. 13, 2023, 7:00 AM EST

$266 Trillion in Climate Spending Is a No-Brainer​

$266 Trillion in Climate Spending Is a No-Brainer: Mark Gongloff

Humanity largely agrees climate change is an existential threat to civilization. You can bet global leaders will harrumph as much again at the big United Nations climate confab in Dubai this winter. At the same time, these leaders also lavish roughly four times more on the fossil fuels heating...

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[Kafka]

I understand fractionation. I was the first to mention C14 is short lived.

That has nothing to do with it really. 14-C is a radioactive isotope, 13-C and 12-C are stable isotopes. When we note the 14-C we are noting that it comes from things like coal and oil which will be depleted in 14-C due to radioactive decay.

The 13-C/12-C ratio is a ratio of stable isotopes which are fractionated chemically.

Just stop it, you stupid Cracka muva fucka, arrogant White Lib pig. Provide the fucking historical c12/13 data.

This is how I know you don't know anything about the topic.

WHITE muvss like you, think they are better than everyone else. You think I am a subhuman. STOP with the secrets.

Nothing here is secret. You just don't understand what you are shown.

I already know you have no "natural" c14 data.

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

 

[Bigdog]

That has nothing to do with it really. 14-C is a radioactive isotope, 13-C and 12-C are stable isotopes. When we note the 14-C we are noting that it comes from things like coal and oil which will be depleted in 14-C due to radioactive decay.

The 13-C/12-C ratio is a ratio of stable isotopes which are fractionated chemically.




This is how I know you don't know anything about the topic.



Nothing here is secret. You just don't understand what you are shown.



Huh? Not sure what you mean.

C14 Is short lived. Don't doubt me.

Prove me wrong.
Post the data for "natural" c14 level.
Post the historical data for c12/13.

 

[Kafka]

C14 Is short lived. Don't doubt me.

Ummm, duh. Why do you think it is depleted in coal and oil? (And really it's not THAT short lived, it's got a half life of over 5,000 years, so just for scale that's not that short).

Prove me wrong.

14-C is not a matter of stable isotope fractionation. It is a matter of radioactive decay.

Post the data for "natural" c14 level.
Post the historical data for c12/13.

 

[Bigdog]

Ummm, duh. Why do you think it is depleted in coal and oil? (And really it's not THAT short lived, it's got a half life of over 5,000 years, so just for scale that's not that short).



14-C is not a matter of stable isotope fractionation. It is a matter of radioactive decay.

C14 is radioactive, that is why it is short lived and not present in fossil fuels.

So we got data that shows less than one thousandth of a change in ratio of c12/13. From avg. 7.5 to 8.2 ... or .0007 change in the ratio ... on a chart covering 4 decades.

No wonder NOAA won't post the data on their site.

 

[Kafka]

C14 is radioactive, that is why it is short lived and not present in fossil fuels.

So far you have added nothing new to the conversation.

So we got data that shows less than one thousandth of a change in ratio of c12/13. From avg. 7.5 to 8.2 ... or .0007 change in the ratio ... on a chart covering 4 decades.

This would require you to understand what is being talked about in terms of isotope fractionation. That means understanding the natural stable isotope mix of Carbon as well as how carbon is fixed (the carbon cycle) and what drives the fractionation. That would require understanding the scale of the change and what that scale implies.

No wonder NOAA won't post the data on their site.

Why don't you guys ever admit when you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[Bigdog]

So far you have added nothing new to the conversation.



This would require you to understand what is being talked about in terms of isotope fractionation. That means understanding the natural stable isotope mix of Carbon as well as how carbon is fixed (the carbon cycle) and what drives the fractionation. That would require understanding the scale of the change and what that scale implies.




Why don't you guys ever admit when you don't know what you're talking about?

Of course, it is "short lived" because of radioactive decay, moron. It's sad that you wanted me to explain that to you.

I understand the chart perfectly. Clearly, you do not.

And you really need to look up the definition of fractionation as you constantly misuse the word. You DON"T know what it means.

You are the one who can't understand your own chart. And the difference shown is barely outside the margin of error. No wonder NOAA won't post it.

 

[Bigdog]

So far you have added nothing new to the conversation.



This would require you to understand what is being talked about in terms of isotope fractionation. That means understanding the natural stable isotope mix of Carbon as well as how carbon is fixed (the carbon cycle) and what drives the fractionation. That would require understanding the scale of the change and what that scale implies.




Why don't you guys ever admit when you don't know what you're talking about?

The chart is easy for me to read and understand. But YOU can't even explain your own chart, Kafir

 

[Kafka]

You can't even explain your own chart, Kafir

The changes in isotope contents are small. But SIGNIFICANT. We are talking about two isotopes one of which (C12) MASSIVELY dominates the carbon atom. The vast majority of C isotopes found in nature is 12-C. 99% of carbon found in nature is the 12-C stable isotope. So OF COURSE the numbers will be small. But this is how isotopic fractionation works.

And it's used all across the earth sciences.

This change is measurable and clearly related to burning of 12-C rich material such as fossil fuels.

 

[Kafka]

Of course, it is "short lived" because of radioactive decay, moron. It's sad that you wanted me to explain that to you.

It is short lived on a GEOLOGICAL scale. Not a regular time scale. The half life of 14-C is something like 5200 years or so.

And you really need to look up the definition of fractionation

Nah, I'll just go on the class I took in stable isotope fractionation in grad school. Thanks.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Bigdog]

The changes in isotope contents are small. But SIGNIFICANT. We are talking about two isotopes one of which (C12) MASSIVELY dominates the carbon atom. The vast majority of C isotopes found in nature is 12-C. 99% of carbon found in nature is the 12-C stable isotope. So OF COURSE the numbers will be small. But this is how isotopic fractionation works.

And it's used all across the earth sciences.

This change is measurable and clearly related to burning of 12-C rich material such as fossil fuels.

It is NOT significant which is why NOAA won't post it. You are unable to discuss the numbers.

You are saying nothing that I haven't already taught you about c12.

 

[Bigdog]

It is short lived on a GEOLOGICAL scale. Not a regular time scale. The half life of 14-C is something like 5200 years or so.



Nah, I'll just go on the class I took in stable isotope fractionation in grad school. Thanks.

So YOU thought we were talking about HUMAN time scales? you're an idiot.

You will continue to remain ignorant and misuse the word "fractionation".

 

[Diogenes]

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

This is Tom:

Don't be like Tom.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"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.

Interesting that you would leave out a very relevant part of the abstract for the Nature article you quoted which show that the cooling and warming coincided with solar activity and iradiance maximums and minimums.

The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsense. I repeat, I just want to see the historical data on c12/13 ratios. As you noted, the C14 record is contaminated by atomic testing.

Unbiased sites say the current c12/13 ratio is natural.

It seems you don't want to do any research but only want to claim you can't see what you haven't even bothered to search for.

Impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric radiocarbon and various applications of radiocarbon over this century - PubMed

Radiocarbon analyses are commonly used in a broad range of fields, including earth science, archaeology, forgery detection, isotope forensics, and physiology. Many applications are sensitive to the radiocarbon ((14)C) content of atmospheric CO2, which has varied since 1890 as a result of nuclear...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170

 

[Bigdog]

Interesting that you would leave out a very relevant part of the abstract for the Nature article you quoted which show that the cooling and warming coincided with solar activity and iradiance maximums and minimums.

The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

So you agree it was global, and you blame the Sun.

And why won't you compare proxy tree ring data to modern tree ring data instead of satellites. At least that wouldn't violate the rules of science.