/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11158317
>notice how theres only solid numbers on temperatures, no numbers on how exactly humans contribute to it

>>10894612
Hey OP. You need to learn about carbon fractionation. Here's a link to help
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/isotope-fractionation
What we're most interested in studying climate change is carbon isotope fractionation. Plants prefer Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 because it's lighter and simpler to use. This causes plants to have a lower reservoir of C-13. When plants die this lowered amount of C-13 can be buried and removed from the carbon cycle.

When carbon is released into the atmosphere we can track its source by the amount of C-13 present. Volcanoes do not give a rats ass about the difference between C-12 and C-13. The percentage of C-13 released by a volcano is very similar to the percentage in the atmosphere already. So if the percentage of C-13 in the atmosphere falls we know the source is from burning plants. Not volcanoes.

And guess what
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html

Since we know that coal and oil come from ancient plants we can conclude that the modern rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is by humans burning coal and oil.

THERE
IS
NO
DEBATE

>>10291442
>You'd first need a good correlation between man's CO2 emissions and the atmosphere's CO2 levels, which don't exist because man's CO2 emissions have been strictly increasing and one increase makes for trash beyond trash data
Isotope ratios give it away.

>>8470929
>>8470978
Earth scientist here. Unfortunately, although you're 100% right, we can't use C-14 as an isotope fingerprint for human caused climate change because the data is tainted by atomic bomb testing in the 50s and 60s.

Until now. Only in the last few years have the atomic bomb created C-14 isotopes in the atmosphere come down enough that we can finally start using it to determine carbon sources.

A much better one to use is C-13. Carbon-13 is a stable isotope just like standard Carbon-12. But because it's slightly heavier it's more difficult for plants to use it as a source for their carbon capturing to make sugars. It's like stopping your car, it's slightly harder to stop your car if you have a passenger then if you're alone. If you're trying to manufacture sugars at the best possible energy level you need as much C-12 as you can get.

The ocean doesn't give a shit. Rocks (that use carbon such as limestone) don't give a shit. Volcanoes don't give a shit. Only plants have trouble sequestering C-13. So C-13 levels in plants are lower than they are in other reservoirs of Carbon: the ocean, the atmosphere, rock, and magma (volcanism). We know this because we can shove them into mass spectrometers.

So if you want to find a source of atmospheric carbon follow the C-13. If it's the same from day to day and year to year you know your carbon source is one of the following: the ocean, volcanoes, or rock.

If C-13 in the atmosphere is falling, despite CO2 rising. That tells you the source can only be plants, which is what coal and oil are made of, ancient plants.

And guess what?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

The argument is good and settled. Humans burning fossil fuels is causing climate change.