/sci/ - Science & Math

In this contribution we compare the temperature sensitivity of oceanic and land emissions and their expected contributions to the atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio. Our simulations with a land-air temperature series (Soon et al. 2015) alone, or in combination with sea surface data (HadSST4, Kennedy et al. 2019) can well reproduce the increased mixing ratio over the 30s to 40s, the con- secutive decline over the 50s and the additional rise up to 2010. This stronger variation cannot be explained only by fossil fuel emissions, which show a monotonic increase over the Industrial Era.
Particularly soil respiration in the tropics and mid-latitudes can be identified as the main natural source of CO2 emissions. Smaller deviations in the maximum and width between observation and calculation of the mixing ratio around 1940 may be explained by some local impacts of the his- toric CO2 concentration data (mostly covering the coast of the North Sea, Barents Sea and North- ern Atlantic), they may also result from a smaller mismatch between the main emission areas and the covered temperature data (Northern Hemisphere), and also the time constants, before quasi equilibrium can be established in temperature and concentration, can cause some deviations. For direct comparison of the data, we avoided averaging over longer periods.
But most important, our studies not only show a high correlation of observation and calculation, but also give a clear physical explanation with a quantitative reproduction of the observed data, based on independent measurements of the temperature sensitivity of oceanic and land emission.
Anyone who has doubts about the historical CO2-data and relies on indirect proxy data, must also have doubts about the temperature trends, not only over the 30s to 50s, but up to the present.

What natural process explains the sharp rise from 1900-2023?

>>15811485
probably the same one that explains the sharp rise from 1920-1940.

>>15811796
So fossil fuels. Is the argument that coal and it's emissions are natural because we dug it out of the ground?

>>15811468
>>15811467
This only proves man made climate change.

>>15812144
that data from 20 years ago its all wrong, its no longer valid because its been superseded by beck's more accurate data which shows that CO2 was never as low as 280ppm as displayed on your erroneous chart. read the paper, it was just recently published and it goes into all the details. picking and choosing aged data sets because you're trying to advocate a position like a sleazy lawyer isn't scientific, scientists should keep and open mind and use the best, most accurate data rather than wallowing in decades old boomer datasets.

>>15812440
You're not talking to a scientist, but a layperson in a religion.

>>15812609
thats the most generous possible characterization

>>15812440
>>15812609
>>15813251
The important part is the isotope fraction, retard. What happened in the mid 19th century that would drastically change the proportion of isotopes in the atmosphere? Is atmospheric carbon suddenly coming from somewhere different? That's the only way you would see that drastic of a change. Further, why does this change reflect the isotopes we see in fossil fuel emissions? Could it perhaps be fossil fuels and the industrial revolution? Obviously it is. Literally nobody doubts this fact except for paid shills and useful idiots. Which are you?

>>15811467
Why don't greentards have an answer for this?

>>15814365
See
>>15812144
>>15813264

>>15814389
So you're conceding that OP is right and greentards have no rebuttal. Thanks.

>>15814390
Are you capable of reading a graph? What's your explanation for why the Earth suddenly started making a bunch of atmospheric carbon with the same isotope signature as fossil fuel emissions? Why did this happen in the middle of the 17th century? Are you asserting that it's just a coincidence that this change happened at the same time as the industrial revolution?

>>15814392
>suddenly started making a bunch of atmospheric carbon with the same isotope signature as fossil fuel emissions
How are you certain about this?
>Why did this happen in the middle of the 17th century?
Were they recording isotope ratios then? I'd like to see that.
>Are you asserting that it's just a coincidence that this change happened at the same time as the industrial revolution?
No, you're just very gullible or a liar.

>>15814394
>How are you certain about this?
We measured the ratio of carbon isotopes in fossil fuel emissions.

>Were they recording isotope ratios then? I'd like to see that.
You don't need to. You can measure the isotopes of any well mixed gas from the period by extracting a sample from an ice core.

>No, you're just very gullible or a liar.
The irony.

>>15814398
You seem very confident despite making a lot of unverified claims.

>>15814402
You too. You know that google is free, right?

>>15814417
The OP paper is very clear, anon.

>>15812144
>the hockey stick meme

>>15814432
Are you really comparing local and global effects as though they were the same thing? You should get your GED, bro.

>>15814421
And yet it doesn't explain these isotopes... Hmmm...

>>15814435
MWP was a global event. It's historically attested in all cultural records, and the only proxies that disagree with it are ones that also disagree with modern measured temps.

>>15814437
Take that to its logical conclusion. If the science shows that this CO2 increase is completely natural, then what does that say about what you parrot?

>>15814438
No it wasn't. It happened in Europe. Your graph is even labeled as "climactic changes in Europe". You know if you study enough you can get that GED in just a couple hours. You'll have to work on your reading comprehension, of course...

>>15814444
>No it wasn't. It happened in Europe
Source: none

>>15814442
The science doesn't show that. The paper in the OP failing to explain the discrepancy in isotopes is the failing of the author. I notice you're having trouble explaining this discrepancy too. What does that say about what you parrot?

>>15814447
>I notice you're having trouble explaining this discrepancy too.
It's made up, like all the other nonsense your masters believe in.

>>15814444
Your stance is incredibly outdated. Modern research from climate proxies has shown that the MWP was global. I suggest reading S.Y. Cahyarini, et. al. (2022) that was presented at the IOP conference that year.

>>15811467
So, we know where the carbon in the atmosphere comes from. It's not at all 'natural' as you claim. The isotopic signature shows it's fractionated from coal and oil.

https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/stable.html

This aligns perfectly with the O2 content in the atmosphere falling at the same rate CO2 is rising, showing it's not from any source except combustion.

https://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Your move dumbass.

>>15814445
Pick your poison. It was not a global effect.

https://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period
>Medieval warm period (MWP), also called medieval warm epoch or little climatic optimum, brief climatic interval that is hypothesized to have occurred from approximately 900 CE to 1300 (roughly coinciding with the Middle Ages in Europe), in which relatively warm conditions are said to have prevailed in various parts of the world, though predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere from Greenland eastward through Europe and parts of Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
>The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c.950 to c.1250.[2]

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
>Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/
>For a long time, many took on faith the idea that these phenomena were global. But that assumption has been undermined in the past decade or so by studies from widespread areas (including parts of Greenland) suggesting that in fact temperatures in many places did not line up with one or the other periods. Some regions appear to have been warming when they were supposed to be cooling, and vice versa.

It's never too late to get your GED. You'll also need to work on you informational literacy.

>>15814455
See >>15814453
Quoting layman's encyclopedias isn't going to give you a grasp of actual scholarship. You're just wrong.

>>15814448
>>15814453
Nonsense.

>>15814459
Amazing argument for dismissing peer reviewed science.

>>15814457
From that paper
>This study confirms the coral medieval climate records from Mentawai islands. The result suggests that a warming trend occurred in Indonesia during the Medieval climate anomaly.

Not global.

>>15814462
That paper doesn't say what you think it says. Your argument is nonsense.

>>15814465
I thought you were claiming it was isolated to the North Atlantic? Is Indonesia in the North Atlantic?

>>15814468
Completely wrong. This is why you need to work on your informational literacy.

>>15814471
So you're just lying now. Gotcha. Now explain using big-boy words why a temperature rise occurred in antipodal regions as well as numerous other locations in between them without calling it global.

>>15814474
How about you try to improve you literacy instead? This will be a good exercise.

>though predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere from Greenland eastward through Europe and parts of Asia.

>a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c.950 to c.1250.[2]

>warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic.

Which of these statements limits this effect exclusively to the North Atlantic?
A. The first statement
B. The second statement
C. The third statement
D. All of the above
E. None of the above

Something very similar will be on your test when you go to get your GED.

>>15814489
You're mad because you got blown out by someone who actually knows the state of modern research. It's easy to tell because you never once cited a real paper, only plebian tertiary material.

>>15814499
Nonsense. You really should try the exercise. You'll never get your GED at this rate.

>>15814454
They're going to ignore your post and keep simping for the MWP as a global effect.

>>15814454
>coal and oil aren't natural
but also
>coal and oil are natural and we're going to run out of them if we keep on extracting them them for nature

>>15814516
Work on you reading comprehension.

>>15814468
>warming trend that lasts several centuries
>isolated locally
not possible

>>15814518
>Work on you reading comprehension.
nice ebonics

>>15815411
>warming trend that lasts several centuries
>isolated locally
Its possible to believe in that only if you don't understand physics and thats why climate scientists don't study physics, because their ignorance allows them to believe in all sorts of preposterous stupidity

>>15814516
how long has the
>we're almost out of oil
>so lets quintuple the price of oil to discourage use
scam been going on? did it only start in the 1960s?

>>15817587
False scarcity rumors have been created and abused as a means of jacking up prices since forever ago. Probably started shortly after commerce was invented

>>15817587
I read an article from the 1880s that was spreading alarmism about England being completely out of coal by the early 1900s. This kind of nonsense has been going on ever since oil companies changed the definition of fossil fuel.

>>15818514
we had plenty of oil 3 years ago, the price is only up because the government decided to restrict supply as a means of raising prices. the business is far more profitable for their corporate masters with high oil prices. still costs the same to pump the stuff and refine it, but the price to consumers is way higher.

>>15814394
>>15814402
>Were they recording isotope ratios then? I'd like to see that.
If you don't know how to read a graph or if you don't know what it is measuring, that should be a huge hint to you that you don't know what you are talking about and that you probably shouldn't hold such a strong opinion on the topic. I get that the whole "believe the science" shit is stupid, but you should be more diligent in how you form your beliefs.
>>15812144
The graph in this post is measuring CO2 concentration and δ13C, a measure of the ratio of 12C to 13C. The huge change in δ13C tells us that the rise is CO2 concentration must be human caused. Here is an article to learn more about it: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

>>15819084
/thread