Rohan Stevenson

@jk_rowling The genius of your characters is that they are drawn from people who actually exist. I have known Snapes, and they are the kind of white middle class elitists one finds in schools and academia. It's cultural heritage which doesn't play with a black actor no matter how talented.

I don’t have the power to sack an actor from the series and I wouldn’t exercise it if I did. I don’t believe in taking away people’s jobs or livelihoods because they hold legally protected beliefs that differ from mine.

@AtomsksSanakan @aumuaum @samzed94535545 @JunkScience @Tan123 Not wrong. These are temperature anomalies not absolute temp. woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4g…

@RohanEarth @aumuaum @samzed94535545 @JunkScience @Tan123 For posterity: @RohanEarth was wrong. x.com/AtomsksSanakan… x.com/micefearboggis… "This is why i prefer the reanalyses, such as ERA5. They assimilate the radiances measured by the satellites." x.com/curryja/status… x.com/curryja/status… carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-c…

Wow... December 2022 (420 ppm CO2) was 0.20°C cooler than December 1987 (350 ppm CO2)... despite a doubling of manmade CO2 (280 ppm pre-industrial). h/t @tan123 CO2 warming is a hoax.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 3 pillars of truth - evidence, logic, reason. All are required. Stomata density is direct response to CO2 which can be calibrated. It is preserved perfectly whereas CO2 in ice cores are not. Supposition does NOT go into it, the response is very reliable from experiment.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 Logic is human philosophy, not science. Data needs interpretation and context. Stomata do not measure CO₂ but a plant physiological response. Lots of suppositions go in there and the data is contradicted by ice core data. I agree response time is different.

Microbes, not humans, are primarily responsible for the increase in methane emissions and the one-third of near-term global warming they are believed to cause, according to models and the IPCC. pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 Oh-we are way past arguing about Anthro CC. Nor does what I say about carbon cycle impact your work. But for the same reason's I was able to change my mind about CC, I was able to change about CO2cycle. Ice cores are problematic, and there are no good arguments against stomata.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 I am sure I make mistakes and miss information. But I am objective. I set the level for when the evidence is convincing to me. Antarctic ice cores CO₂ levels are convincing to me. Anthropogenic climate change evidence is not.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 On top of which we add our contribution. But because GPP is CO2 dependent, the biosphere responds simply as if the planet had warmed slightly more than it had. GPP draws out transient CO2, some from long term stores, and then becomes part of annual flux.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 That is not correct. We know how much CO₂ increases every year and it is less than what we emit. I'm a scientist. No amount of argumentation will convince me, just the evidence can. I've looked at all the things you mention and the evidence isn't there for what you say.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 The fact is the two process that emit and capture are different. One is dependent on temp, the other on available CO2. They run at v similar rates - but not exactly the same. Processes acting on short term variblty also act on longer term stores. This accumulates in atmosphere.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 Ins: 4% human, 96% natural Outs: 0% human, 98% natural. Atmospheric storage difference: +2% (Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference) Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which: Humans: 2% of 4% = 0.08% Nature: 2% of 96 % = 1.92% where 1.92% : 0.08% = 2400%

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 We do not have good accounting of where the CO₂ goes when it leaves the atmosphere, but we do have good accounting of how much CO₂ is leaving the atmosphere because we know how much we emit and how much it remains.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 No, nature deposits more than it withdraws. You can see this when humans stop depositing (albeit briefly). atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. GPP is dependent on available CO2. More CO2 = expands. That means more CO2 released when it decays. The CO2 comes from long term stores.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 If the account grows by less of what you deposit, you are the one making the account grow. There is no investments, just deposits and withdrawals. Nature withdraws more than it deposits, humans only deposit.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 Well it would be because the CO2 would not have had time to diffuse would it? Over time, the CO2 trapped in snow bubbles out or reacts as the pressures and currents within the firn layer affect its chemistry. There are papers on this...

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 The coincidence between ice cores measurements and atmospheric measurements since 1958 is very good.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 ...only on very long time scales. We do NOT know that they ARE net sinks. We assume that because we add more CO2 that is removed. But that is faulty thinking. The biosphere can remove (or add) more than 4 times our annual contribution.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 Long term stores are net sinks. We know that.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 To illustrate the uncertainties surrounding carbon cycle fluxes, this paper comes out pointing out that plants are absorbing 31% more CO2 than "previously thought". It's possible that the biosphere could absorb MORE than our contribution and CO2 levels could STILL rise.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 It is the same as with energy. It matters the net change, not how long it spent moving within the system. The energy content and the carbon content and their changes.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 2/ Ice cores have problems with diffusion and chemical reactions esp with impurities within the firn layer. Diffusion still occurs in the ice layers as well though not as strongly.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 Yes, ice cores don't have a good resolution, but they filter the high frequencies and give the changes in background levels over the decades. We know because we see them changing with the present increase in CO₂.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 No - THAT is not correct. You have a shared account to which you contribute 4%, although you don't take anything out. Other account holders take money out and invest it to grow the account. The biosphere is the same, as it expands it produces more CO2 keeping levels higher.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 That is not correct. My contribution is 200% of the market net change at the end of the year.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 Actually that "high freq" filter means they really only show timescales of centuries rather than decades. Ice cores and stomata agree well on timing of CO2 changes but not on extent. The problem with recent changes is that CO2 mixes in the firn layer. Also reacts with impurities.

@JVinos_Climate @Janine511484078 Contradiction to which other techniques? You mean ice cores? They have their faults too, arguably more severe. The core argument does not require supposition. We aren't talking about a few ppm, we are talking ~100ppm difference. Can't just hand wave that away.

@RohanEarth @Janine511484078 I've read a few stomata papers. Too many suppositions to trust the data when it is in contradiction to other techniques. Same with Boron isotope from foraminifera. It is a proxy of a proxy.