James Harris 리트윗함
James Harris
13.7K posts
James Harris
@WormsofWrath
All-American Renaissance Man, author The Physics of Paradox Null, writer and composer of musical play Seeking Liberty
lost in thought 가입일 Haziran 2024
809 팔로잉1.2K 팔로워
@SkylineReport Long term trends are certainly far better indicators of the future than heat waves are.
English
If you trust a weather model enough to cancel a flight, it's a little strange to call the same physics a hoax when it predicts what happens after decades of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 🌎🔥
P a u l ◉@SkylineReport
🚨 "If scientists can't predict the weather next month, how can they predict climate change?" Because weather and climate are different questions. Weather asks: 👉 Will it rain in San Antonio on June 10? Climate asks: 👉 What happens to the atmosphere when we keep adding greenhouse gases for decades? Weather is chaotic. Tiny differences today can change the exact forecast two weeks from now. Climate is statistical. We don't need to know the weather on a specific Tuesday in 2050 to know what happens when billions of tons of CO₂ trap more heat in the system. In fact, the same physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and atmospheric equations used to produce the weather forecast you trust before a flight are used in climate models. And those weather forecasts work remarkably well: • 5-day forecasts are about 90% accurate. • 7-day forecasts are about 80% accurate. • Today's 4-day forecasts are roughly as good as 1-day forecasts were 30 years ago. The real irony? People trust weather models enough to cancel flights, evacuate hurricanes, protect crops, and prepare for floods. Then some of those same people turn around and call the exact same physics a "hoax" when it predicts long-term warming. That's not skepticism. That's selective disbelief.
English
Within the next couple of decades Global Warming is going to go from being a big problem to making large parts of the world where billions of people live unlivable.
It will lead to mass migration on an unbelievable scale and widespread famine.
We need to act NOW.
English
@eve_empal @CAGWfool @medialens You comments fail to recognize that the identified carbon has been adopted into fast carbon cycles resulting in larger carbon cycles, more life, and no idle 'buildup'.
Plant growth rates are accelerated by elevated CO2 levels.
English
@CAGWfool @medialens The proof is the carbon itself. Burning fossil fuels releases C-13 isotopes. Atmospheric measurements show this exact carbon type is rising rapidly, proving the CO2 buildup is made by humans. C. D. Keeling et al. (1979) The Suess Effect: Carbon-13/Carbon-14 Interrelations.
English
As discussed in our alert (below), it's so easy to debunk these comments now:
This is the classic 'the climate has always changed' argument. It's a favorite because it relies on a slice of truth to smuggle in a massive misconception.
Saying humans can't cause climate change because climate change happened before humans is like a detective looking at a burned-down house and saying, "Well, forest fires caused by lightning have been happening a wee bit longer than matches, so this arsonist couldn't have done it."
Climate scientists have never claimed that the climate was static before the industrial revolution. In fact, understanding past climate change is exactly how we know greenhouse gases are so dangerous today.
medialens.substack.com/p/invitation-t…
Joe@CupoJoeBlow
@medialens Turns out the climate has been changing a wee bit longer than the instrumental record.
English
Heliocentric model: backed by 480+ years of relentless evidence, math, predictions, and observation.
Flat Earth: backed by unemployed losers & grifters with zero working model, zero predictions, and zero evidence.
Which one would you trust?
English
@morshaa1 @MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS The long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4 years. The median average time is 2.4 years. Removal from fast carbon cycles is 50% in ~30 years.
H20 has twice the the total heat retention of CO2 at present levels. CO2 is increasing ~0.7% per year, humidity ~0.2%.
English
@WormsofWrath @MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS half of which is directed back down to earth as heat.
You are also correct that H2O is the most dominant greenhouse gas but, CO2 is the largest contributor to global warming, due to its sheer volume and long lifespan in the atmosphere. 2/2
English
If there are rats in your house they are hungry. So you feed them. How much will you feed them before they are economically independent?
How many rats will there be before they are economically independent?
How many will there be before they eat you?
There is no intelligent reason to let them in nor to feed them.
GIF
English
@WormsofWrath @Redskinrex @SkylineReport What do you suggest we do
Starve just the already starving nations?
Water is currency. When global warming dries up all their sources of water where do you think the impoverished nations go to?
No walls will be high enough.
English
Climate change isn't a hoax.
If the Sun were causing the warming, the atmosphere would warm from top to bottom.
Instead, scientists observe the exact fingerprint predicted by greenhouse gases:
• Lower atmosphere warming
• Upper atmosphere cooling
• Oceans storing over 90% of the excess heat
• Arctic warming faster than the rest of Earth
Natural cycles can't explain that.
Physics can.
That's why the IPCC concluded it is unequivocal that human activity has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.
The debate ended years ago.
The emissions didn't.
English
Yesterday Donald Trump tripled the size of his personal political army inside the government. Illegally. And almost no one noticed.
Here's what happened:
He signed an order converting ~8,000 of the most senior career officials in government into employees he can fire for any reason, or no reason at all.
These aren't rando's. They're the directors, chiefs of staff, and the people who write the rules or decide who gets federal money, i.e. the lieutenants right below his political appointees.
Until yesterday, they answered to the law. Now they answer to him.
A president normally gets ~4,000 political appointees. People he can bring into government and fire at will. I was one of them at DHS. You serve at his pleasure, full stop -- so if you're gonna speak truth to power, you're prepared to quit (or get fired if he doesn't like it).
The rest of the federal government is PROTECTED from firing if they tell the truth.
But Trump just stripped those protections. Adding 8,000 more people to his personal army. Overnight. Without asking Congress.
With the stroke of a pen, those people now serve at the pleasure of the president. They're "his" people, whether they like it or not.
And the chilling effect is real. An official who can be fired this afternoon for "subversion of presidential directives" (the order's own words) doesn't need to be hand-picked to know what's expected of him or her.
The threat does all the work.
By the way, this order is illegal. The law only lets Trump reclassify jobs when "necessary" in exceptional circumstances. And this blows an 8,000-person hole in the merit hiring / firing system created by Congress.
Without permission, Trump has created a whole new category of stormtroopers inside the Executive Branch.
If this doesn't get challenged in court, you're going to see the U.S. government become a very different place.
Here's the full story: bit.ly/4dQN5N2
English
James Harris 리트윗함
@morshaa1 @Tartan511 @MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS It is estimated that the increased warming and long-term CO2 gains have set back the next Ice Age 5,000 to 10,000 years, essentially canceling the next civilization-destroying glacial advance.
English
@Tartan511 @MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS Historically, that is correct. However, the climate dynamic has reversed. Instead of natural orbital cycles driving the temperature, human activity is driving the co2 increase and the temperature is following and responding to the rapid increase.
English
@morshaa1 @MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It slows the lapse rate of outbound emissions. That's not because it's heavy. It is because of the carbon. Hydrogen and carbon are the key ingredients of all refrigerants (best is CH4) due to thermal capacities.
Dominant greenhouse gas is H2O.
English
@MauriceMur4768 @BladeoftheS Because it is a heavy gas, it mixes with the air, acting like an invisible blanket that absorbs heat radiating from the Earth's surface and traps it, leading to global warming. 2/2
English
If weather science is "climate alarmism," then stop using hurricane forecasts, flood warnings, aviation turbulence models, wildfire predictions, and winter storm projections.
They're built on the same atmospheric physics.
Funny how the science is trusted when it protects lives today but called a partisan scam when it warns about risks tomorrow.
English
@EVCurveFuturist @BeeVee23 Causation is causation.
Gasoline cannot melt through the steel hulls of boats but EV battery fires can and do.
Gas fires can be extinguished by installed fire arrest systems by EV battery fires cannot be extinguished.
English
@WormsofWrath @BeeVee23 Correlation is not causation.
Otherwise every ship carrying bananas would be at risk of being sunk by bananas.
English
Gas spent 20 years owning the evening peak. Batteries took a year to crash the party.
That's disruption. Not gradual, but a rapid shift in who supplies grid's most valuable hours.
The battle was never about total generation. It was about the peak & batteries are winning it.
English
@hydrogeoscience @medialens That was when global freezing was the popular climate alarmist line, and was published to encourage preventing an ice age with more carbon dioxide.
English
@medialens Try this. ExxonMobil's own study from 1982, validated by real world data.
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
English
When people say models have never predicted anything accurately, they usually point to exaggerated media headlines from the 1980s or 1990s (like 'London will be underwater by 2015'). But if you look at the actual physics-based models published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last 50 years, their accuracy is remarkably high.
A landmark 2019 study led by scientists at UC Berkeley, MIT, and NASA analysed 17 major global warming models published between 1970 and 2007. They found that 14 out of the 17 models accurately predicted the real-world temperature increases we have since experienced. See here: theguardian.com/environment/20…
Brian Bacon@BrianB5000
No, I don’t have it the wrong way around. The hysterical predictions of the climate mob are entirely based on models whose assumptions are determined by the people who build them. There is no empirical case to study. The predictions of rising sea levels, flooding, collapsing food production, etc that we have been subjected to for the last 50 years, have been wrong every single time so their proponents simply change the timeline and carry on. Meanwhile, deaths attributed to climate have reduced by over 90% over the last hundred years and almost all climate attributed deaths are due to cold, not heat. In fact, a warmer climate is good for humans. We are a tropical species. NASA reported a 20% increase in global greening over the past couple of decades. Longer growing seasons and increased agricultural land. Anthropogenic climate change is junk science.
English
James Harris 리트윗함
So why aren't scientists calling out the exaggerated media headlines? They should be fact checking this hyperbole every time it is published. The media should be afraid to publish hysterics. It is the scientists' reputations they are damaging. Science should be suing and demanding retractions every time.
Someone posted an article on the 99.9% scientific consensus that human activities cause global warming. The article mentioned the study that concluded this, so I looked at the study.
Turned out the study had 892 papers that agreed, 4 that disagreed, and 2,104 that had no opinion.
They included the "no opinion" pieces as agreeing that we were the cause. If you only count the agree's against the total, the percentage is 30%, not 99.9%.
English
@TheRealWilso @EVCurveFuturist Teslas are built far better than any other electric car brand and Teslas dominate the American market, minimizing American awareness of EV battery hazards.
Information suppression of EV fires is also key to their adoption.
English
@WormsofWrath @EVCurveFuturist I don't know enough about the economics to make intelligent commentary on it. I understand the engineering sufficiently to not be worried about the stability of my solar battery, but terrified of being in an underground car park with an EV.
English