Let’s debunk another electric car meme that @TakesByLevin and @BJul1989 seem to think is true: 1) That isn’t a lithium mine, it is a diamond mine. The Mirny mine in Siberia, Russia closed in 2004.
https://t.co/crFyplhVdYamusingplanet.com/2013/04/abando…

By now you've surely seen this figure, it was the talk of #climatetwitter today. But the most interesting part is the region I've circled. It's where Earth is constantly sliding in and out of ice ages 📉❄️📈🌲📉❄️📈🌲📉❄️ There's a paper you don't hear about very often Ganopolski-2016 that starts with Earth's orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession, which affect how much solar radiation the Northern hemisphere receives. Then it calculates...

Briefest possible explanation of CO₂ #climatechange physics - the DIY version:

(1/10) Earth receives 1,362 W/m² from the sun in a combination of UV, visible and infrared radiation.
📏You can measure it for yourself with a Hukseflux DR30-D1 Pyrheliometer (2/10)The sun illuminates the disk of Earth (area = πr²) 📏You can calculate Earth's area for yourself the way the Greeks did it using shadows, or with a straight-edge and a view of an ocean + trig:

This graphic suggests that manufacturing one electric vehicle causes enormous diesel emissions from the earth mover alone.

Is it true? Let's check the math: From Caterpillar's website the 994H has a 1577 HP engine and can lift 35 tons (77,000 lbs) at once.

1577 HP consumes 85 gal/hr at 100% throttle, but it's not expected to consistently operate at full throttle & rated load (more likely 40-70% of each, I will use 60%)

UPDATED briefest possible explanation of CO₂ #climatechange physics:

(1/12) Any warm object radiates energy at wavelengths depending on its temperature, the distribution of which is described by Planck's Law: 2. The sun's surface temperature is 5,778 K, so Planck's Law predicts it will radiate primarily at visible light wavelengths.

100% consensus light travels 186,000 mph
⤷ because we can measure it

100% consensus that 𝑔 = 6.67...x10⁻¹¹ Nm²/kg²
⤷ because we can measure it

97% consensus that ↑CO₂ changes climate
...because CO₂ radiative forcing isn't measured

Measurement supersedes a consensus. I'm ~not~ saying the climate consensus is wrong. I'm explaining why we even ~talk~ about a consensus.

With no direct CO₂ forcing measurement, climatologists study indirect effects like 🌡️ ocean heat content or 📉 stratosphere instead.

Over the last 14 months I have been refining the briefest possible explanation of CO₂ #climatechange physics:

(1/15) Any warm object radiates energy at wavelengths depending on its temperature. The distribution of wavelengths is described by Planck's Law: 2. Planck's Law predicts that the Sun, having a surface temperature of 5,800 degrees, will radiate mostly at visible light wavelengths.

A photo can reveal the curvature of Earth. Is it possible to calculate the planet’s diameter from just that observation?

You can pretty close. My attempt was within 27%. 🚨math ahead 🚨 Here is the particular photo with which I started. It’s from a hotel balcony on my last vacation.

The ocean’s curvature is apparent against the (presumed) straight railing. Two stacked pennies show the max. curvature distance.

I went through the technical guide for a modern climate model and counted the user-specified parameters:

1,737 (and I know I missed some).

If you've ever wondered what dials must be set to run a GCM, here they are...🧵 I have been told 'these just physics simulators' suggesting that after entering π, σ, 𝑔, etc and some earth-specific information, the rest is simply the consequence of laws of nature. I would observe this is not entirely the case.

Stuck indoors, lots of time to read, currently finishing Brandt's book on Dow Chemical's first 100 years.

The strangest/craziest stories inside👇 1. Herbert Dow visited the bromine plant and "I found it shut down with most of the men on the roof. The coke tower was plugged with iron hydrate and needed to be scraped out. But, there was considerable odor of bromine and the men claimed they were waiting for it to clear up...

People don't use data to decide what to think 🧐

At best they may use data to update existing beliefs

Have you ever discussed climate data with someone, only to arrive at opposite conclusions?

There is interesting math behind why. [1/11]
img: @waitbutwhy In the Bayesian framework, how much you believe something after you see the evidence depends not just on what the evidence shows, but on how much you believed it to begin with. The posterior is affected not only by the evidence you encounter, but also by your prior. [2/11]

How does mainstream climate change science arrive at CO₂ = catastrophic warming?

Nobody is reading thousand-page IPCC reports. People just trust headlines, actors, etc.

I'm not that trusting For myself I had to create this primer to connect it all together. [0/n] Any warm object radiates energy at wavelengths depending on its temperature. The distribution of wavelengths is described by Planck's Law. [1/n]

1/ I asked for a Geiger counter for Christmas last year and got my wish. I took it on a westbound flight across the US and this .gif records the readings during take-off and climb to 30,000 feet where it recorded 25x as much radiation as at ground level. 2/ Total radiation dose measured was 8.5 microsievarts on the four hour flight. xkcd’s radiation dose chart expected even higher levels than that: xkcd.com/radiation/