Giordano Bruno & Richard Feynman are my heroes. AI & critical thinking leader: https://nitter.gq/t.co/ilowWkxarm, https://nitter.gq/t.co/0FplTrOCtf
Washington, District Of Columb
Joined June 2009
- Tweets29.4K
- Following9.1K
- Followers8.3K
- Likes10.3K
David Siegel retweeted
SpaceX millionaires 4,000 x $1mil , 400 x $100 mil
Every employee who joined before the first succesful launch made (unless they sold early) more than $100 million.
SpaceX lists June 12 at ~$1.75T.
Work backward from the cap table. At $1.75T, clearing $100M takes ~0.0057% of the company.
- 2002–2008, first ~500 in: joined at a ~$50M company. Held to $1.75T = a 17,000x. The core of the club — maybe 150–250 left holding
- September 2008, SpaceX has first successful launch
- 2010–2016: joined at $1B–$10B. Needs a senior grant — directors, principal engineers, early Starlink. ~100–200
- C-suite + board: Shotwell, Johnsen past $1B. A layer of SVPs below them clears $100M on equity, not salary. ~20–40
- Post-2016: joined at $20B–$350B. To hit $100M you'd have needed ~0.4% of the company. Impossible for an employee. This is the millionaire tier — almost none reach $100M
The tally:
~400–500 at $100M+
A few dozen above $500M
A handful of billionaires past Musk
Same building. Same mission. Two orders of magnitude apart — set entirely by what year you walked in.
Early isn't a strategy. It's a date stamp.
David Siegel retweeted
.@_InThisTogether on censorship in the UK:
"They've arrested 60,000 people over the last five years for comments they've made online."
David Siegel retweeted
A San Francisco startup says it just turned mercury into real gold, and their own math says gold is one of the cheapest things their machine can make. Aim it at a different metal and it makes a cancer drug ingredient worth tens of billions of dollars a gram.
Here's how it works. When you fuse two kinds of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, every single reaction kicks out a neutron moving at 14.1 MeV, which is absurdly fast. Fire one into mercury-198 and it knocks another neutron loose on the way through, so two come out and you're left with mercury-197. Give that a few days and it decays into gold-197, the only stable kind of gold there is. The whole trick needs neutrons above about 6 MeV, and regular nuclear reactors barely make those, while fusion makes one every time it fires.
Now swap the mercury for radium-226. Same reaction, one neutron in and two out, and you end up with radium-225, which decays into actinium-225. Novartis is building its next prostate cancer drug around actinium-225, and it's so scarce it sells by the millicurie, roughly $1,200 to $2,500 apiece. Price it by the gram and you're into the tens of billions of dollars, for a material so radioactive nobody could safely hold a gram of it anyway.
Marathon's team actually put a dollar value on a single fusion neutron in a paper this year. Use it to make electricity and it's worth about $3 × 10⁻²⁰. Gold comes in at $2.6 × 10⁻²⁰, basically a wash. Molybdenum-99, which goes into about 80% of nuclear medicine scans, is worth $2.6 × 10⁻¹⁷ a neutron. Actinium-225 is worth about $10⁻¹⁰, around 3 billion times what the electricity's worth.
That's why fusion people should care. Every fusion company you've heard of is chasing electricity, and selling electricity only pays once the plasma puts out something like 10 to 22 times the energy you pump in to heat it. The best result so far, at JET in England, was about a third. Add gold on the side and Marathon's math says you break even around 3x. For molybdenum-99, the number is 0.001x.
So a machine that gives back one-thousandth of the energy you feed it can still make money, as long as the neutrons hit the right metal.
By their numbers, a 3 megawatt machine running way below breakeven could cover the whole world's supply of molybdenum-99, which today comes from splitting uranium in a handful of research reactors. Today's experimental fusion machines already beat the gain that job needs.
Their second post basically says this out loud. Marathon now describes itself as an isotope company for radiopharma. Their chart shows roughly 390 targeted radiotherapy trials. Pluvicto, the prostate cancer drug Novartis launched at $42,500 a dose, did $1.9 billion in sales last year.
Gold still matters to them, just later. It's about a $700 billion a year market, and Marathon's paper figures it could soak up around 2 terawatts of fusion capacity, which is roughly the scale where fusion actually moves the grid. So the plan is to sell cancer isotopes out of small machines now and use gold to pay for the giant ones, years before electricity can pay for itself.
Last month, we demonstrated high-rate alchemy: turning mercury into real, stable gold, beating CERN’s record by a factor of 10.
Last week, we enriched isotopes in the world’s most powerful plasma centrifuge, beating the Soviet record that stood for 40 years.
Now, we’re building a fusion reactor in San Francisco to achieve record power density.
David Siegel retweeted
I read Unelected, highly recommend. While I expected the NGO stuff, new media, data monkery, I did NOT expect a serious treatise on political philosophy/history for the past several centuries. This is the book the moment needs.
📚🚨 The book UNELECTED is finally out - order it today if you haven't! 🇺🇸
There'll be more Democracy Files drops today - but as it happens, today is launch day for my book UNELECTED. It is a coincidence that I stumbled into an archive of these ex-USAID officials less than a week before the book's release. The UNELECTED is about how and why a massive global network of NGOs came to dominate our everyday American policies.
And crucially, UNELECTED ends in a whitepill that shows us the way out of this mess.
UNELECTED is a joint collaboration between @JoshuaLisec and myself. I started this effort because my own doxxing happened during the Tesla Takedown protests, while I was in the process of being recruited by DOGE. DOGE employees were having their life made miserable, and I had to take my own children and flee out of state.
While researching who organized and financed the protests, I noticed all the backers were all about democracy. Democratic resilence, strengthening democracy, protecting democracy. I was like ... "wait, why are democracy groups behind this?" DOGE was cutting silly DEI foreign aid awards, it wasn't overturning any elections.
What I came to find was shocking - these silly USAID awards added up to a global regime change machine. "Democracy" has nothing to do with elections. "Democracy," to them, means diffused governance outside of the three branches of our Constitutional Republic via private citizens in the form of NGOs. The network started assembling over a hundred years ago with the founding of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and has snowballed into a machinery worth trillions of dollars that has sucked taxpayer money, philanthropic money, union dues.
That became UNELECTED.
You've been reading about the coup the past couple of days. UNELECTED shows how and why the coup came to be.
I'm so lucky to have met wonderful people throughout this journey - @petermarocco, "Big Balls" @as400495 , and countless others who sacrificed so much more to right our country.
Vote straight Republican on November 3rd, and buy UNELECTED.
David Siegel retweeted
I never thought I would type these words: my campaign for US ambassador to Greece is being taken seriously.
According to public reporting, it seems like my main competition is Jennifer Aniston? Seriously.
youtu.be/1W667nRpWFk?is=7ipj…
David Siegel retweeted
You will NEVER be confused about the Climate Crisis again - that's a promise!
- everything answered in this superb new movie Support the makers: @climatethemovie on X, and movie FAQ here: tomn.substack.com/p/climate-…. DOWNLOAD THE MOVIE HERE - to upload yourself EVERYWHERE: we.tl/t-MzLKWjnp2B
0:00: 🌍 Revealing the truth behind the climate industry and its financial motivations.
6:33: 🌍 Renowned scientist challenges climate alarm with historical climate evidence.
13:39: 🌡️ Climate history shows gentle temperature rise since Little Ice Age, with no alarming trends observed.
18:59: 🌡️ Temperature measurements from various sources show minimal warming trends, diverging from urban-influenced records.
25:01: 🌍 Importance of higher CO2 levels in the past for Earth's survival and biodiversity.
31:16: 🌥️ Clouds, not CO2, are the key factor in controlling Earth's climate according to the speaker.
37:46: 🌡️ Analysis of US temperature records highlights higher heat waves in the 1930s compared to today.
43:56: 🌍 Climate change funding creates a community of researchers publishing numerous studies on various topics related to climate change. 50:46: ⚠️ Dependency on climate crisis for jobs and funding in the climate finance industry. 55:59: 💡 Government intervention in climate issues blamed on environmental movement and free market opposition. 1:02:32: ⚠️ Assault on scientific inquiry by climate consensus, leading to censorship and intolerance. 1:09:06: 🌍 Critique of affluent environmentalists' disdain for mass consumption and class hypocrisy. 1:15:26: 💸 Rising skepticism towards climate agenda due to potential financial burdens on the masses.
David Siegel retweeted
The world consumes roughly 28 million tonnes of copper every year—a mass equivalent to five Great Pyramids of Giza.
Yet that refined metal is just the tip of the iceberg of a far more monstrous physical reality. Beneath those 28 million tonnes of copper sits a massive geological footprint: billions of tonnes of blasted rock, colossal volumes of chemical tailings, vast energy expenditures and trillions of litres of water. This is all fresh, relentless demand.
Crucially, up to 75% of that copper never enters individual turbines, solar panels or electric vehicles. It goes into the invisible grid infrastructure required to link everything together and make it function. When you trace 28 million tonnes of copper backward into the Earth, the true scale and cost is staggering.
The drive to overhaul the global energy structure rests on a profound misunderstanding of physics: it treats energy supply as a 'software' problem while ignoring the devastating raw material gridlock caused by manufacturing billions of solar panels and over a million wind turbines, with hundreds of thousands more in the pipeline.
When an energy system shifts from reliable, high-density fuels—hydrocarbons and uranium—to low-density, intermittent sources like wind and solar, the physical apparatus needed to capture, convert, stabilise and transmit that diffuse flux just explodes.
It becomes an absurd trade-off: expending colossal amounts of finite, high-grade fossil fuels upfront simply to dig up materials for low-density generators—generators that can never run a steel mill, power an ocean cargo vessel or sustain international air travel.
Mining is already a vast consumer of continuous energy. As global copper ore grades decline—frequently dropping to 0.5% or lower—the mass of rock that must be dug, hauled, and crushed grows exponentially per unit of recovered metal.
Crushing rock alone accounts for roughly 3% to 4% of total global electricity consumption. Demanding billions of additional tonnes of processed metal creates a self-defeating loop: huge volumes of reliable, baseline power are consumed just to extract the raw materials needed to construct weather-dependent hardware.
Yet the primary metals drain does not come from the turbines or arrays themselves. It stems from the enormous physical web needed to transport that energy across vast distances. Diffuse generators located hundreds of kilometres from cities require unprecedented volumes of step-up transformers, substations, high-voltage transmission lines and regional grid overhauls.
The heavy overhead wiring looping across the landscape regularly dwarfs the metal required to build the turbine in the first place. Because two centuries of industrial civilisation have already extracted the highest-grade deposits, meeting future demand forces miners to dig deeper, crush harder and manage billions of tonnes of toxic slurry.
This is a twin crisis: the escalating physical cost of ore recovery on the front end, and an unprecedented tsunami of industrial e-waste bound for landfills on the back end. The physical limits of this model are not dictated by how much metal remains in the crust, but by the soaring energy penalty required to dig them up and refine them.
Heavy industrial processes—blast furnaces, chemical synthesis, cement production and deep-shaft mining—all need continuous, high-temperature thermal energy and uninterrupted high-voltage power. Intermittent turbines and panels cannot reliably deliver that dense power to sustain heavy industry, let alone an entire national economy.
The ultimate irony is that the staggering industrial muscle needed to build, maintain, and periodically replace these diffuse energy systems relies entirely on the coal, oil and gas they were meant to replace.
The dream of a fully weather-dependent industrial grid ignores physical reality. It overlooks a looming nightmare of endless ore extraction, refining bottlenecks, and perpetual grid expansion.
David Siegel retweeted
Award-winning physicist Will Happer:
"Let's talk about CO2. Number one, it's not a pollutant at all. We breathe out lots of CO2. Many people are surprised to learn that they exhale about two pounds, a little more than two pounds of CO2 a day.
So, you people in this room are putting out a lot of CO2. Our breath is not that different from the output of a power plant. Power plants take in normal air, and they burn, a fair amount of the oxygen out of the air in burning coal or natural gas or oil. And the result that comes out of the stack is mostly the nitrogen that was already there, a little bit of oxygen that wasn't used up, and water vapor and CO2.
And our breath, it's very similar to the power plant. It's about four percent CO2, six percent water. Power plant has a bit more CO2 and correspondingly less oxygen.
But our breath is definitely not a pollutant."
David Siegel retweeted
Gregg Goodnight on the climate scam:
"In my view "Climate Change" is a vehicle for roughly 14 hidden agendas, none of which has much to do with real climate or environment for that matter."
David Siegel retweeted
Please repost the crap out of this until @elonmusk or @Gwynne_Shotwell replies to it:
Grokipedia is dead. I'd like to rescue it, starting with scientific data, which is critical to intelligence (artificial or not) ...
1. LLMs have a GIGO problem. They ingest tons of wrong information and spew it out with certainty.
2. Peer-reviewed research is a disaster. It's a $10 billion industry with bad incentives and terrible results. Feynman would not be happy.
3. Far too many global crises are caused by fake, weaponized, political, and simply incompetent science.
I believe the ONLY way to fix it is not with programming and training, but with an open, two-sided market mechanism where you make money if you're right and you lose money if you're wrong. It's not a prediction market, it's a validation market.
This skin-in-the-game approach will produce the world's most accurate science data, and much more. It's better than community notes. It could become the basis for an entirely new media company that complements X.com.
DM me and I'll send you my deck.
Sincerely,
David Siegel
@chamath @bgurley @hthieblot @jefielding @larjo280 @naval @pmarca @Jason @paulg @bhorowitz @balajis @fredwilson @msuster @Jeff @hunchventures @jasonmendelson @sether @jeremysliew @VCMike @ChristopherA @jeffnolan @ryanhoover @hstebbings @garrytan @alexf @jaltman @jasonlk @jessicalessin @joshua @khoslaventures @nicole @petersuciu @BillAckman @saranormous @JeffDean @kristianfreeman @alexwg @daveblundin @PeterDiamandis @kcoleman @matthew_pines @shaunmmaguire @dwarkesh_sp @C_Angermayer @RichardSSutton @deedydas @ID_AA_Carmack
David Siegel retweeted
Despite four decades of continuous climate alarmism, roughly 10% of the Earth's total land area remains permanently capped by glacial ice, which covers 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles).
Earth is still bound to the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and our planet's average global temperature still hovers around a very livable 15°C.
This is far below the world's long-term planetary average of 18°C to 24°C - seen throughout most of Earth's biological history. It makes the idea of a global warming crisis seem out of sync with reality.
That is nearly a third of its extent during the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago), when continental ice sheets reached their historical zenith.
The Antarctic ice sheet remains the largest and thickest body of ice on the planet, extending up to 4.8 kilometers (about 3 miles) deep. It holds roughly 90% of global ice volume and accounts for 85% of total glacial land cover. Spanning 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), Antarctica alone makes up 8.3% of Earth's total land surface.
A basic geographical reality is often forgotten: land comprises a mere 28% of the planet's surface. All human cities, towns, and infrastructure combined occupy just 1% to 3% of that land (while deserts take up 33% and forests 31%).
We live on an ocean world, and waters cover 72% of the globe to an average depth of 2.3 miles.
Crucially, the oceans hold 86% of the global carbon reservoir and absorb over 90% of retained thermal energy. By contrast, the atmosphere holds a fraction of a percent of each. The oceans—not human industrial activity—serve as the true long-term regulatory engine for atmospheric carbon dioxide and global climate stability.
The current Quaternary Glaciation is part of an ice age cycle that began 34 million years ago with the thermal isolation and glaciation of Antarctica, later intensified by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama and orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles).
Carbon dioxide was not the driver of these immense shifts.
All of human civilisation, agriculture and technological progress has unfolded within a brief, warm respite: the Holocene interglacial period, which began just 11,700 years ago.
Yet for 40 years, the narrative has been dominated by a campaign driven by an unaccountable bureaucratic authority—the United Nations—pushing an agenda of global control.
David Siegel retweeted
In three parts, I explain how I was brainwashed into becoming a biased climate reporter.
Step 1: Deconstruct your identity.
When I entered a newsroom at 25, this was the pervasive ideology: The world is divided into two groups—the oppressed and the oppressors.
If you are white, straight, privileged, or American, you are inherently an oppressor. Everything you grew up believing is wrong or evil. You cannot be trusted to see the world as it really is because you are inherently racist, biased, and part of the oppressor class.
I was young, excited to be there, and surrounded by people I thought were smarter and cooler than I was. So I absorbed their worldview and ceded my judgment to the group.
Once you are demoralized, feel guilty for being an oppressor, can no longer trust your own intuition, or your own interpretation of the facts, you will believe whatever the group tells you to believe.
Step 2: Atone for your sins.
Because you are an oppressor all you can do is atone for the sins of your birth. You can do that by repeating and advancing the group’s ideology. You never question it, because questioning the ideology is treated as proof that you are racist, selfish, or an oppressor.
For me, this manifested as becoming a climate reporter. Through my work I could help the downtrodden, the indigenous people and other marginalized groups. I could be a good ally.
And so without questioning, I pushed the idea that climate change was an existential crisis, fossil-fuel companies were evil, capitalism was destroying the planet, and America was an imperialist country that had destroyed the environment. Essentially all of the problems we faced were because of Western imperialism.
If I had any doubts about this way of thinking I would shut them down. Who was I to question any of it? I was just some stupid, privileged white girl who didn’t know anything. That was what I had been told about myself and that is what I believed. Better to go along with the group, keep my head down, and be a good ally.
Step 3: Fully submit to the ideology.
The West is evil. America is evil. Capitalism is evil. White people are evil. Everything you grew up believing is wrong, and the only way to fix the world is to tear all of these systems down.
The weird thing is that I fell for all of this from a place of compassion. I wanted to help the downtrodden. I wanted to solve inequality. I wanted to fix the world.
I thought that by giving up my personal agency to this ideology, I was playing my part in atoning for the sins of my birth.
I believe what I went through is still incredibly relevant today. It helps explain the DSA’s growing power within the Democratic Party. Why most Democrats can’t bring themselves to condemn socialism. Why so many young people believe America deserved 9/11. Why young people and celebrities chant “Free Palestine” without understanding that Hamas is a terrorist organization or anything about the conflict. They’ve been told what to believe and who the oppressor is in each of these situations.
Ten years of cancel culture has taught people that questioning the ideology doesn’t simply mean you disagree. It means you are an evil oppressor. You are racist, sexist, privileged, out of touch, evil. Disagree and you will be cast out and lose everything.
Once people become afraid to trust themselves, examine the facts, or stand against the group, you’ve got them. They can be convinced to believe and do anything.
What do you all think? Did I describe this accurately?
David Siegel retweeted
Time magazine's doomer covers:
1954 nuclear war
1960 population explosion
1970 ecological collapse
1982 nuclear war
1989 endangered Earth
1992 ozone
1999 Y2K
2001/2006/2007 climate
2005 pandemic
2009 extinction
2013 bees
2019 climate
2020 pandemic
2023 AI extinction
2026 AI tipping point
David Siegel retweeted
If AI is powerful enough to end the world, it must be powerful enough to radically improve it too.
So I wish there was more discussion of P(boon) — the chance that AI goes great and helps us live happier, healthier, and longer lives.
If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Flourishes
David Siegel retweeted
I am not a climate alarmist.
Everyone by now should know this.
But being skeptical of alarmist mantra is not at all a justification to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The warming effect from carbon dioxide (CO₂) is fairly logarithmic, yes. And the radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentration (RF2xCO₂) is given by the equation,
ΔF ≈ 5.35 ln(C/C₀) W m⁻²
where C is the new concentration and C₀ is the reference concentration.
As you can see, it’s a natural log.
Plugging real numbers into that equation (e.g., the current 428 ppm for C₀ and 836 ppm for the doubled concentration) gives us a RF of ~3.7 W m⁻². The corresponding change in temperature from that works out to ~0.98 K if you simply take the first derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and solve it for temperature change (dT). And the reason it’s so small is because of Planck feedback, which is where Earth radiates heat to space scaled at the 4th power of temperature.
And while the direct warming effect from CO₂ is fairly logarithmic (it takes longer to double concentrations from 200 to 400 ppm it does 400 to 800 ppm), it is not at all “saturated.” That is, the absorption bands themselves are not saturated. The centers of the strongest lines are, but the wings and pressure broadening of the spectral lines will keep adding absorption as concentration rises, which you failed to mention.
And even though the direct warming of CO₂ is fairly logarithmic, not everything else in the climate system necessarily stays the same. Cloud area fraction may increase or decrease in response to the temperature being nudged upward. Ice albedo will change. All sorts of things can change to either amplify or dampen the warming effects of CO₂ depending on if the sum of those (and unmentioned) remaining feedbacks (Planck makes sum of all feedbacks net negative) are positive or negative, respectively.
I personally think they are net negative. But there is debate about this, clouds of course being the big uncertainty. Clouds also can change on their own, so the reduction in cloud albedo in recent years that is likely responsible for most of the warming since 2000 may not be a positive feedback response to warming, but rather due to internal variability.
I would encourage you to take courses in atmospheric radiative heat transfer and climate dynamics before calling someone who has studied this topic extensively “ignorant.”
David Siegel retweeted
When Claiming Glaciers are “Melting” is just the Grifter’s Misinformation!
Indeed, globally, many glaciers are “retreating”, but not from melting! Glaciers grow when more ice is added to the “accumulation zone” each year than is lost at the “ablation zone” (see graphic). Ice is ablated via calving, melting and sublimation (conversion of solid ice to vapor with no liquid phase). Lost ice from sublimation usually occurs while temperatures are below freezing.
For example, Kilimanjaro glaciers have been retreating due to sublimation at below freezing temperatures, not from melting. Likewise, Antarctic’s McMurdo Dry Valley where average temperature ranges from ‑15°C to ‑30°C, the very little snow that does reach there quickly sublimates.
Most ablation zones do lose ice via melting at warmer, lower elevations. Any winter snowfall usually melts completely each summer. However, other than that year’s snowfall, virtually all the ice in the ablation zone has been transported downslope from the colder accumulation zones.
Thus, it is the temperature and precipitation in the accumulation zone that is most critical for glacier growth or retreat. Yet due to their elevation and steep terrain, the accumulation zones are the least studied and have provided the least data.
Based on well-established physics, the mean annual air temperature in most mountain accumulation zones is calculated to be below freezing, typically ranging from −2 °C to −15 °C, so precipitation reaching that zone falls as snow. If the accumulation zone receives less precipitation, then less ice is transported to the ablation zone and the glacier will retreat.
Kilimanjaro began retreating in the 1880s due to less precipitation, long before fossil fuels could have had any significant effect. The main source of precipitation arrived from the Indian Ocean, which varies with more precipitation during the natural Indian Ocean Dipole’s positive phase vs less precipitation during the negative phase. Since the 1880s, the positive phase has been providing less moisture.
High Mountain Asiacontains the world’s greatest concentration of glacier ice outside of the polar regions. The Himalaya exhibit some of the fastest retreating glaciers while the Karakoram glaciers just to the west have been stable or growing. Karakoram is not an anomaly! The reason for these contradictory changes is all due to physics and the changes in precipitation. The Himalayan glaciers are controlled by the Indian Monsoons, and several researchers (i.e. Salerno 2012, Thakuri 2021) have observed the monsoons have weakened over the past 50 years, causing 40+% reduction of precipitation reaching the accumulation zones of Himalayan glaciers. This contradicts IPCC models suggesting warming will strengthen the monsoons.
In contrast, the Karakoram glaciers have been receiving more precipitation as monsoon intensity has shifted westward. In addition, the Karakoram receives winter moisture additionally from the westerly winds. Further contradictions find the maximum temperatures in the Karakoram have been declining, again refuting IPCC models.
Ignorant climate grifters like to parade data showing melting glaciers correlate with warming temperatures, so they can blame burning fossil fuels. However, critically thinking scientists understand that the same data can be interpreted very differently depending on one’s agenda. To anyone who has taken ice cubes out of their freezer into a warmer indoors, it is obviously true that warmer temperatures cause greater ice melt. However, what is not so obvious but just as true, less ice and less rain will also cause warmer temperatures. Less ice reflects less solar heating. Wetter conditions from more rain requires 4x more heat to raise temperatures than drier conditions. So, it should be no surprise, that the Karakoram have experienced cooling maximum temperatures, where shrinking Himalaya glaciers have experienced warmer temperatures.
When reduced precipitation causes a thinning of a glacier’s accumulation zone, that thinning exposes underlying bedrock creating a glacier disconnection that glaciologists refer to as the glacier “losing its head”. The warmer ablation zone below is cut off from ice replenishment from above. onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Without that replenishment, the glacier retreats far faster than it would when a glacier connects its accumulation zone with its ablation zone.
Grifting climate alarmist climitards ignore all the science controlling glacier retreats, soley to blame burning fossil fuels, eating meat, and capitalism. Please! Learn the science!
📷
David Siegel retweeted
In 2016, South Australia learned what happens when a grid leans too hard on the wind.
The Aussie state led the world in renewable dependence, with about 40% of its electricity coming from wind.
Then a strong storm hit, and no less than nine wind farms cut their output, removing more than 450 megawatts in a matter of seconds.
That cumulative loss tripped the Haywood interconnector, and the entire state went dark - about 1.7 million people without power.
An official AEMO report found the sudden reduction in wind output was the key driver of the system collapse.
South Australia had to restart the grid using diesel blackstart generators and gas power plants.
A weather-dependent grid died in seconds, and only fossil fuels brought it back.
David Siegel retweeted
This summer was much cooler at the North Pole than 1958, when atmospheric CO2 was not much above 300 PPM. How long will climate scamsters be able to keep their grift going?
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n…
This summer may have been the coldest on record at the North Pole. Temperatures never got above freezing, despite continuous sunlight for months. The Arctic melting scam is dying in real time.
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n…
