Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
One in the environmental field was a prioritization of environmental issues back in 2020 by Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies“
This result explains why today, climate alarm is just not resonating with the public to the chagrin of the alarmists. Bill McKibben faults the New York Times and Democrats for throwing in the political towel. “I’m saddened to see how little our representatives in DC seem to really care, even the Democratic ones,” he begins:
Too many Democratic leaders are feeling comfortable waving off climate concerns, because of a feeling that it might be a political problem for them. That was exemplified this morning in the New York Times when center-right pundit Matt Yglesias issued a strident call for liberals to ‘support America’s oil and gas industry’.
So is the voting public dumb, miscalculating their own self-interest? Or are the alarmists fooling themselves? This is a question that not only Bill McKibben but also Joe Romm and many others need to ask themselves as the mitigation failures mount, leaving adaptation as the one viable alternative.
The 1883 eruptions of Krakatau were a series of volcanic events culminating in one of the most violent and destructive eruptions in recorded history.
The 1883 Krakatau eruptions and the 2018 Anak Krakatau event both generated deadly tsunamis in the Sunda Strait, but they differed dramatically in scale, mechanism, and impact.
AI generated by Grok
The 1883 eruptions of Krakatau (also spelled Krakatoa) were a series of volcanic events culminating in one of the most violent and destructive eruptions in recorded history.
Krakatau is a volcanic island group in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, Indonesia (then the Dutch East Indies). The volcano had been relatively quiet for about two centuries before activity resumed.
Precursory activity (May- August 1883): Seismic unrest had been noted in prior years. On 20 May 1883, eruptions began at the Perboewatan cone, producing ash plumes up to about 6- 11 km high and explosions heard in Batavia (Jakarta), roughly 160 km away. Activity fluctuated, intensifying in June with new vents, and continued with increasing strength through July and early August. By mid- August, multiple vents were active, vegetation was destroyed, and ash covered the islands.
Climactic phase (26- 27 August 1883): On 26 August around 1:00 p.m., a major blast sent a gas and debris cloud ~15- 27 km high. Explosions became nearly continuous, with ash fall and smaller waves affecting nearby coasts overnight.
Peak explosions (27 August): A series of enormous explosions occurred. Key ones included blasts around 5:30 a.m., 6:44 a.m., and the largest at about 10:02 a.m. (sometimes listed near 9:58- 10:00 a.m.). These produced the loudest sound in recorded history, heard as far as Perth, Australia (~3,100 km / 1,930 miles away) and Rodrigues Island near Mauritius (~4,800 km / 3,000 miles away). The pressure wave circled the Earth multiple times (recorded on barographs worldwide for days). The explosion is estimated at ~200 megatons of TNT equivalent (roughly VEI 6).
Much of the island (over two- thirds, including the Perboewatan and Danan cones and part of Rakata) collapsed into a caldera as magma was evacuated. The final major activity involved pyroclastic flows and further collapse. Smaller eruptions continued into October 1883 (with possible activity into early 1884).
Immediate Effects
Ash and ejecta: An estimated 18- 25 km³ (roughly 5- 11 cubic miles in some accounts) of material was ejected, with ash reaching ~50- 80 km altitude. Darkness lasted up to 2- 3 days in the region; ash blanketed hundreds of thousands of square kilometers and drifted globally.
Pyroclastic flows: These traveled across the sea, contributing to destruction and tsunami generation.
Tsunamis: The primary cause of deaths. Waves reached heights of ~30- 40 and more meters (up to ~120-135 feet / 37- 41 meters in places) along Java and Sumatra coasts, destroying ~165 villages/towns and damaging many more. Waves were recorded far afield (e.g., smaller effects in the Indian Ocean, and even distant tidal gauges).
Death toll: Officially estimated at about 36,417 (mostly from tsunamis; few from direct volcanic effects on the uninhabited main island).
Global and Longer- Term Impacts
Fine ash and aerosols (including sulfur) circulated worldwide, producing vivid red/orange sunsets, optical effects (e.g., Bishop’s Ring, blue/green moons or suns in places), and a temporary cooling of global temperatures (estimates around 0.5- 1.2°C drop lasting several years).
The eruption left a submarine caldera. In 1927- 1928, a new volcano, Anak Krakatau (“Child of Krakatau”), began forming in the caldera and has been intermittently active since (including a major flank collapse and tsunami in 2018).
The event is exceptionally well- documented for its time due to telegraph communications, eyewitness accounts from ships and coasts, and scientific investigations (notably by Rogier Verbeek).
It remains a key case study in volcanology for Plinian eruptions, caldera collapse, volcanogenic tsunamis, and atmospheric effects.
The 1883 Krakatau (Krakatoa) eruption was ultimately driven by the tectonic setting of Indonesia, but the specific triggers involved processes within a shallow magma reservoir.
Krakatau lies in a subduction zone where the Indo-Australian Plate dives beneath the Eurasian Plate. This process generates magma that rises and accumulates beneath the volcano. The volcano had been largely quiet for about 200 years before 1883, allowing a sizable magma chamber to develop.
Scientists generally agree that the eruption began due to over- pressuring of the magma chamber, but the exact mechanism remains debated. Leading hypotheses include:
Volatile saturation (“second boiling”) from fractional crystallization: As magma cooled and crystals formed (mainly plagioclase, pyroxene, and Fe-Ti oxides), the remaining melt became enriched in dissolved volatiles (water, sulfur, chlorine, etc.). This increased pressure until it exceeded the strength of the overlying rock, initiating eruptions. Studies of melt inclusions and matrix glasses support a compositionally and thermally zoned chamber (cooler, more evolved rhyodacite overlying hotter dacite and andesite).
Magma mixing or recharge: Early activity in May 1883 produced both dacitic and basaltic ash, and some banded pumices appear in the deposits. Injection of hotter, more mafic magma into a silicic reservoir could have added heat, volatiles, or pressure, destabilizing the system. Some researchers view mixing as a primary trigger for the initial phase; others see evidence mainly for mixing of chemically similar melts during the eruption itself (as different melt lenses coalesced).
Other factors: Debris from earlier activity may have temporarily plugged conduits, allowing pressure to build further. Phreatomagmatic (magma- seawater) interaction was once proposed for the climactic explosions on 27 August, but detailed studies of the deposits generally rule it out as a major driver of the main eruptive columns (though seawater interaction likely occurred after collapse and helped generate some effects).
Activity started modestly in May 1883 (vulcanian to sub- Plinian eruptions) and built over months. By late August, the system reached a tipping point. The climactic phase on 26- 27 August involved rapid evacuation of roughly 10-12.5 km³ (dense- rock equivalent) of predominantly rhyodacitic magma. This led to caldera collapse as the chamber emptied.
In short, the eruption resulted from gradual pressure buildup in a zoned magma chamber (via crystallization and/or mixing), culminating in catastrophic failure once the chamber’s capacity was exceeded. Modern analyses of crystals, glasses, and deposits continue to refine these details, but no single trigger is universally accepted as the sole cause.
The 1883 Krakatau eruptions and the 2018 Anak Krakatau event both generated deadly tsunamis in the Sunda Strait, but they differed dramatically in scale, mechanism, and impact.
The 1883 catastrophe was a massive caldera- forming explosive eruption; the 2018 disaster was a relatively small sector (flank) collapse of the “child” volcano during ongoing eruptive activity.
Scale of the Volcanic Events
Aspect
1883 Krakatau
2018 Anak Krakatau
Type
Major Plinian/caldera- forming eruption (VEI 6)
Sector/flank collapse during moderate eruptive activity (VEI ~3- 4 range for the associated eruptions)
Volume involved
~10- 25 km³ of magma/ejecta; ~2/3 of the original island destroyed
~0.2- 0.3 km³ landslide (primarily the SW flank); island height reduced from ~338 m to ~110 m
Energy / Explosivity
Equivalent to ~200 megatons TNT; loudest recorded sound in history
Far smaller; no comparable global acoustic or atmospheric effects
Duration
Months of activity (May- October), climax 26- 27 August
Months of elevated activity (from June), collapse on 22 December
The 1883 event ranks among the largest and most violent eruptions in recorded history. The 2018 collapse was a localized gravitational failure of an unstable cone growing on the steep wall of the 1883 caldera.
Tsunami Generation and Characteristics
1883: Multiple large tsunamis were generated by a combination of processes, primarily the entry of massive pyroclastic flows into the sea and the collapse of the volcanic edifice into the forming caldera. Waves reached heights of 30- 40 and more m (up to ~120- 135 ft / 37- 41 m in places) along the coasts of Java and Sumatra. The largest wave followed the climactic explosion.
2018: A single major tsunami was generated almost entirely by the rapid SW- directed lateral collapse of the volcano into the deep caldera. Run- up heights reached up to ~13 m on the populated coasts of Java and Sumatra (higher, locally >20- 80 m, on nearby uninhabited islands facing the collapse). Waves arrived within ~30 minutes with little or no warning.
The 1883 tsunamis were far larger in both height and energy, affecting a wider area and traveling farther.
Human Impact
1883: Official estimates put the death toll at approximately 36,417 (overwhelmingly from the tsunamis). Hundreds of coastal villages were destroyed.
2018: Approximately 426- 437 deaths, more than 14,000 injured, and tens of thousands displaced. Damage was severe but far more localized along the Sunda Strait coasts.
The 2018 event was the deadliest volcanically generated tsunami since 1883 (and the 1888 Ritter Island collapse).
Causes and Geological Context
1883: Global climate cooling (~0.3- 0.6 °C for several years), spectacular worldwide atmospheric optical effects, and the creation of a large submarine caldera. Anak Krakatau later grew inside this caldera.
2018: Primarily local effects. The island was drastically reshaped (height and volume greatly reduced). Activity continued afterward with rapid regrowth of the cone. No significant global climate impact.
Summary
The 1883 event was a cataclysmic, multi- phase explosive eruption that destroyed most of the original volcano and produced some of the largest historical volcanogenic tsunamis.
The 2018 disaster was a much smaller but still deadly flank collapse of the successor volcano during an eruptive episode.
Both highlight the persistent tsunami hazard in the Sunda Strait due to the geometry of the 1883 caldera, but the 1883 eruption remains orders of magnitude larger in nearly every respect (volume, explosivity, wave height, and death toll).
The 1883 Krakatau eruption produced measurable global climate effects primarily through the injection of sulfur gases into the stratosphere, which formed sulfate aerosols that reflected sunlight and cooled the Earth’s surface for several years.
These effects were significant but not extreme compared to larger historical eruptions like Tambora in 1815.
One of nuclear energy’s biggest selling points is its claims of reliability. “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale power source that can be tapped in even the most extreme weather conditions, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” boaststhe American energy company Constellation. “Nuclear power plants are very reliable, and can run for many months without interruption, providing large amounts of clean electricity, regardless of the time of day, the weather, or the season,” says the World Nuclear Association. At a public meeting in June, Keith Ammon, a pro-nuclear Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, echoed these claims: “Nuclear doesn’t care about the weather,” he said. “It just runs.”
Over the next few months, several countries in Europe had to shut down nuclear plants because of hot weather and drought—proving that nuclear power does, indeed, care about the weather. Coming at a time when demand for electricity was high, these countries were faced with an imminent failure of the electricity grid. Citizens and businesses in Hungary and Romania had to reduce their consumption. Ironically, it was solar power—often critiqued by nuclear boosters as unreliable—that provided additional electricity and staved off shortages in some countries. A further irony is that these heat waves are more likely and more severe because of climate change, which is often advanced as the reason to expand nuclear power in the first place.
…
Underlying most of these shutdowns is water, or lack thereof. Nuclear reactors need even more water than other thermal power plants for regular operations and to ensure vital safety functions. As the Nuclear Energy Agency explained, nuclear “power plants have in general greater cooling needs than other thermoelectric generating technologies. This results from the lower efficiency of the power conversion cycle, as well as from the latent safety function cooling water plays, for instance to evacuate residual heat during planned or unplanned shutdowns.”
…
Climate change is already causing “more frequent and intense extreme events.”Unanticipated shutdowns will increase in frequency as extreme weather events driven by climate change become more common. One study found that “the average frequency of climate-induced disruptions” grew from “0.2 outage per reactor-year in the 1990s to 1.5 in the past decade” (i.e., 2010s). Going by the record so far, this decade will likely record a higher number of outages.
So, how is it reasonable to blame shutdowns of nuclear plants due to lack of water on the reliability or otherwise of nuclear power? Fix the water underinvestment and you fix the nuclear plant shutdown issue.
Trying to paint solar energy as a reliable alternative for heatwaves and extreme weather resilience is even more absurd – one hailstorm and you lose your solar plant. At least nuclear plants can if necessary be armoured against weather damage, solar not so much.
A recent article in Fortune Magazine “Climate change pushes thirsty bears into Coloradans’ cars — one honked a horn for hours from 3am onward,” from The Associated Press (AP), blames climate change for bears breaking into cars and homes in Colorado. This is false.
Bears have gone in search of food and water amid a drought in Colorado, that much is true, but it’s not because of long term climate change.
“Millions of people live in or near bear habitat across the Rockies, where widespread drought has reduced supplies of nuts, berries and plants that bears eat,” the article explains this is “prompting the animals to roam far and wide for food.”
This is nothing unusual, except perhaps in the amount of bears that had dangerous contact with humans this year. The article blames climate change for the increase in bear encounters, but one of the most glaring issues with this AP piece is that it does not even once address the fact that there are significantly more bears than ever.
It is difficult to get exact counts of black bears, in large part because they live in dense wooded areas, but generally the bear population in Colorado is believed to have increased in recent decades. The same is even more true for parts of the country where bears were nearly eliminated, like in Pennsylvania, which has more than four times as many bears today as it did in the 1970s.
In addition to there being more bears, there are also more people living in what were once remote areas, so bear encounters will naturally increase. Food availability draws bears even when their natural sources are not suppressed. As land is developed, more contact with the wild animals that used to live and forage there should be expected.
The availability of human food sources from garbage bins probably disturbs the natural pattern of population booms and busts. When drought occurs that suppresses berry and acorn production in late summer, bears would normally have a harder time putting on weight for winter, and many would die off. Now, they have other sources of food, which sustains a larger population and exacerbates the issue of human-bear contact.
On the issue of climate change and drought, the article says that the Upper Colorado River Basin had a snowpack this year that was “the worst on record,” and that “[s]cientists say human-caused global warming made that far more likely.”
“Made that far more likely” is a couching statement, because the data show that despite more than 100 years of warming, Colorado has not seen an increase in drought.
It is true that snowpack hit a record low this year, which spelled trouble for water supplies since snow melt feeds the Colorado River and its tributaries. And long term data show that in general snow water equivalent in Colorado was higher in the 1970s than it is today, but it has been fairly stable since the late 90s and early 2000s.
In terms of precipitation-related drought, data show that there is no trend in worsening drought conditions, and in fact there were much more lengthy and severe droughts in pre-industrial Colorado.
The article adds that “vast areas of bear habitat” have been “scorched by record wildfires,” but it’s not clear that they mean Colorado. Colorado’s wildfires are not becoming more frequent or extreme, despite big fires in 2020 and 2018, which were outliers from a generally flat trend according to the available data from the National Interagency Fire Coordination Center.
Interestingly, the vast majority of the article was not about climate change, despite it getting the leading spot in the article headline. The majority of the article was discussing the bear-human interactions themselves, which certainly make for interesting news, but are not indicative of human-caused climate change.
The Associated Press and, by extension, Fortune Magazine by republishing their piece, seem more interested in promoting the catastrophe narrative of climate change in any way they can, regardless of nuances. The climate comments in the article were completely unnecessary to tell the story of increased human-bear encounters, and only serve to advance the outlets’ political climate slant.
For 80 years, the U.S. government and its industrial and utility partners have failed to understand the problem of the noxious and dangerous nuclear waste for war and peace and successfully respond.
It began at Hanford during World War II’s Manhattan Project when little attention was paid to what was left behind when U-235 was stripped from U-238 to turn uranium into plutonium.
For 80 years, the U.S. government and its industrial and utility partners have failed to understand the problem of the noxious and dangerous nuclear waste for war and peace and successfully respond. Kicking the can down the road, evident today with fiscal policy, applied in spades to nuclear waste in wartime and peacetime.
Wartime Waste
It began at Hanford during World War II’s Manhattan Project when little attention was paid to what was left behind when U-235 was stripped from U-238 to turn uranium into plutonium. Nuclear engineers considered it a simple problem that could be dealt with later, much later. The nasty brew of chemical and nuclear poisons was dumped into large, oil-field-derived stainless-steel tanks.
In 1947, pioneering Baltimore “sanitary engineer” Abel Wolman — who had standardized the use of chlorine to purify drinking water — joined the Atomic Energy Commission’s advisory board. Troubled by the accumulation of the wastes, Wolman and a colleague examined the site. What he found the next year was dangerous and poorly managed waste. His warming to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was largely ignored.
By early 1953, Hanford was generating nine million gallons of liquid waste daily. AEC engineers assured management that the storage tanks could not leak. But the tanks started leaking in the 1960s, setting off a continuing cleanup program. According to a March 2025 DOE report, the department has spent $66 billions of taxpayer money on the Hanford cleanup so far, with another $589 billion required to finish the job.
Commercial Nuclear
Enthusiasm for civilian use of nuclear energy kicked off with President Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech at the United Nations. In 1955, AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg warned that disposing of the “tremendous quantity” of waste that would result could be a limiting factor for widespread use of nuclear power plants.
The next year, a Wolman-chaired National Academy committee presented several approaches for disposal. In 1957, the academy said the best choice to bury the highly radioactive wastes in underground salt formations. That recommendation set off a more than decade-long search for a suitable site.
The AEC in 1970 settled on salt beds near Lyons in central Kansas. AEC officials neglected to work for local public support, and the Lyons selection set off a political backlash. The local congressman, Republican Rep. Joe Skubitz, launched a political blitzkrieg against the AEC, which aided his cause with a statement arguing that the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act didn’t apply to them.
Disposing of nuclear waste in Kansas became impossible. In May 1971, an official of a salt firm mining told the AEC that the beds were riddled by accumulated oil and gas wells, providing multiple pathways for corrosive water to reach the nuclear waste.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) By the mid-1970s, the civilian nuclear power industry was in trouble. Plants were very expensive, political opposition arose, the new plant orders emptied. Congress gutted the AEC, creating the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, in 1977, the Department of Energy.
The problem of ever-increasing spent nuclear fuel became a DOE problem. President Jimmy Carter (a nuclear engineer) and Jim Schlesinger, Carter’s energy secretary and former Republican AEC chairman, among others, proposed an “away from reactor storage” plan wherein Uncle Sam would take title to utility spent nuclear fuel rods for DOE to store at a temporary site while the feds develop a permanent, underground graveyard.
During 1980, Carter’s last year in office, the House and Senate passed separate nuke waste bills but were unable to reconcile their differences before Congress expired.
Work began again in 1981, with Republican Ronald Reagan in the White House. The GOP held the Senate. Democrats owned the House. Congress again took up nuclear waste, with little interest from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, providing for away from reactor storage and a nationwide search for an acceptable final, underground, but unidentified permanent storage site.
The new law proved wildly unpopular as DOE began investigating various possible locations for a final waste dump. Local ire was fierce and bipartisan. The first Reagan administration ended with no site in sight. DOE workers reviewing possible sites thought the job was technical, but it was far more than that. The politics became so intense that Reagan’s third DOE secretary, Californian John Herrington, concerned about the upcoming 1986 off-year elections, pulled the plug on the siting process in May 1986. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act died unlamented.
Yucca Mountain (Nevada) As Herrington feared, the fall elections saw a Republican thrashing. Democrats controlled the Senate by a 55-45 margin. The House became more solidly Democratic. Nuclear waste was back on the political agenda, with a twist. One of the sites that DOE had examined during the short life of the NWPA was a mountain on vast federal land in Nevada, named Yucca Mountain. It looked promising: remote, dry, no nearby volcanic activity, far away from residents and voters.
Picking up on an idea promoted by Science magazine journalist Luther Carter, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, Louisiana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and his Idaho Republican colleague, Sen. James McClure, ordered DOE to focus on Yucca Mountain. They attached their provision to an omnibus 1987 government appropriations bill that became law without debate in any committee or on the House or Senate floor.
The nicknamed “Screw Nevada Act” is where the nuclear waste story, to date, ends. Yucca Mountain became a technical and political dead end. Among other problems, the enormous tunnel DOE dug into the mountain showed it wasn’t dry. In 2002, physicist and nuclear expert Victor Gilinsky told a congressional committee of his site visit, “I was pretty surprised therefore to find myself in the middle of this mountain with water dripping out of it and hitting me on the head.”
The Obama administration in 2009 opposed going with Yucca Mountain, urged on by now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Industry interests tried to revive it over the years, including in the first Trump administration. In 2020, the Trump White House abandoned Yucca Mountain.
Recent Developments
The Trump Administration’s reform of energy policy has recently reached nuclear waste. A leaked White House document, reported Politico, prioritized the idea of greater state participation for localized, decentralized storage. One federal repository like Yucca Mountain would be deemphasized. According to Politico, “In exchange for bolstering nuclear fuel production and storing waste, the White House indicated states could see a surge of new business, including nuclear power plants and energy-intensive data centers.”
Norway Minister of Energy Terje Aasland told Reuters that his country will keep developing oil and gas in the Barents Sea irrespective of a European Union (EU) ban on Arctic drilling.
Europe already has suffered economic damage from its “green” pretense. The IEA reports that EU electricity prices for energy-intensive industry averaged more than double American levels in 2025 and were nearly 50% above China’s.
Norway Minister of Energy Terje Aasland told Reuters that his country will keep developing oil and gas in the Barents Sea irrespective of a European Union (EU) ban on Arctic drilling.
“In today’s geopolitical and security environment … I believe continued activity in the Barents Sea serves both Norwegian and European interests,” said Aasland.
Although not an EU member, Norway is a close ally and Europe’s largest gas supplier, meeting about 30% of the demand across the European Union and Britain. Last year Norwegian gas output ran near record levels and oil production hit its highest mark since 2009.
Without new fields, however, official projections show output dropping sharply after 2030. But Aasland intends to hold production and exports near current levels until at least 2035, and he has said that the Arctic is important to Norway remaining a long-term supplier.
The EU currently backs a ban on new Arctic drilling on environmental grounds, while buying the gas that keeps its factories running. Anders Opedal, CEO of Norwegian multinational energy company Equinor, has said that producers of Barents oil and natural gas will find buyers somewhere else if Europe refuses to buy.
Even Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and a promoter of transitioning away from fossil fuels, has urged the EU to reconsider its opposition to Arctic development for the sake of energy security.
Europe already has suffered economic damage from its “green” pretense. The IEA reports that EU electricity prices for energy-intensive industry averaged more than double American levels in 2025 and were nearly 50% above China’s. A 2024 report on European competitiveness warned that such costs are hollowing out manufacturing.
Here is where the story stops being about the Arctic and becomes about everyone else.
Norway is not a struggling petro-state rationalizing a bad habit. It is among the richest societies ever built, with per capita gross domestic product above $105,000 and a sovereign wealth fund that crossed $2.39 trillion in June. Five and a half million people have converted seabed hydrocarbons into universal healthcare, free universities, and pensions for grandchildren not yet born.
If Norway considers oil and gas indispensable to its economic position, it is unreasonable to demand that poorer countries abandon their own resources. This matters enormously for Africa, South Asia, and other rapidly developing regions. For many African households, unreliable energy can be catastrophic.
Delay of fossil fuel projects costs in ways spreadsheets miss. A gas project blocked by climate posturing means that engineering teams disband, drilling rigs go elsewhere, borrowing costs rise, and the fertilizer plant that would have used the hydrocarbon feedstock never gets built. A decade of compounding benefits is lost to a national balance sheet.
Western proponents of climate orthodoxy declare as immoral the ladder their societies climbed to unprecedented prosperity. Every advanced economy industrialized with coal, oil, and gas. Norway is still doing it with a $2 trillion cushion. Norwegian leaders recognize oil and gas are critical to their nation’s future, unlike their counterparts in the EU, Canada, and Australia.
When ministers from developing nations sit down with lenders and donor agencies, they should place the Aasland interview on the table and ask a single question: If continued Arctic development serves Norwegian and European interests, on what basis does a Nigerian gas plant or a Bangladeshi terminal serve a lesser interest?
Climate alarmists present a false choice between affordable, dependable energy and environmental stewardship. Norway rejects that trap. A country can cut waste, improve technologies, protect ecosystems, and maintain the reliable fuel base that modern life requires.
Energy abundance and human flourishing track together in every dataset anyone has assembled. Norway understands this and acts on it. Poor nations understand it too. What they lack is not evidence but permission, and permission is not something a sovereign state should have to request. Leaders of developing nations should leverage Norway’s example and build on it.
Originally published at PJ Media, September 4th, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Gondwana (also called Gondwanaland) was a vast southern supercontinent that existed from the late Neoproterozoic through much of the Paleozoic and into the Mesozoic. It is one of the best- documented ancient landmasses in Earth’s history.
The Cambrian explosion (roughly 541- 520 million years ago, peaking around 538- 520 Ma) marks the relatively rapid appearance and diversification of most major animal body plans (phyla) in the fossil record, including arthropods, molluscs, chordates, echinoderms, and others.
AI generated by Grok
Gondwana (also called Gondwanaland) was a vast southern supercontinent that existed from the late Neoproterozoic through much of the Paleozoic and into the Mesozoic. It is one of the best- documented ancient landmasses in Earth’s history.
The name comes from the Gondwana region of central India.
Austrian geologist Eduard Suess first proposed the concept in 1885. He noted the striking similarity of fossil plants (especially the Glossopteris flora) and geological sequences across India, Australia, Africa, Antarctica, and South America, concluding these lands were once joined.
Alfred Wegener later incorporated Gondwana into his 1912 continental- drift hypothesis as the southern counterpart to Laurasia within the larger supercontinent Pangaea.
Gondwana assembled over a prolonged period through the collision of several older continental blocks (cratons) during the late Neoproterozoic to early Cambrian:
Major collisions occurred roughly between 650 and 500 million years ago.
Key events included the East African Orogeny and related mountain- building episodes that sutured West Gondwana (Africa and South America) to East Gondwana (India, Antarctica, Australia and Madagascar).
By about 550- 500 Ma, the core of Gondwana was largely complete.
Recent research (2026) significantly expands this picture. Using samarium- neodymium isotope mapping of thousands of granite samples, scientists identified previously unrecognized crustal fragments (now buried under younger mountains, especially across large parts of Asia from India through China into Kazakhstan) that belonged to Gondwana.
This “Greater Gondwana” is estimated to have comprised roughly 80% of Earth’s continental landmass around 550- 500 Ma, qualifying it as a true supercontinent under common definitions. Its assembly and the subsequent formation of a vast volcanic arc (a “Cambrian ring of fire”) are now linked to major climate shifts and the Cambrian explosion of complex life.
Life of the Supercontinent
During the Paleozoic, Gondwana drifted as a coherent unit, often positioned near or over the South Pole at various times.
It experienced extensive glaciation in the late Paleozoic (the great Carboniferous- Permian ice age).
In the late Paleozoic it collided with Laurasia (North America, Europe and Asia) to form the even larger supercontinent Pangaea (~300- 250 Ma). Gondwana formed the southern half of Pangaea.
Breakup
Gondwana began to fragment in the Mesozoic as Pangaea itself broke apart:
Initial rifting started in the Early Jurassic (~180 Ma).
The sequence of separation roughly followed this order:
India began separating and drifted northward.
Africa and South America split (opening the South Atlantic).
Australia and Antarctica separated later.
Madagascar and other smaller fragments followed.
By the Late Cretaceous to early Cenozoic, the modern southern continents and the Indian subcontinent were largely independent.
The former pieces of Gondwana are today the continents of South America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, the Indian subcontinent, Madagascar, and numerous smaller terranes and microcontinents.
Geological, paleontological, and paleomagnetic evidence continues to refine the exact configuration and timing of its assembly and dispersal.
The 2026 “Greater Gondwana” findings have renewed interest in how its size and tectonic activity influenced global climate, ocean chemistry, and the rise of complex animal life during the Cambrian.
Gondwana really was a supercontinent—and it may have helped kickstart life on Earth, by Bill Collins (Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University), published in The Conversation on 9 September 2026.
The article discusses a new Science Advances paper coauthored by Collins. It argues that Gondwana (formed roughly 550- 500 million years ago) qualified as a true supercontinent and that its formation helped drive the Cambrian explosion of complex life.
Around 550 million years ago, the Southern Hemisphere was dominated by Gondwana, first recognized in 1885 by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess from matching plant fossils across India, Australia, Africa, Antarctica, and South America.
Supercontinents are defined in the context of cyclic, global- scale sea- level changes going back at least 2 billion years. Recognized ones include Pangaea (youngest, ~300- 250 Ma), Gondwana, Rodinia (~1 Ga), and Columbia/Nuna (~2- 1.6 Ga).
Gondwana’s supercontinent status was debated because estimates put it at only ~64% of continental landmass (below an arbitrary 75% threshold often used). Even adding fragments from the Appalachians through southern Europe, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan left it short.
The team serendipitously discovered buried Gondwanan crust while compiling a global granite dataset to study deep crustal processes and mineral formation. They used samarium- neodymium isotope analysis to map the age of source rocks for surface granites at a continental scale.
Example: Himalayan granites of various ages (20 Ma, 50 Ma, 120 Ma) all derive from a common continental block that formed ~700- 550 Ma and belonged to Gondwana.
They traced original Gondwanan fragments from India and Southeast Asia through most of China into Kazakhstan. Much of this region (now mountainous and covered by younger rocks) was previously thought to be ancient ocean floor with volcanic island chains.
This expands Gondwana to roughly 80% of Earth’s continental landmass at the time, confirming supercontinent status.
Supercontinent formation affects global climate and biology.
After greater Gondwana assembled (between ~750- 550 Ma), Himalayan- scale mountain ranges crossed the frozen, arid landmass. Plate tectonics then reconfigured, forming a massive volcanic arc (a “Cambrian ring of fire”) nearly 35,000 km long that encircled the supercontinent, from Russia via China, Australia, Antarctica, and South Africa to the Andes. This was a precursor to today’s Pacific Ring of Fire.
Constant eruptions released large volumes of volcanic gases (especially water vapor and CO₂).
Over ~50 million years, these emissions shifted Earth’s climate from icehouse to greenhouse conditions. The authors argue this global change was a key catalyst for the Cambrian explosion (~550- 500 Ma), when complex life proliferated.
Other coverage of the same study (e.g., in Science, Scientific American, and 404 Media) notes the analysis of >25,000 rock samples and links the expanded Gondwana to effects on sea level, atmospheric gases, volcanism, and early life.
Some external experts accept a larger Gondwana but note potential implications for reconstructions of later supercontinents like Pangaea.
The Cambrian explosion (roughly 541- 520 million years ago, peaking around 538- 520 Ma) marks the relatively rapid appearance and diversification of most major animal body plans (phyla) in the fossil record, including arthropods, molluscs, chordates, echinoderms, and others.
Complex multicellular life with skeletons, mobility, predation, and sophisticated ecosystems emerged after billions of years dominated by simpler forms (microbes and Ediacaran biota).
It was not a single instantaneous event but a cascade of radiations spanning the late Ediacaran into the early Cambrian, with pulsed increases in diversity, disparity (range of body forms), biomineralization, and ecological complexity.
No single cause fully explains it; instead, interacting intrinsic (genetic/developmental), extrinsic (environmental/geological), and ecological factors created permissive conditions and feedback loops.
1. Environmental and Geological Triggers
These set the timing and enabled higher metabolic rates, larger sizes, and more active lifestyles.
Rising and fluctuating oxygen levels: Oxygen had been increasing stepwise since the Great Oxidation Event but further rises (or expansions of oxic habitats) in the late Neoproterozoic- early Cambrian crossed thresholds allowing larger, more energetic animals and carnivory. Even modest levels (a few percent of present atmospheric levels) may have sufficed for early animals; modern analogs in oxygen minimum zones show carnivores are rare under very low oxygen. Dynamic redox conditions and oxygenation pulses coincided with biodiversity increases.
Nutrient availability and ocean chemistry: Enhanced continental weathering (from mountain building and volcanism) delivered phosphorus, calcium, and other elements. This boosted primary productivity (algae/phytoplankton), supported food webs, and enabled biomineralization (shells, exoskeletons, skeletons using Ca and other minerals). Sea- level rises flooded continents, creating extensive shallow marine habitats and new niches.
Tectonics, volcanism, and climate shifts: Assembly of the supercontinent Gondwana (~550- 500 Ma) involved major mountain building, followed by reconfiguration of plate tectonics. This created a vast volcanic arc (“Cambrian ring of fire,” ~35,000 km long, precursor to today’s Pacific Ring of Fire) that released large amounts of CO₂ and water vapor over tens of millions of years. This helped shift climate from icehouse (post- Snowball Earth) conditions toward a warmer greenhouse state, altering ocean chemistry and promoting life’s expansion. Recent work linking expanded Gondwana (~80% of continental landmass) strengthens this connection between deep- Earth processes and the explosion. Earlier studies also tied Gondwana-related volcanism to temperature rises and evolutionary bursts. Sea- level changes from rifting and mid- ocean ridge activity further contributed by expanding habitats.
Other factors include carbon- cycle perturbations (isotope excursions reflecting productivity and anoxia changes) and possible orbital forcing of nutrient pulses.
2. Ecological Mechanisms
Once environmental thresholds were crossed, biotic interactions accelerated diversification:
Predator- prey arms races: The rise of carnivory (enabled by oxygen) created selective pressure for defenses (hard skeletons, spines, mobility, burrowing) and sensory systems (e.g., eyes). This escalated morphological innovation and complexity. Evidence includes early predatory traces, drill holes, and defensive morphologies.
Ecosystem engineering and feedbacks: Animals began bioturbating sediments (mixing them), clearing microbial mats, and altering nutrient cycles and redox conditions. This created more complex food webs, new niches, and positive feedback that sustained further radiation. Suspension feeding may have clarified water columns, aiding photosynthesis.
The result was a shift from relatively simple Ediacaran communities to more structured, niche- partitioned Cambrian ecosystems with higher trophic levels.
3. Developmental and Genetic Foundations
These provided the capacity for novelty but were not the sole trigger (many key gene families predate the Cambrian):
Evolution of gene regulatory networks (including Hox genes) allowed modular body plans, segmentation, bilateral symmetry, and appendages.
Developmental flexibility enabled rapid experimentation with forms once ecological opportunities opened.
Molecular clocks indicate some animal lineages originated earlier (deep “fuse”), with the fossil explosion reflecting when they became abundant, mineralized, and preserved.
Most researchers favor a multifactorial model: geological/tectonic changes (including Gondwana assembly and associated volcanism) drove environmental shifts (oxygen, nutrients, climate, habitats). These crossed critical thresholds enabling active lifestyles and predation. Ecological interactions then produced rapid morphological and taxonomic diversification via arms races and niche filling, all built on preexisting genetic toolkits.
The event is unique in the scale of body- plan innovation; later radiations (e.g., Ordovician) increased diversity within existing plans.
Ongoing research continues to refine timings, redox records, and tectonic links, but the consensus is that the Cambrian explosion resulted from the coincidence of permissive environments and evolutionary opportunities rather than any isolated cause.
Buried fragments reveal a “Greater Gondwana” supercontinent
The study reconstructs Greater Gondwana as a true supercontinent that encompassed roughly 80% of Earth’s continental landmass around 550- 500 million years ago (centered near the South Pole). This exceeds the commonly cited (though arbitrary) ~75% threshold for supercontinent status. Earlier estimates placed classic Gondwana (Africa, Antarctica, Australia, India, South America, plus some extensions) at about 64%.
Previously unrecognized (or reclassified) crustal fragments now buried under younger mountains, particularly in Asia (from India/Southeast Asia through much of China into Kazakhstan), with implications for parts of Europe and elsewhere, belonged to this expanded landmass. Many of these areas were previously interpreted as ancient ocean floor or volcanic island arcs.
Researchers compiled a global dataset of >25,000 granite/igneous rock samples. They used samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) isotope systematics to determine the model ages of the deep crustal sources from which the granites were derived (most granites form by melting older continental crust).
Mapping these ages at continental scale revealed coherent blocks that formed ~700- 550 Ma and shared a common history with Gondwana, even where surface rocks are much younger (e.g., Himalayan granites of various ages all tracing back to the same ~700- 550 Ma block). This approach “sees through” later mountain- building events.
The discovery was described as serendipitous; the team was originally studying deep crustal processes and mineralization.
Gondwana’s assembly involved major orogeny (mountain building). After amalgamation, plate tectonics reconfigured, producing a nearly continuous volcanic arc (“Cambrian ring of fire,” ~35,000 km long) encircling the supercontinent, a precursor to the modern Pacific Ring of Fire.
Prolonged volcanism released large volumes of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and water vapor), helping shift global climate from icehouse (post- Snowball Earth) to greenhouse conditions over ~50 million years. Combined with effects on sea level, nutrient delivery (via enhanced weathering), atmospheric composition, and ocean chemistry, this is proposed as a major catalyst for the Cambrian explosion of complex animal life (~538- 500 Ma). The paper links deep- Earth tectonic processes to this profound biological radiation.
Context and Reception
Supercontinent definitions remain somewhat debated; the 75% figure is not absolute.
External commentary notes that assigning these Asian blocks to Gondwana may require rethinking later configurations (e.g., Pangaea), though the fragments may have later drifted away.
The work strengthens connections between Neoproterozoic- Cambrian tectonics, climate, and the rise of complex life.
Full text access may require institutional subscription or purchase via the Science Advances site. Summaries and commentary appear in The Conversation (by co- author Collins), Science, Scientific American, 404 Media, and other outlets.
Profound global biogeochemical shifts marked the Ediacaran-Cambrian transition [550–500 million years (Ma)], a phenomenon often ascribed to the dynamics of supercontinent cycles. However, Gondwana is frequently denied supercontinent status due to its perceived spatial deficit (∼64% of continental landmass). Leveraging continental-scale Nd isotopic mapping based on a vast database of 25,346 felsic-intermediate igneous rocks, we reveal extensive buried Precambrian terranes beneath Phanerozoic orogens in Asia, Europe, and North America. Our results expand Gondwana’s reconstructed area to ∼80% of the global landmass, firmly establishing its identity as a true supercontinent—termed “Greater Gondwana.” We propose that the assembly and peripheral subduction of this “Greater Gondwana” played a pivotal role in driving the geodynamic and environmental perturbations that culminated in the Cambrian metazoan radiation.
Researchers from William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences analyzed long- term temperature records from 20 U.S. estuaries and found that standard definitions of marine heatwaves (MHWs) miss a large amount of cumulative heat exposure from the warmer periods that surround them.
In short, the “hidden source of heat” is the extended warm anomalies surrounding the formally defined heatwaves, which substantially amplify total thermal stress on marine ecosystems.
AI generated by Grok
Researchers from William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences analyzed long- term temperature records from 20 U.S. estuaries and found that standard definitions of marine heatwaves (MHWs) miss a large amount of cumulative heat exposure from the warmer periods that surround them.
The study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, examined more than 2,580 MHWs recorded over roughly two decades. MHWs are typically defined by temperature thresholds with clear start and end dates.
The researchers observed that these events are often embedded in longer periods of elevated water temperatures lasting weeks to months. Lead author Ricardo Utzig Nardi noted that the warm- water anomalies on either side mean focusing only on the formal MHW window does not accurately represent real- world conditions experienced by marine life.
Key findings include:
Pre- and post- MHW warm phases often contribute as much or more cumulative heat exposure as the heatwave itself.
Conventional assessments underestimate total heat exposure by more than 150% on average.
About two- thirds of the events were classified as “individual” MHWs embedded within roughly 60 days of elevated temperatures beyond the heatwave window.
The remaining one- third were “compound” events associated with prolonged warming of about 90 days before and after the MHW; these generated more than three times the cumulative heat exposure of the MHW phase alone.
This matters because estuaries are critical nursery habitats and support major fisheries and coastal economies. The extra sustained heat can increase physiological stress on organisms (such as seagrasses, shellfish, and fish), alter ecosystems, and raise risks beyond what isolated heatwave metrics suggest. The work provides a framework for treating MHWs as part of broader warming episodes to better assess ecological impacts.
The research builds on earlier VIMS work on estuarine MHWs (including projections that East Coast systems could experience heatwave conditions for a substantial fraction of the year later this century) and uses high- frequency in situ data from networks such as NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Related studies from the same group have also examined co-occurrence of estuarine and coastal MHWs and subsurface (“vertical”) structure of heatwaves in places like Chesapeake Bay.
In short, the “hidden source of heat” is the extended warm anomalies surrounding the formally defined heatwaves, which substantially amplify total thermal stress on marine ecosystems.
Estuarine marine heatwaves (MHWs), prolonged periods of anomalously warm water in coastal embayments, bays, and river mouths, pose significant and often underestimated threats to highly productive but vulnerable ecosystems. Estuaries serve as nurseries for ~75% of U.S. commercial fish and shellfish species and support tens of millions of jobs, making impacts cascading and economically consequential.
The recent VIMS/Batten School study (Nardi et al., 2026 in Communications Earth & Environment) is especially relevant: by analyzing >2,580 MHWs across 20 U.S. estuaries, it showed that pre- and post-event warm anomalies (often lasting weeks to months) boost total cumulative heat exposure by ~153% on average compared with the formal MHW alone. This means organisms experience far more sustained thermal stress than standard metrics capture, amplifying risks.
MHWs drive direct physiological stress, mortality, habitat loss, and cascading community changes. Key effects include:
Foundation species and habitats: Seagrasses (e.g., eelgrass Zostera marina in Chesapeake Bay and other temperate systems) suffer die- offs when temperatures exceed thresholds (often ~25- 30°C or +1- 5°C above normal summer peaks). This leads to habitat compression, reduced carbon storage, sediment destabilization, and loss of nursery functions. Macroalgae and other vegetation can show long-lasting biomass declines. In some cases, heat-tolerant or invasive species expand.
Benthic and shellfish communities: Mass mortalities of oysters, clams, mussels, and other invertebrates occur, especially during low tides coinciding with heat or in shallow areas. Thermal stress reduces growth, reproduction, and survival; combined with low dissolved oxygen (DO), it intensifies effects. Bioturbation and nutrient cycling by benthic organisms can shift.
Fish and mobile species: Fish kills are documented. Habitat compression (warm surface and hypoxic deeper waters) squeezes preferred zones. Blue crab migration and spawning patterns in systems like Chesapeake Bay can be disrupted. Larval stages are particularly vulnerable. Range shifts favor warm-adapted or subtropical species while stressing cold- adapted ones.
Water quality and multi- stressors: Warming reduces oxygen solubility and accelerates microbial respiration, expanding hypoxic/anoxic zones (observed in Chesapeake Bay studies spanning decades of data). This compounds eutrophication common in many estuaries. Harmful algal blooms can intensify; pH may drop. Subsurface warming often persists beyond surface MHWs, especially in stratified seasons.
Food webs and biodiversity: Cascading effects include shifts in plankton communities, altered energy flow, reduced biodiversity, and changes in predator- prey dynamics. Recovery can take years; some systems show persistent regime shifts.
East Coast systems (including Chesapeake Bay, the largest U.S. estuary) show clear increases in MHW frequency and cumulative intensity driven by long- term warming. Projections indicate East Coast estuaries could experience MHW conditions for ~1/3 of the year by 2100 if trends continue, far beyond the current ~6% (≈22 days/year) in places like Chesapeake Bay. West Coast estuaries generally lack strong trends and may act as thermal refugia, partly due to upwelling.
In Chesapeake Bay specifically:
MHWs average ~2 events/year lasting ~11 days (intensities ~3°C, peaks higher).
Subsurface effects include expanded hypoxia and warming that can lag or persist relative to the surface.
Documented links to seagrass losses, fishery species declines, and potential habitat squeeze for crabs and fish.
Global reviews confirm similar patterns: foundation- species mortality (seagrasses, etc.), fisheries disruptions, and ecosystem-service losses occur across temperate and subtropical estuaries and coasts.
Socioeconomic Consequences
Fisheries and aquaculture: Declines or temporary collapses in shellfish and finfish landings; closures; reduced recruitment lasting years. Economic losses from MHWs globally already reach hundreds of millions to billions annually in affected regions.
Ecosystem services: Reduced carbon sequestration, water quality regulation, coastal protection, recreation, and cultural values.
Communities: Threats to food security, livelihoods in coastal areas, and tourism.
Why the “Hidden Heat” Matters
Standard MHW definitions (temperature exceeding a threshold for a set duration) miss the extended warm anomalies. The ~153% higher cumulative intensity means chronic sublethal stress accumulates more than previously quantified.
This can push organisms past physiological tipping points, delay recovery, and worsen multi- stressor interactions (e.g., heat and low DO). The new framework from the 2026 study aims to better quantify total exposure for ecological assessments, lab experiments, and management.
MHWs are projected to intensify with ongoing climate change. East Coast U.S. estuaries face particularly acute risks.
Adaptation strategies include enhanced monitoring (full water- column temperature and DO), early- warning systems, habitat restoration (e.g., seagrass), fisheries management adjustments (timing/closures), and reducing local stressors (nutrients) to build resilience. Large- scale emission reductions remain essential for long- term mitigation.
Related research from the same VIMS group has examined co- occurrence of estuarine vs. coastal MHWs, vertical structure in Chesapeake Bay, and future exposure trends, providing a growing toolkit for understanding and responding to these events.
In summary, estuarine heatwaves threaten the foundation of coastal ecosystems and economies through direct mortality, habitat loss, water- quality degradation, and food- web disruption. Accounting for the full thermal history (including surrounding anomalies) reveals substantially greater risk than previously assessed.
Estuarine marine heatwave (MHW) early warning systems are emerging but remain less mature than open-ocean counterparts. They rely on high- frequency in situ monitoring, regional ocean models, atmospheric forecasts, and (increasingly) machine learning.
The goal is to provide lead times of days to months so managers, fishers, aqua culturists, and conservation groups can take proactive steps, such as adjusting harvests, relocating stock, enhancing monitoring, or protecting sensitive habitats.
Chesapeake Bay is the most advanced example:
VIMS Chesapeake Bay Environmental Forecast System (CBEFS): Operational MHW forecasts began in 2025 (surface in March; bottom waters in May). It uses two definitions:
Standard MHW: Forecast water temperature exceeds the 90th- percentile climatology for ≥5 consecutive days.
Alternate high- temperature alert: Surface temperatures forecast above 82.5°F (≈28°C) for ≥5 days.
Forecasts require the affected area to exceed ~1,000 acres to focus on significant events. Maps show current/forecast locations, and time- series plots show the Bay area under MHW conditions.
Supporting research includes probabilistic 35-day SST and extreme- temperature forecasts that show value for 1- 2 weeks of lead time, especially when protection costs are low relative to potential losses (e.g., for catch- and- release mortality or Vibrio risks in oysters).
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and partners (including Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee recommendations) are developing a public Marine Heatwave Alert System linked to fisheries impacts, habitat preferences, and other parameters (DO, salinity). This includes analyses of definitions, buoy/satellite data, and communication products.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS): The System- Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) provides high- frequency (15- min) temperature and water- quality data from dozens of stations across ~30 reserves. These long- term records (used in Nardi et al. studies of 20 and estuaries) form the observational backbone for detecting MHWs and validating models. Real- time data are publicly available and support trend analysis and potential forecasting.
Other regional examples include short -term (e.g., 3-day) multi- parameter forecasts in systems like Puget Sound (temperature, oxygen, pH, etc.), which can flag heat- related risks.
The recent VIMS work on underestimation of heat exposure, vertical structure, and East vs. West Coast trends underscores the need for systems that capture full thermal histories and multi- stressor risks.
Expanded monitoring, coupled models, and stakeholder- designed thresholds are priorities for improving these systems.
Persistent warm water anomalies before and after marine heatwaves amplify heat exposure and associated risks
Marine heatwaves (MHWs) threaten marine ecosystems, but standard definitions capture only the core event and miss pre- and post- event warm anomalies. This leads to systematic underestimation of the total heat exposure organisms actually experience.
The study analyzed over 2,580 MHW events from 54 stations across 20 U.S. estuaries. Main findings:
Pre- and post- event warm phases are largely independent of the core MHW metrics (intensity, duration, etc.).
These surrounding phases often last longer than the formal MHW itself.
Although less intense than the core event, when added to the MHW they produce a substantial increase in total heat exposure, approximately 153% higher cumulative intensity (°C·days) compared with the MHW alone.
This extra exposure cannot be reliably inferred from standard MHW metrics alone.
The authors present a new framework for quantifying these pre- and post -event anomalies. It is designed to be broadly applicable to both coastal and open- ocean systems and is intended to improve understanding of MHWs, assessment of ecological impacts, design of laboratory experiments, and ecosystem management.
Additional notes from the page
Data relied on long- term monitoring from the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS).
The article is open access; a PDF is available via the Nature site.
This is the peer- reviewed version corresponding to the news coverage about the “hidden source of heat” surrounding ocean/estuarine heatwaves.
Marine heatwaves are a major threat to marine ecosystems globally, yet standard marine heatwave definitions, despite providing consistent metrics, do not capture pre- and post-event warm anomalies, leading to systematic underestimation of total heat exposure experienced by marine ecosystems. Here, we analyze over 2580 marine heatwave events from 54 stations across 20 US estuaries to provide a comprehensive characterization of pre- and post-marine heatwaves thermal anomalies. We show that pre- and post-event phases are largely independent of core marine heatwave metrics and often persist longer than the marine heatwave itself. Although these phases are less intense than the marine heatwave event, when combined with the marine heatwave, they account for a substantial increase in total heat exposure—resulting in an approximately 153% higher cumulative intensity (°C·days) compared to the marine heatwave alone—that cannot be reliably inferred from standard metrics. We present a new framework to quantify pre- and post-event anomalies that can be broadly applied across coastal and open-ocean systems. This framework is critical for understanding marine heatwaves, assessing ecological impacts, guiding laboratory experiments, and informing ecosystem management.
“… No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. …”
Gas from the Beetaloo Basin will only pour fuel on the climate change fire
Published: September 7, 2026 11.31am AEST Lily O’Neill Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne
Gas is now flowing from the Beetaloo Basin, a vast fossil fuel project roughly 500 kilometres southeast of Darwin in the Northern Territory.
…
The Beetaloo is producing its first round of gas amid fanfare about the amount of royalties it could bring the NT. Proponents say the basin could generate more than A$17 billion and support 13,000 jobs over the next two decades. Already, there is talk of the economic opportunities that come with cheap energy, including powering energy-hungry data centres with shale gas.
For those who have long hyped the Beetaloo’s economic potential, this is welcome news. For scientists, environmental groups and communities around Australia and the world bearing the brunt of global warming, it represents a “climate bomb”.
…
A ‘stranded asset’
In this context, a “stranded asset” is a fossil fuel project – such as a coal mine or gas pipeline – that quickly loses its value because of the global transition away from fossil fuels. Research suggests demand for liquefied natural gas will decline as early as the mid-2030s. This, combined with dubious employment benefits, means the government is highly unlikely to get a good return on its Beetaloo investments.
…
No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. By turning on the Beetaloo tap, we risk watching the climate crisis worsen before our very eyes.
The only “crisis” is a collapse in belief in the fake climate scare. The author claims fossil fuel is on track to become “stranded assets” by the mid 2030s, but the evidence suggests renewables are the real stranded assets. Like the vast solar farm just down the road which has pretty much been abandoned.
Outback residents lose solar farm as Ergon battles push owner to close
The Normanton Solar Farm in the Gulf of Carpentaria can power an area almost twice the size of Tasmania.
Owner and operator Doug Scouller has turned off the farm after eight years, citing soured contract negotiations with Ergon Energy.
What’s next?
Ergon Energy says it is willing to speak with Mr Scouller should he contact them.
An outback solar farm has officially switched off its panels after the owner said a failed agreement with Ergon Energy forced his hand to pull the plug.
For eight years, Doug Scouller’s Normanton Solar Farm has kept residential and business lights on across an area almost twice the size of Tasmania.
But his dream of using the region’s abundant sunlight to power his remote Gulf of Carpentaria community has been extinguished.
Mr Scouller said the most recent power purchasing agreement (PPA) offered by Ergon Energy was “completely commercially unviable”.
Who needs unreliable solar when you have reliable gas?
Demand destruction simply isn’t happening on anything like the scale greens predicted – if anything, the opposite is the case. With AI driving demand through the roof, and renewables failing to even cater for existing demand, in my opinion there is no evidence that new gas field will lose its value by the mid 2030s.
President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration had returned the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “to how it was intended to be,” invoking the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s reading of the statute and initiating the crocodile tears of anti-development activists.
President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration had returned the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “to how it was intended to be,” invoking the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s reading of the statute and initiating the crocodile tears of anti-development activists.
The administration’s view is that regulators committed to regulatory expansion had turned the 1973 law into an automatic impediment to human activity rather than a targeted protection of threatened species. In 2012, Justice Scalia called regulators’ broadening of the statute from guarding against injuring animals to protecting habitat “a terrible interpretation” of congressional intent. He rejected the notion that every form of ecosystem modification should automatically count as prohibited “harm.”
To nobody’s surprise, the reaction of activists has been extreme. The administration action “guts protections for threatened wildlife,” announced the Center for Biological Diversity. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said, “This broad attack on endangered wildlife is un-American.”
But where was this outrage when the Biden administration permitted the killing of bald eagles and whales to erect its politically favored wind turbines? Many of the same voices have spent years promoting large “green” energy projects that inflicted harm on birds, bats, marine mammals, and sensitive habitats.
Permission Slips for Slaughter The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues incidental take permits that authorize operators to injure or kill eagles as a cost of turbine operation. A 2024 rule went further, creating streamlined general permits so that qualifying projects could register for coverage rather than endure case-by-case review.
Move offshore and it gets worse. Federal regulators have granted harassment authorizations that permit developers to disturb and even kill whales during seismic surveying and pile driving for offshore wind projects along the Atlantic seaboard.
Research has raised concerns that this acoustic disturbance may be directly related to whale injuries and deaths. When the administration ordered a review of federal leasing and permitting practices for offshore wind, the same activists weeping about the ESA revision called the pause an assault on the planet.
North Atlantic right whales’ numbers have dwindled to the low hundreds. Dead humpbacks washed ashore in New Jersey and New York through the survey years, and the groups that would have filed emergency legal motions over a single oil spill explained why nothing was connected to anything.
You do not have to oppose offshore wind energy to acknowledge that marine wildlife deserves the same level of concern regardless of which energy source is involved. The same biased pattern extends onto land through utility-scale solar as well. Large solar installations require vast tracts of open space. Those projects often proceed with enthusiastic backing because they satisfy political agendas.
Residents across New York are resisting 18 planned solar developments that would carpet protected and agricultural land, kill wildlife and deliver modest electricity in return. These are farmers and hunters who traffic in the habitat themselves. Career environmentalists sided with solar.
The Tell A movement that meant what it said would have fought hardest where the killing was authorized, measured and ongoing. It would have demanded that every turbine or solar panel face the scrutiny natural gas compressors do. It would have treated a 30-year eagle take permit as the scandal it plainly is.
Instead, the activists chose sides by fuel. Wildlife deaths caused by hydrocarbons were a moral travesty. Identical deaths caused by subsidized wind and solar became an acceptable trade, a transition cost, a footnote to “saving the world.” That is a political program wearing conservation as a costume.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
What’s New!
The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate Debrief Podcast, CO₂ in Perspective, featuring Dr Byron Soepyan Part 3. Watch the full video on YouTube here!
You must be logged in to post a comment.