Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science — or Buried by Strategy?

That headline Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection  refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.

Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can’t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.
There is the new paper, Schäfer et al. 2026 in Earth’s Future: “Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency”

It comes from researchers linked to the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena. It doesn’t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.

Image featuring a dark, industrial landscape with smokestacks, overlaid with the question, 'Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science — or Buried by Strategy?'
AI generated by Meta

That headline Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection  refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.

For almost 15 years the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) worked to put the “age of humans” on the official geologic timescale.

They proposed:

  • Start date: 1952, linked to the global spike of plutonium from nuclear weapons tests
  • Golden spike location: Crawford Lake, Ontario
  • Rationale: rapid acceleration of greenhouse gases, biodiversity loss, plastics, concrete, etc. since the 1950s

In March 2024 the proposal was rejected.

The Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) voted it down, and on 20 March the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the final arbiter, announced it was upholding that decision.

Reports described it as a highly contested decision in March 2024, with a 12 to 4 vote to reject. 

The debate didn’t end with the vote, it intensified. Two camps of criticism emerged: 

1. Scientific critique: Critics argue the plutonium spike itself is not a direct stratigraphic marker of anthropogenic Earth- system change, that the ∼70- year interval is too short for an epoch, and that evidence of human impacts are diachronous in the geological record.

2. Procedural ans strategy critique: Supporters of the AWG said the vote was leaked to media before the AWG was officially informed, violated the 60% supermajority procedures, and flew in the face of evidence presented. That’s where the transparency call comes in.

This is not new for Max Planck.

In 2016, Nicole Boivin, then Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, and colleagues published a Comment in Nature arguing that the soon- to- be- finalized decision was inaccurate and hasty, and that its formalization must be the result of a transparent, broad based, interdisciplinary process.

They explicitly called for the criteria for the formalization to be published and peer reviewed, rather than established in closed meetings, and for at least half the commission to come from anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, geography and philosophy- not just stratigraphy.

The newer work coming from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology (MPI- GEA), including Jürgen Renn, Georg Schäfer and colleagues, makes a similar point after the 2024 rejection:

The rejected recognition of an Anthropocene epoch has not ended the Anthropocene debate, rather it underscores that the decisive question is less stratigraphic than political

Their argument:

  • The Anthropocene should not be reduced to a single GSSP (plutonium line). Human impacts started as “a whisper, became a voice and then a scream”, megafaunal extinctions, fire, agriculture, irrigation, urbanization, thousands of years before 1950.
  • Focusing only on 1950s markers sustains a narrow, Eurocentric, elite view of industrial society as the only cause.
  • Geoanthropology needs open epistemic webs that link models, data, and publics, and decision infrastructures that are auditable, hence the call for transparency.

In other words: Was the 2024 rejection a strictly scientific judgment that the evidence doesn’t meet chronostratigraphic rules? Or was it a strategic move to protect the stability of the timescale and avoid a very short, highly political epoch?

Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can’t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.

Even though the epoch was not formalized, the term is alive:

  • Nature Reviews Earth & Environment now frames the debate as epoch vs. event, epoch (a formal break after the Holocene) vs. event (a cumulative, time- transgressive transformation analogous to the Great Oxidation Event)
  • Many Earth- system scientists continue to use Holocene vs. Anthropocene informally in planetary boundaries work, regardless of the official timescale.

If you want the original sources, I can pull the 2016 Boivin et al. Nature comment Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene and the 2024-2025 Renn et al. MPI- GEA preprint The Decision for the Anthropocene – Between Activism, Doubt and Responsibility.

Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency

There is the new paper, Schäfer et al. 2026 in Earth’s Future: “Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency”

It comes from researchers linked to the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena. It doesn’t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.

What happened

In March 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) upheld the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy’s (SQS) decision to formally reject the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) proposal

Despite the outcome, the AWG continues to publish evidence that the authors say meets established standards, a globally synchronous plutonium signal and 12 depositional environments.

The problem, they say, is not that rejection is impossible, but that the manner of rejection remains unexplained.

What is problematic is the manner in which this rejection occurred.

The scientific basis for rejection therefore remains opaque. 

Documented procedural violations they list

1. Violation of SQS chair’s rights: the vote was called against the expressed will of the chair who according to the Statutes is leader of the Subcommission

2. Invalid voting process:

  • 11 of the 16 members who cast votes were ineligible under ICS Rule 9, their terms having exceeded the 12- year limit, leaving eligible members short of quorum
  • Valid Standard Auxiliary Boundary Stratotypes proposals were excluded from deliberation despite meeting ICS requirements

3. Compromised evaluation:
The AWG received no opportunity to respond to comments, including those that revealed misconceptions, or to revise the proposal, counter to ICS procedure that a proposal must receive extended opportunity for open discussion. The matter then passed to a quickly convened ICS meeting from which the SQS Chair was excluded and on to IUGS ratification within days.

4. Suppression of ethics oversight:
The IUGS’s own Commission on Geoethics submitted a report in January 2024 concluding the AWG had been unfairly treated and recommending immediate suspension of voting procedures. The Executive Committee ignored it, forwarding the report only after results leaked via the New York Times. That Geoethics report remains publicly inaccessible.

They also cite earlier suppression: at STRATI 2023 in Lille, the AWG’s press conference was withdrawn from the venue and media were instructed not to interview AWG members inside.

And the Geoethics Commission itself was then disestablished on 28 April 2025 with the justification that its objectives do not offer sufficient interest, only reinstated in June 2025 on an interim basis without financial support. 

Science or Strategy?

The core question they pose:

Was the AWG proposal rejected on scientific grounds, such as methodological concerns, marker inadequacy, disputes over the timing of the boundary, or did institutional politics and strategic gatekeeping prove decisive?

Until today, neither SQS, ICS, nor IUGS explained the evidentiary threshold by which it was judged inadequate.

What they demand

They explicitly say:

We are not calling for reversal of the IUGS decision, nor seeking to relitigate the stratigraphic evidence… We call for transparency.

Two steps:

1. Full disclosure of relevant documentation, including the IUGS Commission on Geoethics report, SQS voting records, and communications
2. Independent review commissioned by a body independent of the IUGS, such as the International Science Council

Their argument: The Anthropocene concept has long transcended geoscience, archaeology, history, ecology, law, public discourse, and if decisions as consequential as this can be made behind closed doors, geoscience’s capacity to inform society is diminished. 

Journal information: Earth’s Future

First published: 01 October 2026

DOI: 10.1029/2025EF007638

Provided: Max Planck Society

Authors: Georg N. Schäfer, Jürgen Renn, Christoph Rosol, Jochen Büttner

Abstract

In a recent Earth’s Future article, Skelton and Noone (2025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef005719) crystallized the dilemma facing the geoscientific community: the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) evidentiary case for an Anthropocene epoch is at least as strong as, and in their view stronger than, that for the Holocene. Yet a substantive scientific debate cannot proceed until the reasons for the rejection of the AWG’s proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch are made transparent. Often framed as a question of stratigraphic markers and boundary criteria, the Anthropocene controversy now turns on a more fundamental issue: whether current institutional practices for establishing geological time units meet the transparency and procedural standards expected in times of heavy public reliance on Earth-system expertise. Drawing on surfaced communications, public statements, independent reporting and publicly available documentation, we identify unresolved procedural irregularities in the evaluation of the AWG proposal, including questions about voter eligibility and quorum, restricted access to key documents, and the handling of an IUGS-commissioned geoethics report. These matters have not been addressed in a systematic or public way. We argue that clarifying the basis of the decision—scientific or otherwise—is essential to preserve trust in stratigraphic governance and, by extension, in the institutions that underpin global environmental knowledge. We therefore call for full disclosure of the relevant documentation and an independent procedural review to ensure that decisions about Geological Time Scale remain credible and legitimate in the context of rapid planetary change.

PDF: Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency

New York Times Publishes a Balanced Climate/Energy Article

“Many states and businesses are backing off ambitious climate targets, and Democrats are less vocal nowadays about climate change. Tech companies are using more natural gas to meet exploding demand for data centers. The International Energy Agency, after some browbeating by Mr. Wright, is revising up its projections for how long fossil fuels will stick around.” – New York Times

A desolate scene featuring rusty wind turbines partially submerged in water, under a dark, cloudy sky.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr. 

“Many states and businesses are backing off ambitious climate targets, and Democrats are less vocal nowadays about climate change. Tech companies are using more natural gas to meet exploding demand for data centers. The International Energy Agency, after some browbeating by Mr. Wright, is revising up its projections for how long fossil fuels will stick around.” – New York Times (below)

Brad Plumer, a “a Times reporter who covers technology and policy efforts to address global warming,” recently explained (September 23, 2026) the “energy dominance” position of the Trump Administration. “The Former Fracking Executive Selling Trump’s ‘Energy Dominance’ Vision” began with the subtitle: “Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pitching a future of fossil fuel abundance. It’s not always an easy sell while war drags on and oil prices surge.

A fair article like this would have incensed the late Joe “head exploding” Romm. But the bully is gone, so others of less stature are left to fuss (see the reader comment below).

The Article

Quotations from the Plumer article follow:

“… Energy Secretary Chris Wright brought a sunny message to Houston last week at a gathering of energy ministers from the G20 nations. The Trump administration, he said, was ushering in an era of energy abundance by expanding oil and gas supplies in places like Alaska and Venezuela.”

“Mr. Wright acknowledged some tension, though he insisted it was temporary. ‘Everyone’s frustrated with higher energy prices,” he said of the mood at the meeting. “But I’ve not met one person who’s comfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran. So everyone gets what we’re doing and this is a critically important mission. It creates dislocations in the short term. But the only answer to short-term dislocations is the energy abundance agenda.’”

“Whereas Mr. Trump speaks bluntly about energy — chanting ‘drill, baby, drill,’ calling wind turbines ugly, or claiming that global warming is a hoax — Mr. Wright gives his arguments an intellectual gloss. He cites figures on how solar panels underperform during winter storms. Or he argues that global warming is not as big a problem as energy poverty, which he says can only be alleviated with more oil, gas and coal, even if that means more planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Administration allies say that has made Mr. Wright invaluable. ‘He has been one of the most consequential picks for energy secretary I’ve seen,’ said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a research group that promotes fossil fuels. ‘He’s very experienced, brings a lot of substance, and he articulates President Trump’s vision clearly.’”

“… since taking office, [Wright] he has been more combative, deriding wind and solar power as a ‘parasite’ on the grid, blasting Democratic-led states for environmental policies that have shut down coal and gas plants, and accusing Europe of being in thrall to a ‘climate cult’ that is crippling economic growth.”

“… Ben Dietderich, an Energy Department spokesman, said in a statement: ‘Secretary Wright doesn’t have preferred energy sources. He just believes in being honest about math and energy security. Unfortunately, many in the climate lobby don’t like that. The Department is proud to have ended energy subtraction policies that lead to higher prices, less energy security and human impoverishment.’”

“[Wright] argued that people in developing countries still lacked enough energy to enjoy a decent standard of living and that renewables couldn’t replace oil, gas and coal to provide that power.”

“’At the height of this era when everyone was saying energy policy should just be about climate, Chris Wright was one of the few C.E.O.s that ran oil and gas firms who clearly and vocally spoke out,’ said Arjun Murti, a partner at the energy research firm Veriten.

Mr. Wright also had a flair for the dramatic. He once drank fracking fluid on video to show it was safe. In 2021, he rented billboards around Denver to heckle The North Face after the company declined to work with an oil firm.

“Mr. Wright quickly transformed the department. Out were programs to develop novel technologies to fight climate change, like green hydrogen or low-emissions steel. Instead, federal funds went to help utilities finance gas plants, nuclear reactors and transmission lines or upgrade older coal plants, which officials say are essential for meeting rising electricity demand. Mr. Wright also lifted a Biden-era pause on expanding exports of liquefied natural gas, now the nation’s fastest-growing export, and has pressured Europe to ease rules on methane, a potent greenhouse gas, saying they could hurt U.S. exports.”

“’He brought a whole new attitude to the agency,” said Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell. ‘It’s all about how do we produce enough energy to support A.I. and economic growth.’”

“Mr. Wright, who often criticizes wind and solar for not running at all hours, has cut renewable energy programs and renamed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as the National Laboratory of the Rockies. While experts agree that the variability of wind and solar poses real challenges, many say it goes too far to call the sources ‘worthless.’ Texas gets roughly one-third of its power from renewables and has kept costs low.”

“Mr. Wright’s supporters say he has helped steer the country away from what they saw as the Biden administration’s unrealistic plans to rapidly phase out fossil fuels. Some say the debate is shifting in his direction. Many states and businesses are backing off ambitious climate targets, and Democrats are less vocal nowadays about climate change. Tech companies are using more natural gas to meet exploding demand for data centers. The International Energy Agency, after some browbeating by Mr. Wright, is revising up its projections for how long fossil fuels will stick around.”

“’There’s been a real shift in how investors and others now talk about energy,’ said Travis Fisher, a director of energy and environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute who worked with Mr. Wright to organize the agency’s climate report. ‘Climate has become a lot less salient.’”

“Mr. Wright, for his part, says fossil fuels are too useful to recede anytime soon. ‘We will never, ever come remotely close to running out of hydrocarbons, which means you need better technology and innovations to eventually eat into their market share,’ Mr. Wright said at a Cato event in May. He said he was excited about recent breakthroughs in areas like fusion. But, he added, “the biggest innovations the rest of my lifetime in energy are almost certainly going to be in oil, gas, and coal, because they are what matter.’”

Romm-like Complaint

A comment from ‘bl in Rochester’ was featured in the Times comment section. “It’s appalling to give wright an unchallenged forum to spew out his denialist propaganda,” he began. “Covering [Chris Wright’s] speech as here, or his ‘interview’ at the climate forum, does just that.” Continuing:

He’s conducting a full out war on renewable energy sources and technology using false reasoning, no rigorous scientific argumentation, and manipulative, cherry picking economic analyses that only “answer” the irrelevant questions he chooses to ask to justify his policy choices. This is socially destructive, and will be suicidal if not stopped in the near term.

He offers no coherent reply to the increasing climate instability. He carelessly dismisses the data, and provides vapid bromides to the evident dangers with fantastical assertions while ignoring the very real costs that will be incurred. Still he remains unchallenged in public.

He chooses the present with no concern for the future. That is not leadership. It is profit protection for one energy industry.

This is doubly damaging because all sorts of roadblocks have been imposed to block renewables. He therefore condemns generations to suffer horribly from such unhinged policy insanity.

The fact that no immediate follow up rebuttal by a climatologist is allowed makes this demagoguery even more vile and sickening. Indeed his “interview” with this paper was with a journalist not a scientist, and produced a predictable, unchallenged stream of idiocy without addressing at all the reality of climate change incurred damage,

And so the debate continues….

Near-M Solar Flare Erupts from AR4535 as Scientists Watch Dual CMEs for Possible Geomagnetic Effects by Oct. 2

On September 30, 2026, sunspot region AR4535 (also tracked as SIDC Sunspot Group 962) produced a strong C8.6 solar flare that peaked at 02:46 UTC. The region had developed increased magnetic complexity (beta- gamma configuration), which made the near- M- class event notable after a period of relatively quiet solar activity.

A close-up view of a fiery sun with solar flares and magnetic field lines, alongside a distant Earth in space.
AI generated by Grok

On September 30, 2026, sunspot region AR4535 (also tracked as SIDC Sunspot Group 962) produced a strong C8.6 solar flare that peaked at 02:46 UTC. The region had developed increased magnetic complexity (beta- gamma configuration), which made the near- M- class event notable after a period of relatively quiet solar activity.

Image of the Sun highlighting a coronal hole, with the label indicating its location.
Sun news for October 1, 2026. The yellow arrow points to a large coronal hole near the center of the Earth-facing solar disk. Look closely, and you might see a heart shape! A coronal hole is a region in the sun’s atmosphere, or corona, where the magnetic field opens out into space and lets fast solar wind escape. It appears dark because the escaping plasma leaves it cooler and less dense. Now facing Earth, this hole should send its fast wind our way by October 3, possibly bringing G1 (minor) geomagnetic storms and auroras. The GOES-19 SUVI instrument captured this view in its 195 angstrom wavelength channel at 7:32 UTC on October 1. Image via NOAA.

The flare was associated with a coronal mass ejection (CME). SOHO/LASCO C2 imagery first detected the CME around 03:12 UTC; it had an angular width of roughly 70 degrees and a projected speed of about 450 km/s, along with Type II and Type IV radio emissions. Modeling indicates this CME is mostly westward-directed and is expected to miss Earth or deliver only a weak glancing blow (possibly around October 4 at the earliest).

Separately, a filament eruption on September 28 produced a partial-halo CME that is forecast to deliver a glancing blow to Earth around October 2. NOAA SWPC issued a G1 (minor) geomagnetic storm watch for that date, with possible elevated Kp values (highest forecast three-hour Kp around 4.67 / G1 levels in some windows). High- latitude aurora is the most likely visible effect if conditions align; mid-latitude chances remain limited.

High-resolution image of the Sun captured in 304 Angstroms wavelength, displaying solar flares and surface details.
Sun news for September 29, 2026. This full-disk view shows the sun on the afternoon of September 28, as a long filament to the right of the disk began to erupt. The following views show the solar material released in the eruption billowing out into space. Image via NOAA and NASA/ESA.

Overall solar activity has remained low (mostly C- and B- class flares), with AR4535 and a newer region (AR4544) among the numbered groups on the disk. Forecasters expect continued low activity with a chance of additional C- class flares and a slight chance of M-class events in the coming days. Geomagnetic conditions were quiet through September 30, October 1 under ambient solar wind, with the main potential disturbance tied to the September 28 CME arrival.

The WooGlobe reference (WGA970410) and AI/stock-footage disclosure match typical space-weather video explainers summarizing these events. For real- time updates, check sources such as NOAA SWPC, SIDC, EarthSky’s daily sun news, or SolarHam.

Image of the Sun taken with NSO/GONG at 677nm, showing active regions AR4535 and AR4544, captured from Learmonth, Australia.
Sun news October 1, 2026. Here’s today’s sun – with the most active regions labeled – as of 5 UTC this morning, as seen from Learmonth Solar Observatory in Australia. Original image, without labels, via NSO/GONG. Data acquired by GONG instruments operated by NISP/ NSO/ AURA/ NSF with contribution from NOAA, and labeling by EarthSky. Armando Caussade posted today’s sun. Why are east and west on the sun reversed?

“Antarctica’s Ice Loss Is Locked In This Century—Even at 1.5°C”

A new study concludes that Antarctica’s net ice loss this century is effectively locked in, even under the Paris Agreement’s ambitious 1.5°C warming limit, and that extra snowfall from a warmer atmosphere will not offset it enough to reverse the trend. This will add to global sea- level rise that threatens low- lying coastal areas.

A dramatic view of Antarctica featuring icebergs and glacial ice with a cloudy sky, accompanied by the text discussing the irreversible ice loss in the region.
AI generated by Grok

A new study concludes that Antarctica’s net ice loss this century is effectively locked in, even under the Paris Agreement’s ambitious 1.5°C warming limit, and that extra snowfall from a warmer atmosphere will not offset it enough to reverse the trend. This will add to global sea- level rise that threatens low- lying coastal areas.

The article, by Yucheng Lin (City University of Hong Kong) and Robert Kopp (Rutgers University), was published in The Conversation on September 30, 2026. It summarizes their research in Nature Geoscience.

Key context

  • Antarctica holds enough ice to raise global sea level by about 58 meters (190 feet) if it all melted.
  • Roughly 1 billion people live in coastal areas, with about 100 million within 1 meter of current sea level and highly exposed to flooding.
  • Scientists have long disagreed on whether Antarctica will gain or lose mass this century, because warmer air holds more moisture (favoring more snowfall) while ocean warming melts ice shelves, speeds glacier flow, and drives ice loss.

How the study addressed uncertainty

Ice- sheet models involve a chain of assumptions (emissions → ocean/air warming around Antarctica → ice- shelf melting und or collapse → glacier sliding over bedrock). Different assumptions cascade into large differences in outcomes, and full simulations are computationally expensive.

The researchers trained a physics- informed machine- learning emulator on the large archive of Antarctic simulations from the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6). This allowed them to rapidly explore hundreds of thousands to millions of combinations of assumptions. They then filtered the results against satellite gravity data (GRACE) that has measured Antarctic mass changes since 2002. Only scenarios consistent with observed ice- sheet behavior were retained.

Main findings

  • The viable scenarios consistently show net ice loss from Antarctica this century, even if warming is limited to 1.5°C.
  • Extra snowfall does not compensate enough for dynamic losses driven by ocean warming and ice-shelf processes.
  • Greenhouse- gas emissions still matter: every avoided ton reduces the amount of Antarctic ice loss this century, with benefits that persist for centuries.
  • Under very high- emissions scenarios, cascading effects (rapid ocean warming → thinner and weaker ice shelves → faster glacier flow) could contribute up to ~25 cm (10 inches) of sea- level rise from Antarctica alone by 2100, enough to permanently flood the homes of more than 10 million people.
  • The three most important physical uncertainties for future projections are: how ice shelves respond to a warming ocean, how ice slides over bedrock, and how quickly the ocean and atmosphere around Antarctica warm.

Limitations and implications

The authors note that some processes (e.g., ice fracturing and calving and the evolution of subglacial rivers and lakes) are not fully represented in current models, so the emulator cannot capture them. These could alter the timing or magnitude of ice loss and the window for coastal adaptation.

The work provides a faster way to test assumption combinations and offers a clearer basis for the adaptation decisions already facing coastal communities worldwide. Sea- level rise is already driven by Greenland melt, mountain glaciers, and thermal expansion of seawater; Antarctica’s locked- in contribution adds to that total.

In short, the study reinforces that limiting emissions remains valuable for slowing the rate and ultimate amount of Antarctic contribution to sea- level rise, even though some ice loss this century appears unavoidable based on current observations and modeled physics.

Diagram illustrating the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, global climate models, and their effects on global warming levels, sea-level change, and Antarctic ice sheet models. Includes graphics of factories emitting gases, a globe depicting climate patterns, and illustrations of ice dynamics.
What different types of models help scientists understand about ice melt, and how they are connected to help predict the Antarctic ice sheet’s future. On the left, how greenhouse gas emissions change the climate, including sea ice, ocean and atmospheric dynamics, which influence one another and levels of global warming. On the right, what goes into an ice sheet model, including ice shelf melt and collapse and how the ice slides. Every stage adds uncertainty. Credit: Yucheng Lin

ISMIP6 (Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6) is a coordinated multi- model effort that produced projections of 21st- century (and some longer- term) sea- level contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. It systematically samples uncertainties arising from climate forcing, ice- sheet model structure and physics, parameters, and ice- ocean interactions.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) is the largest single source of uncertainty in future sea- level rise projections. Under high- emissions scenarios, ISMIP6 ensembles span roughly −5 to +43 cm sea- level equivalent (SLE) by 2100 (or −7.8 to +30 cm in core multi- model results relative to a control). Greenland contributions are more consistently positive and better constrained.

Main categories of uncertainty

ISMIP6 was designed to quantify uncertainty from:

  • Emissions scenarios (e.g., RCP2.6 vs. RCP8.5; later linked to CMIP6/SSPs).
  • Climate models (AOGCMs/ESMs from CMIP5/CMIP6 that supply atmospheric and oceanic forcing).
  • Ice- sheet models (structural differences across ~13+ international groups and models).
  • Parameters and parameterizations, especially for ice- ocean interactions (basal melt under ice shelves).
  • Ice- climate interactions (how models translate ocean thermal forcing into melt rates, grounding- line migration, etc.).

Quantified contributions to uncertainty (Antarctica)

Analyses of the ISMIP6 ensemble (focusing on additional dynamic mass loss driven by changing oceanic conditions) break down total uncertainty at 2100 approximately as follows:

Source of uncertaintyShare of total (AIS scale)Notes / glacier-scale variation
Choice of ice- sheet model~52%Dominant overall. Ranges 14% (some ice streams) to 56% (Pine Island Glacier). Reflects differences in physics, resolution, sliding laws, calving, initial ice-shelf extent, and treatment of melt near the grounding line.
Ice- climate interaction~22%Includes melt parameterization choice/calibration and simulated ice- shelf geometries. Higher for sensitive glaciers (e.g., ~36- 39% for Institute Ice Stream and Thwaites).
Choice of climate model~13% (rising over time)Grows through the century. Highly variable by glacier (4% for Thwaites to 53% for Whillans Ice Stream).

Other important contributors include:

  • Ocean- induced basal melt rates and their calibration (often based on conditions outside ice-shelf cavities).
  • Initial ice- shelf extent (varies by a factor of ~2.5 across models).
  • Model spatial resolution and numerical treatment near the grounding line.
  • Basal sliding laws (e.g., Weertman, Coulomb, or hybrid) and related parameters.
  • Calving and ice- shelf collapse representations (ISMIP6 used idealized schemes; many models lack full hydrofracture or marine ice- cliff instability processes).

Key vulnerable glaciers identified include Thwaites and Pine Island (West Antarctica) plus Totten and Moscow University (East Antarctica), which show high sensitivity to ice-shelf basal melt.

Differences between Greenland and Antarctica

Greenland: Mass loss is more strongly driven by surface mass balance (atmospheric forcing). Model and climate uncertainties are substantial, but the sign is consistently positive. Ocean forcing plays a secondary role in the ISMIP6 design. One analysis attributes spreads of ~40 mm (ice-sheet model), ~36 mm (climate model), and ~19 mm (ocean forcing) under RCP8.5.

Antarctica: Competing effects of increased snowfall (atmospheric warming) versus ocean- driven dynamic loss creates sign uncertainty and weaker scenario dependence in many ensembles. Ocean forcing and ice-dynamics response dominate the spread.

Known limitations and gaps

Incomplete process representation: Many simulations omit or simplify ice fracturing and calving, subglacial hydrology/lakes/rivers, tidal water intrusion beyond the grounding line, and full marine ice- cliff instability (MICI). These can alter rates of ice discharge.

Underestimation of uncertainty: Some critiques note that the ensemble may under- sample parametric uncertainty or be biased low relative to recent observations of mass loss.

Computational constraints: Full exploration of all combinations is expensive, which is why later work (including machine- learning emulators trained on ISMIP6 archives) has been used to expand sampling, as in the recent study on locked- in Antarctic loss.

Forcing biases: Climate- model biases in polar ocean and atmosphere fields, and how melt rates are calibrated from them, remain major issues.

Longer projections (to 2300) show even larger spreads (e.g., −0.6 to +4.4 m under high emissions in some ensembles), with melt sensitivity and dynamic response factors explaining much of the variance.

How ISMIP6 addressed (and continues to inform) these issues

The protocol used “standard” experiments with prescribed melt parameterizations (sampling low/mid/high parameter values) and “open” experiments allowing groups to use their preferred schemes. Forcing came from a curated subset of CMIP models selected for polar skill. Results fed into IPCC assessments and subsequent studies that refine or extend the ensemble (e.g., more comprehensive sampling of melt sensitivity or climate- ice interactions).

In short, ISMIP6 showed that ice- sheet model structural differences and ice- ocean coupling are the leading sources of uncertainty for Antarctica, while climate forcing and surface processes matter more for Greenland. Reducing these uncertainties requires better observations of sub-shelf melt and grounding-line processes, improved basal sliding and calving physics, higher- resolution models, and tighter constraints from satellite mass- change records.

Map showing observations of Antarctic land ice mass changes from 2002 to 2025, with a blue graph indicating an average mass loss of -135 gigatons per year. The color gradient illustrates regions of ice mass change.
NASA’s Grace satellite has tracked ice mass loss over the years. Credit: NASA

The machine learning model referenced in the The Conversation article (and the underlying Nature Geoscience study by Yucheng Lin, Robert Kopp, and colleagues) is a physics- informed machine learning emulator trained on the large archive of Antarctic ice- sheet simulations from ISMIP6.

Purpose and design

Full ice- sheet models are computationally expensive, one simulation can take days on a supercomputer,so exploring every combination of physical assumptions (emissions scenarios, climate model forcings, basal sliding laws, ice-shelf melt parameterizations, etc.) is impractical. The emulator acts as a fast surrogate:

  • It learns the mapping from each simulation’s physical assumptions/inputs to its outcomes (primarily sea- level contribution or ice- mass change).
  • Once trained, it evaluates in a fraction of a second while retaining accuracy comparable to the original numerical models.
  • This enables running millions of combinations and filtering hundreds of thousands of possible futures against satellite gravity observations (GRACE/GRACE-FO mass-change data since 2002).

Only scenarios consistent with the observed ice- sheet behavior are retained. This “transient calibration” or bias- correction step is central to the study’s finding that net Antarctic ice loss this century is locked in even under low- warming pathways.

Key capabilities highlighted in the work

  • Systematic quantification of cascading uncertainties: It traces how each physical assumption propagates into spatiotemporally variable sea-level rise uncertainties.
  • Bias correction: By calibrating to the observed long- term Antarctic mass- loss rate (approximately 0.44 mm/yr sea- level equivalent, climate- variability corrected, 2002- 2021), the approach reduces projection uncertainty (by ~30- 42% in the 5th- 95th percentile range in related analyses) and increases median sea- level contributions relative to uncorrected ensembles.
  • Identification of dominant uncertainty drivers: AOGCM (climate model) selection, basal sliding laws, and ice- shelf basal melt parameterizations emerge as primary sources.
  • Scenario dependence and tail risks: Higher emissions produce greater mass loss (with high probability). Under very high- emissions pathways, the upper tail reaches ~25 cm of Antarctic contribution by 2100 in some bias- corrected results.

The preprint describing this work is titled “Bias-corrected Antarctic sea-level projections reveal greater impact of historical warming” (Lin et al.). It emphasizes that historical warming has already committed the Antarctic Ice Sheet to continued net mass loss through 2100 with high probability (P ≥ 0.92 even under aggressive mitigation such as SSP1-1.9), unlike some prior uncorrected ensembles that allowed for possible net gain.

Broader context of ML emulators for ice sheets

Similar techniques have been applied elsewhere in the ISMIP6 ecosystem and related research:

  • Neural networks, LSTMs, Gaussian processes, and graph convolutional networks have been used to emulate ISMIP6 ensembles, regional sea- level fingerprints (GRD effects), surface mass balance, or specific glaciers.
  • “Physics- informed” approaches incorporate physical constraints (mass conservation, flow laws, etc.) rather than treating the problem as a pure black-box regression, improving physical consistency and data efficiency.

In this study, the emulator’s speed and ability to perform large- scale sampling and observational constraint are what allowed the authors to conclude that extra snowfall will not reverse the locked- in ice loss and that emissions reductions still matter for limiting the rate and magnitude of Antarctic contributions to sea- level rise.

Committed Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss by the end of the twenty-first century

The Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) is the largest source of uncertainty in sea- level rise projections. Uncertainties cascade through emissions scenarios, atmosphere– ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs), ice-sheet dynamics, and sea- level physics. Traditional intercomparison ensembles can be biased toward common modelling choices regardless of observational consistency.

This study uses a machine- learning emulation framework trained on ISMIP6 simulations to quantify how each individual physical assumption propagates into projection uncertainty. It also applies Bayesian calibration against satellite observations to reduce bias.

Key findings:

  • It is very likely (≥0.92 probability) that the AIS is committed to net mass loss by 2100, even under aggressive emissions- reduction scenarios.
  • Higher emissions drive greater Antarctic mass loss by 2100 (≥0.89 probability), elevating near- term coastal risks.
  • Under very high- emissions scenarios, cascading mechanisms consistent with satellite observations could produce up to 25.4 cm of sea- level rise by 2100 (95th percentile; median = 15.7 cm).
  • Managing these risks requires rapid emissions reductions plus better constraints on AOGCM selection, basal sliding laws, and ice- shelf melt parameterizations (the primary uncertainty drivers identified).

Core approach

The authors built a physics- informed machine-learning emulator on the ISMIP6 archive. This allowed them to:

  • Rapidly explore millions of combinations of modelling assumptions.
  • Systematically attribute uncertainty to specific choices (e.g., sliding laws ~21%, ice-shelf melt parameterizations ~20% of variance in raw simulations).
  • Perform Bayesian transient calibration against GRACE/GRACE-FO satellite mass-change observations (2002 onward).
  • Produce bias-corrected, probabilistic projections that better reflect historical performance.

They examined both raw and drift- corrected simulations and mapped how uncertainties cascade from global mean surface temperature → AOGCM choice → ice-sheet model features → regional sea-level fingerprints.

This is the peer- reviewed scientific paper underlying the The Conversation article by Yucheng Lin and Robert Kopp that started this discussion.

Title: Committed Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss by the end of the twenty- first century

Journal information: Nature Geoscience

DOI: 10.1038/s41561-026-02102-1

Published: 30 September 2026

Provided: The Conversation

Authors: Yucheng Lin,
Xuebin Zhang,
Nicholas R. Golledge,
Robert E. Kopp,
John A. Church,
Yi Jin,
Chen Zhao &
Chris R. Stokes 

Abstract

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is the largest source of uncertainty in sea-level rise projections, with uncertainties propagating through emissions scenarios, atmosphere–ocean general circulation models, ice-sheet dynamics and sea-level physics. In ice-sheet model intercomparison exercises, these uncertainties—typically attributed to intermodel differences—stem from modelling choices that may bias ensembles towards commonly adopted approaches regardless of observational consistency. Here we quantify how each individual physical assumption cascades into projection uncertainty using a machine-learning emulation framework, which also enables Bayesian calibration against satellite observations to reduce projection bias. Our results suggest it is very likely (≥0.92 probability) that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is committed to twenty-first-century mass loss, even under aggressive emissions-reduction scenarios. Higher emissions drive greater Antarctic mass loss by 2100 (≥0.89 probability), directly elevating near-term coastal risks. Under very high-emissions scenarios, we identify cascading mechanisms that could produce up to 25.4 cm of sea-level rise by 2100 (95th percentile; median = 15.7 cm) while remaining consistent with satellite observations. Effective management of these risks to densely populated coastal communities requires rapid emissions reductions and improved constraints on climate model selection, sliding laws and ice-shelf melt parameterizations.

There Is A Drought in Academia: A Drought in Honest Research on the Subject of Drought and Other Weather Extremes

A little over a year ago, a study titled “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity” was published in Nature, a climate-consumed journal that has lost all credibility among serious folks. The authors included multiple academics from the University of Oxford in the UK, an elitist institution if there ever was one.

A satirical illustration depicting a drought in academia, with a researcher looking frustrated at a dry well labeled 'Honest Research'. Surrounding elements include signs about climate grants, drought data, and the dismissal of alternative views, all set in a parched landscape.

From ClimateRealism

Guest Post by Thomas J. Shepstone, originally posted at the ‘Energy Security and Freedom’ Substack.

A man in a lab coat holding a sign that reads 'THE END IS NIGH', standing outdoors with a cloudy sky in the background.

A little over a year ago, a study titled “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity” was published in Nature, a climate-consumed journal that has lost all credibility among serious folks. The authors included multiple academics from the University of Oxford in the UK, an elitist institution if there ever was one.

The abstract of the study said this (emphasis and paragraphing added):

Drought is one of the most common and complex natural hazards affecting the environment, economies and populations globally. However, there are significant uncertainties in global drought trends, and a limited understanding of the extent to which a key driver, atmospheric evaporative demand (AED), impacts the recent evolution of the magnitude, frequency, duration and areal extent of droughts.

Here, by developing an ensemble of high-resolution global drought datasets for 1901–2022, we find an increasing trend in drought severity worldwide. Our findings suggest that AED has increased drought severity by an average of 40% globally.

Not only are typically dry regions becoming drier, but also wet areas are experiencing drying trends.

During the past 5 years (2018–2022), the areas in drought have expanded by 74% on average compared with 1981–2017, with AED contributing to 58% of this increase. The year 2022 was record-breaking, with 30% of the global land area affected by moderate and extreme droughts, 42% of which was attributed to increased AED. Our findings indicate that AED has an increasingly important role in driving severe droughts and that this tendency will likely continue under future warming scenarios.

The study also produced numerous headlines in popular media such as these:

  • The New York Times (4 June 2025): “Higher Temperatures and a Thirsty World.”
  • The Guardian (3 July 2025): “Weatherwatch: how ‘thirstier’ atmosphere is making droughts more severe.”
  • ScienceAlert: “Our Atmosphere’s Growing Thirst Is a Hidden Cause of Worsening Droughts.”
    Lead author Solomon Gebrechorkos wrote that atmospheric thirst caused ~40%
  • Earth.com:
    • “How a thirsty atmosphere is making global droughts much worse.”
    • Later follow-up: “Earth has become a planet where the air is always thirsty, and that’s quickly drying out the land.”
  • Oxford / UC Santa Barbara / Cardiff University press releases (widely picked up): “Earth’s growing thirst is making droughts worse, even where it rains” and “The atmosphere’s growing thirst is making droughts worse, even where it rains.”
    These used the same 40% figure and an “invisible sponge” metaphor.
  • Climate Central (October 2025): “Warmer, Thirstier Air Worsens Drought.”

Now, the whole thing has been retracted. Here’s that story, translated from the German publication Science Files:

Drought Catastrophe Cancelled: The Next Climate Change Junk Paper Has Been Retracted

By Michael Klein

September 16, 2026

Because the climate is changing, the atmosphere drinks more [perhaps out of frustration]; because the atmosphere drinks more, it becomes drier on Earth… Most of the authors from the not fully named “author pack” make their living at the University of Oxford, and they all announced the apocalypse by drying out in 2025: Since 1981, they calculated, droughts on Earth have become more severe and more intense;

      • An increased “thirst” of the atmosphere made droughts from 2018 to 2022 40% more severe than in the 37 years before that.
      • Comparing the two periods: 5 years since 2018 versus 37 years since 1981, the area affected by drought has become 74% larger, 58% of that due to an increased “thirst of the atmosphere.”
      • Since 2022, 30% of the Earth’s land surface has been affected by moderate to extreme drought;
      • With further climate change, all of this will become much worse.

These are the results that Gebrechorkos and his co-authors spread via the mainstream media, and these are the results that are all wrong.

The authors miscalculated, mixed up data, weighted them incorrectly, compared apples at the equator with dry ice in the Arctic. The comparison periods on which all the results that made it into the media are based are incorrectly coded, so data were assigned incorrectly…

The fact that the junk study has been withdrawn does not change the fact that the articles in the mainstream media, such as the one from ZEIT that we presented above, are still there, have not been provided with any correction, and even if they had been provided with a correction, it would remain largely without effect, because contributions like that of Gebrechorkos et al. (2025) are, in my view, only written in order to be distributed by the media and to hype up the climate apocalypse.

This is not a claim made off the cuff, but one that can be demonstrated from the original contribution by Gebrechorkos et al. (2025), a contribution that was designed in such a way that the “dryness” of the Earth and its soils estimated at the end — a largely arbitrary value, the result of an absurd calculation — is maximized.

This is why the entire climate movement is collapsing. It’s all built on hype by those with special interests in perpetuating a grift, in this case, a pursuit of academic praise and, no doubt, research money put up by other grifters.

Overlooked Lakes Amplify Northern Hemisphere Cooling Through Stronger Ice Albedo Effect

A recent study shows that seasonally ice- covered lakes in the Northern Hemisphere contribute disproportionately to cooling via a stronger cryosphere radiative effect (higher albedo) than surrounding land, an effect that has been underappreciated in climate models.

Terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREₜ or terrestrial CrRE) is the cooling influence that snow and ice cover on land (and lakes) exert on Earth’s energy budget by reflecting incoming solar (shortwave) radiation back to space.

A serene winter landscape featuring a frozen lake surrounded by snow-covered trees, with rolling hills in the background and a bright sun illuminating the scene.
AI generated by Grok

A recent study shows that seasonally ice- covered lakes in the Northern Hemisphere contribute disproportionately to cooling via a stronger cryosphere radiative effect (higher albedo) than surrounding land, an effect that has been underappreciated in climate models.

Published in Geophysical Research Letters on September 28, 2026), the paper by Cooley, Webb, Levenson, and Ryan quantifies lakes’ influence on the terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREₜ), the cooling from high- albedo snow and ice reflecting sunlight.

Using 22 years of satellite data, the authors find:

  • Per unit area, lakes have a significantly higher CrREₜ than land (-14.4 vs. -8.2 W/m²).
  • Although lakes cover only about 3.7% of the study domain, they account for 6.3% of the total Northern Hemisphere CrREₜ.
  • Their contribution is larger still in late spring and in the Boreal Forest, where lakes can supply more than 25% of local CrREₜ.

Lakes’ stronger effect stems from two main factors: snow melts earlier on land (reducing land albedo sooner), while snow- and ice- covered lakes maintain a higher albedo increase relative to the surrounding landscape. The authors conclude that climate models should explicitly include lake CrREₜ processes, highlighting a previously understudied way lakes help moderate Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

This aligns with the Phys.org framing by Hannah Bird (a science journalist covering Earth and environmental topics for the site): “overlooked” lakes act as an under- recognized cooling influence through their ice and snow cover. The finding does not reverse overall warming trends but shows lakes amplify local and regional cooling relative to land via albedo, especially where seasonal ice is common.

Map showing lake contribution to carbon release factors (%) across North America and Eurasia.
Maps of lake contribution to cryosphere radiative effect (a) compared to nearby land (b) snow-off timing (c) and seasonal albedo contrast (d). Positive values indicate later snow-off timing and/or greater seasonal albedo contrast. Credit: Cooley et al, 2026.

Terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREₜ or terrestrial CrRE) is the cooling influence that snow and ice cover on land (and lakes) exert on Earth’s energy budget by reflecting incoming solar (shortwave) radiation back to space.

Definition

It is the instantaneous effect of surface snow and ice on the top- of- atmosphere (or top-of-model) solar energy budget. In other words, it quantifies how much less solar radiation the Earth system absorbs because of the high albedo of snow and ice compared with a snow- and ice- free surface.

  • Negative values indicate a cooling effect (more sunlight reflected → less energy absorbed).
  • It is analogous to the well- known cloud radiative effect, but applied specifically to the cryosphere (the frozen parts of the Earth system).
  • Longwave (thermal infrared) effects are typically excluded; the metric focuses on shortwave reflection.

Key Influences

CrRE is shaped by more than just the presence of snow and ice:

  • Seasonal cycle of incoming solar radiation (insolation)
  • Cloud cover (which can mask the surface albedo effect)
  • Vegetation cover (which can hide snow)
  • Properties of the snow/ice itself and the underlying surface
  • Timing of snowmelt

Terrestrial vs. Broader CrRE

  • Terrestrial CrRE (CrREₜ) focuses on land and lakes (seasonal snow, lake ice, etc.). Ice sheets and glaciers are often treated separately (though snow on them may be included).
  • Full CrRE usually also includes marine contributions from sea ice.

Relevance in Recent Research

In the 2026 study by Cooley et al. (Geophysical Research Letters), the authors specifically examined the Northern Hemisphere terrestrial CrRE and showed that lakes have a disproportionately strong effect:

  • Lakes: about -14.4 W/m² (per unit area)
  • Land: about -8.2 W/m²
  • Even though lakes cover only ~3.7% of the domain, they contribute ~6.3% of the total Northern Hemisphere terrestrial CrRE (and >25% in parts of the Boreal Forest, especially in late spring).

This stronger lake contribution arises because snow tends to melt earlier on land, while snow- and ice-covered lakes maintain higher albedo for longer.

In short, terrestrial CrRE is a quantitative measure of how snow and ice on land (and lakes) help keep the planet cooler by boosting reflectivity. It is considered a more climate- relevant metric than simple snow or ice extent alone.

Diagram illustrating the interactions of solar radiation, infrared radiation, and their effects on ice production, ocean heat transport, and atmospheric circulation. Key components include clouds, surface albedo, ice shelf melting, and water vapor.
Major climate feedback operating in polar regions. Plus / minus signs mean that the feedback is positive / negative. Yellow and red arrows show solar shortwave and infrared radiation fluxes, respectively. Orange arrows show the flux exchanges between the different components of the climate system (ocean, atmosphere, ice) for several feedback. TOA refers to ‘top of the atmosphere’ [Credit: Fig 1 from Goosse et al. (2018)].
Cryospheric Sciences | Image of the Week – Climate feedbacks demystified in polar regions

Ice- albedo feedback is a powerful positive climate feedback loop in which melting ice and snow amplify warming.

How it works

  1. High albedo of ice and snow
    Fresh snow and ice are highly reflective (albedo typically 0.5- 0.9). They bounce a large fraction of incoming solar radiation back to space, helping keep the surface cool.
  2. Warming causes melting
    Rising temperatures (from greenhouse gases or other forcings) melt some of the ice or snow.
  3. Lower albedo surfaces are exposed
    • Over ocean: dark open water (albedo ~0.06) replaces bright sea ice.
    • Over land: darker soil, rock, or vegetation replaces snow.
    • On lakes: open water or thinner/darker ice replaces highly reflective snow-covered ice.
  4. More solar energy is absorbed
    The darker surface absorbs more sunlight, converting it into heat.
  5. Further warming and melting
    The extra heat raises local (and eventually regional) temperatures, causing even more ice and snow to melt. This reinforces the cycle.

Because each step strengthens the original change, it is called a positive feedback.

Why it matters

  • It is one of the main reasons the Arctic is warming roughly 2- 4 times faster than the global average (Arctic amplification).
  • It accelerates the loss of sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets, and seasonal snow cover.
  • It also operates on lakes: as lake ice shortens or becomes less reflective, lakes absorb more heat, which can further reduce ice cover the following season and influence local climate (as highlighted in recent studies of terrestrial cryosphere radiative effects).

Simple analogy

Imagine a white reflective tent on a sunny day (cool inside) versus a black tarp (hot inside). Melting ice is like gradually replacing the white tent with black material, the surface heats up faster and faster.

In short, ice- albedo feedback turns an initial warming into a self- reinforcing process that speeds up cryosphere loss and regional temperature rise.

Lakes Modify the Magnitude and Timing of the Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect

Key Points (from the journal)

  • The study quantifies the contribution of lakes to the Northern Hemisphere terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREₜ).
  • Lakes have a much stronger CrRE than nearby land, particularly in the Boreal Forest.
  • Lakes’ higher CrRE is caused by earlier snowmelt on land and lakes’ greater increase in albedo when snow- covered.

Abstract and Summary

Vast areas of Earth’s Northern Hemisphere are covered in lakes that form seasonal ice cover, yet their influence on the terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREₜ) had not previously been quantified. Using 22 years of satellite data (roughly 2001- 2022), the authors constrain lakes’ contribution to CrREₜ.

Main findings:

  • Per unit area, lakes have a significantly higher CrREₜ than land (-14.4 vs. -8.2 W/m²).
  • Although lakes cover only 3.7% of the study domain, they contribute 6.3% of total Northern Hemisphere CrREₜ.
  • The lake contribution is even larger in late spring and in the Boreal Forest, where lakes can account for more than 25% of local CrREₜ.
  • The stronger lake effect results from (1) earlier snowmelt on land (which lowers land albedo sooner) and (2) lakes’ comparatively greater albedo increase while snow- or ice- covered.

The authors conclude that climate models should include lake CrREₜ processes and highlight this previously understudied cooling influence of lakes on Northern Hemisphere climate.

A related dataset (gridded results and time series) is available on Zenodo, associated with the submitted and accepted version of the paper.

This is the study underlying the Phys.org piece titled “Overlooked lakes may be helping to keep the Northern Hemisphere cool.” The paper is open access on the AGU site (Wiley Online Library).

Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 53, Issue 18, 28 September 2026

DOI: 10.1029/2026gl124236

Authors: Sarah W. Cooley, Elizabeth E. Webb, Eric S. Levenson, Jonathan C. Ryan

Abstract

Vast areas of Earth’s Northern Hemisphere are covered in lakes that form seasonal ice cover, yet their influence on the terrestrial Cryosphere Radiative Effect (CrREt) has not previously been quantified. Here we use 22 years of satellite data to constrain the contribution of lakes to CrREt. We find that, per unit area, lakes have a significantly higher CrREt than land (−14.4 vs. −8.2 W/m2). Therefore, even though lakes cover 3.7% of our study domain, lakes contribute 6.3% of Northern Hemisphere CrREt. Lake contribution to CrREt is even greater in late spring as well as in the Boreal Forest where lakes can contribute more than 25% of CrREt. Lakes’ higher CrREt results from both earlier snowmelt on land and lakes’ comparatively greater increase in albedo while snow-covered. Overall, our analysis advocates for the inclusion of lake CrREt processes in climate models and highlights a previously understudied impact of lakes on climate.

How much climate angst is propped up by China or is even a Cold War weapon of statecraft?

Potentially, fifty years from now people may look back and marvel at how easily (and cheaply) China could wind up the Western liberals, and how they got away with it.

And so it is that China somehow ends up being in bed with Western lefties who say they hate carbon emissions but admire China.

Then these Western institutions, PhDs, and NGOs tell the world how wonderful and advanced China is in renewables. This third-party endorsement is also handy as a much more convincing than a press release from the CCP. In effect, donating to a Green fund in the West would be one way of laundering propaganda, wouldn’t it?

A political cartoon depicting Chinese influence in global climate discussions, featuring an exaggerated figure representing China manipulating various groups including scientists and politicians. The scene highlights themes of climate crisis, energy dependence, and geopolitical tensions, with imagery of factories, solar panels, and maps of Europe and the USA.

From CFACT

By Joanne Nova

A majestic red dragon soaring through a sky filled with clouds and fireworks, showcasing its fierce expression and intricate scales.

Potentially, fifty years from now people may look back and marvel at how easily (and cheaply) China could wind up the Western liberals, and how they got away with it.

We may wonder how it was not obvious that the world was caught in a covert Cold War. We don’t have all the receipts to say that now, and may never get them, but we have the method, the motive, and the opportunity.

As I keep saying, there are so many advantages to China it would be crazy if it weren’t manipulating the West to sabotage our own success. But Peter Doran and Brenda Shaffer have taken that further and written a very classy feature in Tablet.

They followed the money as far as they could, but many of the dollars vanish in a swamp of collected philanthropic funds which earnestly profess their angst and indignation against Western carbon emitters but somehow cheer on China even though it accounts for 93% of all new coal constructions on Earth. A funny coincidence…

And so it is that China somehow ends up being in bed with Western lefties who say they hate carbon emissions but admire China. Then these Western institutions, PhDs, and NGOs tell the world how wonderful and advanced China is in renewables. This third-party endorsement is also handy as a much more convincing than a press release from the CCP.  In effect, donating to a Green fund in the West would be one way of laundering propaganda, wouldn’t it?

Potentially, fifty years from now people may look back and marvel at how easily (and cheaply) China could wind up the Western liberals, and how they got away with it.

We may wonder how it was not obvious that the world was caught in a covert Cold War. We don’t have all the receipts to say that now, and may never get them, but we have the method, the motive, and the opportunity.

As I keep saying, there are so many advantages to China it would be crazy if it weren’t manipulating the West to sabotage our own success. But Peter Doran and Brenda Shaffer have taken that further and written a very classy feature in Tablet.

They followed the money as far as they could, but many of the dollars vanish in a swamp of collected philanthropic funds which earnestly profess their angst and indignation against Western carbon emitters but somehow cheer on China even though it accounts for 93% of all new coal constructions on Earth. A funny coincidence…

And so it is that China somehow ends up being in bed with Western lefties who say they hate carbon emissions but admire China. Then these Western institutions, PhDs, and NGOs tell the world how wonderful and advanced China is in renewables. This third-party endorsement is also handy as a much more convincing than a press release from the CCP.  In effect, donating to a Green fund in the West would be one way of laundering propaganda, wouldn’t it?

Logo of the Energy Foundation featuring a blue starburst design above the name in English and Chinese.

We know China already sends some money to Western charities to ‘help’ us clean up our environment. (It’s so sweet of a developing nation to care about rich world pollution, don’t you think?) But the end result of that donation could easily be viewed as an economic investment that damages the West and boosts Chinese trade.

The sums of money that can be traced back to China are in the hundreds of thousands or low million per individual. But if a foreign entity was sending many millions of dollars to influence an adversary’s policies, they wouldn’t want to advertise that would they?

We know China sends money to universities and NGOs through Energy Foundation China and former CCP members were involved. To bluntly lay the hostility on the table — we have found secret communication devices in some Chinese electronic goods, we know the CCP lied about Covid, spread it to the world on planes from Wuhan while stopping it at home, and we know of at least two suspicious biolabs in the U.S. stocked with things labeled ‘Ebola’. We know China is cutting submarine cables around Taiwan, in the Baltic Sea, and possibly off Perth, Western Australia.

We would have to be pretty stupid to not even ask the question, just how much of the climate obsession in the West is driven by China? China has already been caught funding eco-lawfare suits in the U.S. to sabotage American energy dominance — thanks to Steve Milloy and Ballyboruma.

China’s Net Zero Advantage

By Peter Doran and Brenda Shaffer, Tablet

In its competition with China, the United States holds a natural advantage: abundant oil and cheap natural gas. Reliable energy powers factories, data centers, transportation networks, and military operations. It lets the United States combine technological innovation with industrial scale, an advantage that China, dependent on imported oil and gas, cannot easily reproduce.

But China has found a partial answer: the net-zero movement.

Over the past two decades, therefore, an alliance in all but name has taken shape.

On the surface, it looks like a relationship of strange bedfellows. China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest producer and consumer of coal. Its power system still runs mainly on coal, and it burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. By the climate movement’s own stated goal, the reduction of emissions, China should be its principal target. It is not.

Guess who was behind Code Pink?

Several well-publicized cases suggest that one reason China appears to be above net zero criticism is that Beijing is playing a major role in funding the climate movement. For example, Neville Roy Singham, an American technology entrepreneur, has reportedly been the subject of a federal grand jury inquiry in New York. Singham sold his consulting firm Thoughtworks in 2017 for $785 million, moved his operations to Shanghai, and began financing a global network of nonprofits and media outlets. In August 2023, The New York Times reported that Singham, working closely with the Chinese government’s media apparatus, financed the spread of its messaging worldwide through nonprofits and shell companies. Singham denied receiving funds or instructions from any government or party, including the Chinese Communist Party.

One recipient of his philanthropy has been Code Pink, the antiwar group cofounded by Jodie Evans, whom Singham married in 2017.

According to Sen. Tom Cotton, $1.4 million moved from groups associated with Singham and found its way to Code Pink. Whereupon Code Pink stopped criticizing the Uighur treatment in China and stopped worrying about the fate of human rights workers in China. A few years later they started saying things like “China is not the enemy”.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union cultivated Western peace and antinuclear movements that constrained Western governments and left Soviet power untouched. It also sponsored the campaign that produced the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism — a line crafted in Moscow and carried at the United Nations by Soviet and Arab clients, then taken up by parts of the Western left. Beijing is the heir to this tradition, working now from inside the world economy rather than from outside it.

The costs fall almost entirely on America and its allies.

British and European industrial electricity is among the most expensive in the world. When the price of power rises, manufacturing contracts, plants close, and the jobs and the tax base move. China keeps adding supply and selling electricity to its factories at prices the West cannot match. Climate policy, as practiced, is a transfer of industrial advantage to China.

The replacement systems are Chinese. China dominates every stage of solar and wind manufacturing, battery cells and their materials, and the processing of critical minerals—and, increasingly, electric vehicles themselves. A transition mandated by Western governments therefore transfers consumer demand to Chinese factories and hands control of supply to Chinese planners. With the outbreak of the Ukraine war, Europe learned from Russian gas the cost of a single choke point. Renewable-energy supply chains have more of them.

For some reason China wants to help Americans breathe the cleanest air?

Energy Foundation China has written checks, for example, to the Rocky Mountain Institute, which in 2022 published the gas-stove asthma paper that Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm helped turn into a national fight over gas in the home. Destroying the much-deserved reputation of natural gas, which is abundant in the United States, as a low-polluting source of cheap energy has obvious national-security advantages for China.

There’s no document that shows the China instigated this research, but the conflict of interest “deserves some scrutiny” as they say.

They also present vulnerabilities pipelines never did. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounted for about 80% of global manufacturing capacity for solar and battery inverters in 2025. These devices convert solar or battery output into grid power. Western operators have found undocumented communications hardware in some Chinese-made equipment. Chinese military writing treats an adversary’s energy system as an early target. The easiest way to stop a fighter-bomber is not to shoot it down. It is to deny it electricity before it takes off.

Friendly agencies in the West help to launder CCP propaganda:

Beijing cannot manufacture Western credibility. A Chinese state outlet can call China a climate leader indefinitely without moving a single Western legislature, because the audience knows who is speaking. The same claim advanced by an American foundation president, a European research institute, or an international agency carries the authority of institutions trusted precisely because they are not Chinese. The arrangement solves the propagandist’s problem. It separates the message from the messenger.

There is a lot more detail to the story at Tablet magazine.  China didn’t start the Climate Change movement, and we know the big Bankers, the renewables industry, and those who want Big Government have a trillion reasons to push the Climate Change barrow. But it’s easy to imagine how China could have been pulled into the slip-stream and taken advantage of it. The question today is how much influence does China have now?

This article originally appeared at JoNova

Tropical Storms and Ocean Waves Quietly Shape West Antarctica’s Snowfall, Ice Cores Show

New University of Utah research shows that tropical climate patterns (especially in the Pacific and Indian Oceans) strongly influence year-to-year snowfall and surface mass balance on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), based on analysis of ice cores and 20th-century weather data.
The Madden- Julian Oscillation (MJO) is the dominant mode of intraseasonal (roughly 30- 90 day) variability in the tropical atmosphere. It consists of a large- scale, eastward- propagating envelope of enhanced and suppressed convection (thunderstorms and rainfall) that typically originates over the tropical Indian Ocean and moves across the Maritime Continent into the western and central Pacific Ocean.

A dramatic illustration showing tropical storms and ocean waves influencing West Antarctica's snowfall, featuring a swirling storm over ocean waves on the left and an ice core drilling operation on the right amid a snowy landscape.
AI generated by Grok

New University of Utah research shows that tropical climate patterns (especially in the Pacific and Indian Oceans) strongly influence year- to- year snowfall and surface mass balance on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), based on analysis of ice cores and 20th- century weather data.

The study, led by graduate student Ella Hunter (with co- authors including Summer Rupper and Court Strong), was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (titled “Tropical controls on West Antarctic Ice Sheet surface mass balance interannual variability in the twentieth century”). It examined 25 ice and firn cores from the WAIS covering 1900- 1999, combined with historical climate reanalysis data.

Key findings

Tropical teleconnections via Rossby waves: Patterns such as El Niño- Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Madden- Julian Oscillation (MJO) generate atmospheric Rossby waves. These waves propagate southward, altering wind patterns, storm tracks, and moisture transport toward Antarctica. Tropical convection and sea-surface temperature anomalies effectively carry heat and moisture to the ice sheet.

Regional differences within the WAIS: The ice sheet does not behave uniformly. The eastern sector received roughly twice as much snow (about 350 mm water equivalent per year) as the western sector (about 175 mm). Over the 20th century, surface mass balance (SMB, the net surface gain and loss mainly from snowfall) trended upward in the east (+0.224 mm water equivalent per year) but slightly downward in the west (–0.087 mm per year). Trends were removed to focus on interannual variability.

Drivers of variability:

  • East WAIS SMB variability was mainly controlled by anomalously low geopotential height over the Ross and Amundsen Seas.
  • West WAIS variability was linked to ENSO and non- uniform phases of the MJO.
  • Higher snowfall in some high- pressure areas occurs because storm systems are deflected inland by ridges of high pressure.

Methods and context

Shallow ice cores (upper ~50 m) act as proxies for weather records where permanent stations cannot be maintained in Antarctica’s harsh conditions. Rupper recovered some of the cores (5 cm diameter) during 2010- 2011 field seasons; samples are archived at the University of Utah.

The WAIS covers ~760,000 square miles with an average ice thickness of ~3,400 feet; complete melt would raise global sea levels by more than 15 feet. Understanding SMB variability (not just long- term trends) is important for assessing ice- sheet stability and future sea- level rise projections.

Funding came from the National Science Foundation, with additional support from the U.S. Department of Energy and NOAA programs. Related research has also examined longer- term (centennial) tropical- polar teleconnections affecting West Antarctic snowfall trends, but this study specifically focuses on interannual variability driven by tropical Rossby- wave sources.

In short, the tropics act as a remote “steering” influence on West Antarctic snowfall through large- scale atmospheric waves, with distinct effects across different parts of the ice sheet.

Map of Antarctica showing East and West Antarctica, surrounding oceans, and notable geographic features like the South Pole, ice shelves, and sea ice.
Map of Antarctica. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center. University of Utah

The Madden- Julian Oscillation (MJO) is the dominant mode of intraseasonal (roughly 30- 90 day) variability in the tropical atmosphere. It consists of a large- scale, eastward- propagating envelope of enhanced and suppressed convection (thunderstorms and rainfall) that typically originates over the tropical Indian Ocean and moves across the Maritime Continent into the western and central Pacific Ocean.

Key characteristics

  • Structure: A dipole of enhanced convection (low outgoing longwave radiation, heavy rainfall, and upper-level divergence) paired with suppressed convection (clearer skies and upper-level convergence) to the east or west.
  • Phases: Commonly tracked in 8 phases using the Real-time Multivariate MJO (RMM) index of Wheeler and Hendon (2004). Phases 1- 2 are usually over the Indian Ocean, 3- 5 over the Maritime Continent, and 6- 8 over the western/central Pacific.
  • Timescale and speed: The convective envelope typically takes 30- 60 days to complete a cycle and propagates eastward at about 5 m/s.
  • Vertical structure: Features a deep baroclinic circulation with lower- level inflow into the convective region and upper- level outflow.

Broader impacts (teleconnections)

Although the MJO is a tropical phenomenon, it generates atmospheric Rossby waves that propagate into the extratropics of both hemispheres. These waves can alter jet streams, storm tracks, temperature, and precipitation far from the tropics, including in the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes.

In the context of the recent University of Utah study on West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) surface mass balance:

  • West WAIS interannual snowfall variability is linked to both ENSO and non- uniformity in the phase distribution of the MJO.
  • More frequent MJO phases 1- 3 and 8 tend to favor higher West WAIS snowfall, while phases 5- 6 are associated with lower snowfall.
  • The MJO modulates tropical convection that sources the Rossby waves influencing high- latitude circulation and moisture transport toward Antarctica.

The MJO is distinct from ENSO (which operates on interannual timescales of 2- 7 years) but can interact with it. Recent research also highlights lower- frequency (interannual and longer) variations in MJO phase preference, which can affect year- to- year climate patterns.

In short, the MJO is a traveling “pulse” of tropical convection that acts as an important bridge between tropical weather and global atmospheric circulation.

Topographic map of Antarctica featuring major geographical features such as the Ross Ice Shelf, Ellsworth Mountains, and surrounding seas. The inset map highlights the Pacific sector of Antarctica.
West Antarctica. Credit: Journal of Climate

Rossby waves (also called planetary waves) are large- scale, meandering waves in the atmosphere (and oceans) that arise from the conservation of potential vorticity on a rotating planet. They are named after Swedish- American meteorologist Carl- Gustaf Rossby, who first described them in the 1930s.

Basic physics

On a rotating Earth, the Coriolis force varies with latitude (stronger toward the poles). When air parcels are displaced north or south, this variation causes them to regain their original latitude, producing a restoring force. The result is slow, westward- propagating waves relative to the mean flow.

  • Wavelength: Typically, thousands of kilometers (planetary scale).
  • Speed: Much slower than the winds that carry them; they can appear quasi-stationary or move slowly.
  • Structure: In the atmosphere they appear as large ridges (high- pressure meanders) and troughs (low-pressure meanders) in the jet stream and upper- level flow.

Atmospheric Rossby waves and tropical- extratropical teleconnections

Tropical convection (from phenomena such as the Madden- Julian Oscillation or ENSO) creates regions of heating and upper- level divergence. These act as wave sources that generate Rossby- wave trains. The waves then propagate poleward and eastward (or sometimes westward) into the mid- and high latitudes of both hemispheres.

In the context of the University of Utah study on West Antarctic snowfall:

  • Tropical convection in the Indian Ocean and central tropical Pacific launches Rossby- wave trains that travel south toward Antarctica.
  • These waves alter geopotential height patterns, wind fields, and storm tracks over the Southern Ocean.
  • The resulting changes in atmospheric circulation control how much moisture reaches different parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), producing the observed year- to- year differences in surface mass balance between the East and West sectors.

Key effects in the Southern Hemisphere

  • They can deepen or shift the Amundsen Sea Low.
  • They create blocking highs or low- pressure anomalies that steer storms onshore or offshore.
  • They influence temperature, precipitation, and sea- ice patterns over West Antarctica on timescales ranging from days to seasons (and, via modulation by ENSO and MJO, on interannual timescales).

Rossby waves are fundamental to understanding how weather and climate in the tropics can “teleconnect” to remote regions such as Antarctica, Europe, or North America.

Diagram illustrating the Madden-Julian Oscillation, showing atmospheric movement at different altitudes, including upward and downward motions, and weather patterns like stormy and wet conditions versus sunny and dry conditions along the equator.
The surface and upper-atmosphere structure of the MJO for a period when the enhanced convective phase (thunderstorm cloud) is centered across the Indian Ocean and the suppressed convective phase is centered over the west-central Pacific Ocean. Horizontal arrows pointing left represent wind departures from average that are easterly, and arrows pointing right represent wind departures from average that are westerly. The entire system shifts eastward over time, eventually circling the globe and returning to its point of origin. Climate.gov drawing by Fiona Martin.
Images and Media: MJO_lrg.png | NOAA Climate.gov

Tropical Controls on West Antarctic Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance Interannual Variability in the Twentieth Century

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) holds ice equivalent to 5.3 m of global mean sea- level rise. This study focuses on interannual variability of surface mass balance (SMB, primarily snowfall and wind redistribution) linked to Rossby wave trains from tropical convection in the Indian Ocean and central tropical Pacific (rather than just long- term trends or well-known indices like the Southern Annular Mode).

  • Data: 25 WAIS ice/firn cores (1900- 1999), clustered into East and West sectors along a topographic ridgeline using k-means. Trends were removed to isolate year-to-year variations. Combined with 20th Century Reanalysis (20CR) precipitation, geopotential height, winds, outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), HadISST sea-surface temperatures (SSTs), and wave activity flux.
  • Opposite trends: East WAIS mean SMB increased ~0.224 mm water equivalent (w.e.) per year; West decreased ~0.087 mm w.e. per year (both significant at p ≤ 0.1). East received roughly twice the snowfall of West.
  • East WAIS variability: Controlled mainly by anomalously low geopotential height over the Ross and Amundsen Seas (bringing warm, moist marine air). Key months: June and November (highest correlations with annual SMB). Linked to convection near the Maritime Continent and western Australia (sometimes with weak La Niña- like signals). MJO influence is weaker and sporadic.
  • West WAIS variability: Driven by ENSO (El Niño- like SST warming in the central and eastern tropical Pacific) and non-uniform phase distribution of the Madden- Julian Oscillation (MJO). High-pressure ridges (blocking highs) deflect storms inland, enhancing onshore moisture flow. Significant positive correlations with more frequent MJO phases 1- 3 and 8; negative with phases 5- 6. Leading EOFs of MJO phase frequency explain substantial variance and correlate with West SMB.

These tropical Rossby- wave teleconnections help explain regional differences in snowfall and can improve models of future WAIS mass balance and sea-level contributions.

Methods Highlights

  • Annual core SMB correlated with monthly 20CR precipitation to identify climatically important months.
  • Regressions of SSTs, OLR, 200- hPa geopotential height (Z₂₀₀), streamfunction, and wave activity flux onto standardized sector SMB.
  • MJO analysis used unfiltered multivariate indices (to retain interannual variability) and correlations with phase frequency.
  • Composite synoptic evolution for top 5% precipitation events (day- before, day- of and day- after).
  • Sensitivity checks with ERA- 20C and ERA5 reanalyses yielded consistent main results.

Discussion and Implications

East and West WAIS respond differently to tropical forcing, underscoring the need for regional (not continent- wide) analysis. Low pressure over the Ross Sea sector (related to the semi- annual oscillation) drives East precipitation via meridional moisture transport. In the West, El Niño- like patterns and MJO phase preferences create ridges that steer storms onshore. Understanding these interannual drivers is important because SMB variability can influence ice-sheet dynamics and stability on timescales relevant to sea-level rise projections.

The full paper (including figures of core locations, regression maps, MJO correlations, synoptic composites, and supporting information) is available via the DOI link above. A University of Utah news summary of the work is also available.

Journal information: Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres Volume 131, Issue 11, e2025JD045664.

DOI: 10.1029/2025jd045664

First published: 28 May 2026 (corrected 7 July 2026).

Provided: University of Utah

Authors: Ella K. Hunter, Courtenay Strong, Summer Rupper, Husile Bai, Joey Krueger, Christopher Mitchell

Ella K. Hunter, Courtenay Strong (corresponding), Summer Rupper, Husile Bai, Joey Krueger, Christopher Mitchell (University of Utah and collaborators).

Abstract

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) contains an ice volumetric equivalent of 5.3 m of global mean sea-level rise. Understanding the climate mechanisms that influence WAIS surface mass balance (SMB) can help reduce uncertainties in sea-level rise projections. Previous work has focused on trends related to temperature and the roles of well-known climate phenomena in the Pacific sector, including the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Annular Mode. Here, the focus is on interannual variability of precipitation associated with Rossby wave trains emanating from tropical convection regions in the Indian Ocean and the central tropical Pacific. Objective clustering of SMB measurements from 25 WAIS ice and firn cores from 1900 through 1999 indicated oppositely signed mean SMB trends in the East and West sectors of WAIS, and these trends were removed to focus on year-to-year variations. Climatically important months for each sector were identified by correlating reanalysis precipitation with ice core SMB. Tropical Rossby wave source regions that produced anomalous WAIS SMB were identified by analyzing composite convection, geopotential height, and wave activity flux. East WAIS SMB variability was controlled by anomalously low geopotential height over the Ross and Amundsen Seas. West WAIS SMB variability was driven by ENSO and non-uniformity in the phase distribution of the Madden-Julian Oscillation. These results provide a deeper understanding of the drivers of WAIS SMB variability and may improve projections of future sea-level rise.

Canada is Our Energy Friend

A new study released by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), “Counting Canada Wrong: The Hidden Surplus Behind the Headline Deficit” (September 2026), makes a case that official trade statistics should treat “discounted raw materials from allies the same as imported finished goods from adversaries.” The present accounting “[has] misdirected Washington’s attention and obscured how international commerce truly affects American manufacturing.” The introduction to this study follows.

Cartoon illustration promoting the partnership between Canada and the USA in energy production, featuring a moose and a bear, alongside symbols of oil, natural gas, electricity, and uranium. Includes text highlighting benefits such as reliability, affordability, and energy independence.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Ed. Note: A new study released by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), “Counting Canada Wrong: The Hidden Surplus Behind the Headline Deficit” (September 2026), makes a case that official trade statistics should treat “discounted raw materials from allies the same as imported finished goods from adversaries.” The present accounting “[has] misdirected Washington’s attention and obscured how international commerce truly affects American manufacturing.” The introduction to this study follows.

“While trade deficits are often a flashpoint when foreign nations undercut domestic manufacturing, the headline deficit with Canada tells a deceiving story. A closer look reveals a trade arrangement that overwhelmingly favors American production, energy independence, and industrial power.”

Putting America First requires trade metrics that accurately reflect industrial strength, strategic independence, and the value of American workers and manufacturers. However, for decades, official trade figures that treat discounted raw materials from allies the same as imported finished goods from adversaries have misdirected Washington’s attention and obscured how international commerce truly affects American manufacturing.

While trade deficits are often a flashpoint when foreign nations undercut domestic manufacturing, the headline deficit with Canada tells a deceiving story. A closer look reveals a trade arrangement that overwhelmingly favors American production, energy independence, and industrial power. Unlike geopolitical rivals and adversaries that export finished consumer goods, a significant share of U.S. imports from Canada are in the form of raw, unprocessed commodities that are the feedstock for American production and manufacturing. Notably, oil, natural gas, potash, and increasingly, critical minerals account for most of these materials, and the U.S. has historically imported them at significant discounts relative to benchmark prices.

Once America imports these low value raw inputs, American workers provide the processing and refining that turn them into high-value, domestically manufactured consumer goods, driving U.S. job creation and industrial output.

Securing discounted Canadian crude oil, natural gas, potash, and critical minerals breaks our dependence on hostile foreign cartels like OPEC+, supports American farmers and workers, and secures discounted supply chains needed for American manufacturing dominance. Looking only at the total Canadian import bill risks overlooking where jobs and economic prosperity are ultimately created.

For energy, fertilizers, and raw or unfinished metals, the value captured from importing relatively low-cost Canadian production also improves the overall U.S. trade balance globally by allowing the U.S. to sell finished goods at a premium. In the end, these imported, low-cost Canadian inputs fuel U.S. high-value exports to the rest of the world.

Given these raw goods’ contribution to American exports, it is worth considering whether to adopt an alternate perspective on the U.S.-Canada trade balance. Historically, U.S. customs law has treated foreign inputs as “originating” in the imported country when substantial transformation occurs, such as when raw goods are refined or manufactured into high-value finished goods.

Preferential Trade Agreements, such as the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA), codify the substantial transformational analysis into detailed rules of origin (ROO) that require certain percentages of content to come from the trade region (i.e., Regional Value Content or RVC), shifts in tariff classifications, and, increasingly, use certain percentages of goods (e.g., steel and aluminum) and labor valued at certain rates. Rebalanced and reciprocal trade policy needs to go an additional step forward. Specifically, U.S. trade frameworks should recognize that America’s ability to produce a trade surplus is built on the oil, natural gas, potash, and critical minerals relationship between Canada and the U.S.

The U.S. should designate these Canadian inputs that undergo substantial transformation in U.S. manufacturing facilities, which are typically operated by the same or related companies that perform the raw materials’ production, as domestic goods under U.S. laws and regulations. Rather than allowing U.S. trade figures to continue to mask the positive impacts of certain Canadian imports, trade figures should treat these as domestic goods. Acknowledging this reality would virtually eliminate the trade deficit with Canada and refocus trade policy on creating more opportunity and growth for American workers.

Germany’s Gas Storage at Just 58% — Nearly 19 Points Below Last Year Ahead of Winter

In a letter dated around September 25 (seen by POLITICO and other outlets), Jørgensen wrote that “in the context of constrained global supply and high price volatility, demand reduction can be an effective tool to contain prices.”

Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen sent a letter to national energy ministers shortly before the informal meeting of EU Energy Ministers (Informal Energy Council) held in Dublin on 28- 29 September 2026, under Ireland’s EU Presidency and chaired by Irish Minister Darragh O’Brien.

Current level (gas day 27 September 2026): Approximately 57.6- 57.9% full (most precise reported figures center on 57.63%).

Infographic showing Germany's gas storage levels at 58% for 2026, nearly 19 points lower than 77% in 2025, ahead of winter.
AI generated be Grok

The European Commission (via Energy and Housing Commissioner Dan Jørgensen) has urged EU member states to implement or continue targeted measures to reduce gas and electricity demand in the coming months, primarily to help contain high and volatile prices amid constrained global supply.

In a letter dated around September 25 (seen by POLITICO and other outlets), Jørgensen wrote that “in the context of constrained global supply and high price volatility, demand reduction can be an effective tool to contain prices.”

He invited ministers to take measures reducing demand for gas and electricity “for as long as necessary.” He described the situation as challenging but stated there are “currently no immediate risks to security of supply.”

Drivers: Gas storage levels in the EU are exceptionally and historically low (reports cite around 68- 70% of capacity, well below typical levels for the period and roughly 12 percentage points under the prior year). Contributing factors include disruptions from conflict involving Iran and Middle East affecting global gas and LNG flows, competition for LNG from Asia, high prices making storage refills costly, and an exceptionally hot and dry summer that increased electricity demand (and thus gas use for power generation).

Storage targets: The usual EU target is 90% fill by early November, but flexibility allows aiming for around 80% this year to avoid panic buying and ease price pressure.

Nature of the call: It emphasizes voluntary, well- planned measures drawing lessons from the 2022 energy crisis (post- Ukraine invasion). It is not a mandatory “lockdown,” rationing order, or new binding EU-wide quota. Suggested examples include limiting temperatures in public buildings, restricting outdoor heating, switching off unnecessary public lighting at night, reducing electricity use in peak hours (which can cut gas burn at marginal power plants), greater use of smart meters/demand flexibility, and preparing contingency tools if needed. Price- support measures should be well- targeted and temporary to avoid boosting demand.

Multiple European outlets (Euronews, national papers, etc.) corroborated the letter’s content in the days after POLITICO’s report.

The framing as an “energy lockdown” appears in some commentary or headlines but overstates the Commission’s language, which stresses preparation, voluntary action, and price containment rather than enforced austerity or supply cuts. Europe is described as better prepared than in 2021- 22 thanks to more LNG capacity, renewables, and prior demand reductions, though still exposed due to fossil fuel import dependence.

This reflects ongoing efforts to manage winter risks without declaring an emergency. Developments could shift with weather, LNG availability, or further geopolitical changes.

Dashboard displaying Germany's natural gas storage levels as of September 29, 2026, showing a working capacity of 248 TWh and gas in storage at 142.9 TWh. The current storage is at 57.7%, with a monthly change of +5.1pp. Winter readiness status is indicated as moderate, with a score of 68/100.
Germany Gas Storage Levels Today (%) | Live Data & Storage Trends

Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen sent a letter to national energy ministers shortly before the informal meeting of EU Energy Ministers (Informal Energy Council) held in Dublin on 28- 29 September 2026, under Ireland’s EU Presidency and chaired by Irish Minister Darragh O’Brien.

In the letter, he described EU gas storage levels as “exceptionally low” for the time of year and the overall situation as remaining difficult. He reiterated that there are “currently no immediate risks to security of supply,” while urging ministers to examine (or continue) measures that can reduce gas and electricity consumption and support storage injections “for as long as necessary.” This aligns with the broader call for voluntary, targeted demand-reduction steps to help contain high and volatile prices amid constrained global supply.

Multiple reports and data sources place EU gas storage at around 70% (range of roughly 68- 71% depending on the exact snapshot and source, such as Gas Infrastructure Europe, AGSI and others) toward the end of September 2026. This is approximately 12 percentage points below the level at the same point the previous year and well below the five- year seasonal average (often cited in the mid- to- high 80s percent range for late September).

Fill levels vary significantly by country (e.g., higher in France and Italy, lower in Germany and some others). The Commission has already granted flexibility on the usual 90% fill target by early November, allowing countries to aim closer to 80% (or lower under difficult conditions) to avoid driving prices higher through simultaneous buying.

The Dublin informal meeting focused on energy affordability, innovation/market issues, and energy security and cooperation (including with partner countries).

It was not expected to produce binding decisions but to coordinate approaches ahead of the formal Energy Council later in the autumn. Jørgensen has publicly noted the approaching tough winter on prices while emphasizing longer- term direction toward more clean domestic energy, efficiency, interconnections, and electrification.

Dashboard showing storage facilities data with a fill level of 57.7% categorized as moderate on September 28, 2026, with 24-hour change indicated.
German Gas Storage Levels 2026 – Gasspeicher.app | Live AGSI+ Data

Germany’s natural gas storage (as of late September 2026)

Current level (gas day 27 September 2026): Approximately 57.6- 57.9% full (most precise reported figures center on 57.63%).

This corresponds to roughly 142- 143 TWh of working gas in storage (out of a total working capacity of about 247 TWh). Data come from the AGSI and platform of Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), as published by the Bundesnetzagentur and tracking sites.

Levels have been rising slowly during the injection season (net daily gains of around +0.2- 0.3 percentage points recently) but remain well below typical seasonal norms.

Comparison: 2025 vs 2026 (same period in late September)

YearFill level (late September)Difference vs 2026
2026~57.6–57.9%—
2025~76.6%~19 percentage points higher
  • On the equivalent gas day in 2025, German storage stood at approximately 76.6%.
  • 2026 is therefore about 19 percentage points lower.

For additional context:

  • September 2024 levels were much higher (around 95- 96%).
  • Germany’s current fill rate is also significantly below the EU average (~71%) and historical multi-year averages for late September (often in the mid- to- high 80s percent range).

These low levels reflect a combination of a colder previous winter (deeper drawdowns), high gas prices limiting injections, and market/geopolitical factors affecting LNG and pipeline supplies. German authorities and industry (e.g., VNG) have stated that supply security is still viewed as stable due to diversified imports and LNG capacity, though the buffer heading into winter is thinner than in recent years. Figures update daily via AGSI and other, Bundesnetzagentur.