Day: February 18, 2026

Models Gone Wild: The Ionosphere Triggers Earthquakes?

The idea that ionospheric disturbances could influence earthquakes is an emerging and speculative concept in geophysics, primarily explored in a recent theoretical model rather than through established empirical evidence.

The idea that ionospheric disturbances could influence earthquakes is an emerging and speculative concept in geophysics, primarily explored in a recent theoretical model rather than through established empirical evidence.

However, this remains a speculative hypothesis rather than an established fact, and the mainstream scientific view continues to treat ionospheric changes primarily as consequences of earthquakes (co-seismic effects) or potential precursors from below-ground processes, not drivers from above.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

From the “anything goes in modeling these days” department. Here’s my take on it.

The paper proposes a capacitive coupling model in which a fractured crustal zone supposedly acts as a capacitor, storing charge that interacts with the ionosphere, and reciprocally, solar-flare–enhanced ionospheric charge induces electrostatic pressures in crustal voids sufficient to trigger rupture.

It is certainly an imaginative (and that is being generous) attempt to unify atmospheric electricity and seismology, but the central weakness is that it moves rapidly from correlation to causation without robust empirical validation.

The authors assume, for example, that descending ionospheric charge density can be treated as equal to total electron content (TEC) and that this charge forms an effective space-charge layer capable of inducing megapascal-scale pressures. That assumption alone carries enormous physical uncertainty: TEC is an integrated vertical column measurement over hundreds of kilometers, not a direct proxy for localized lower-ionospheric space charge. Likewise, the model presumes idealized dielectric behavior in fractured crust saturated with supercritical water, with specified permittivity, breakdown voltage, and uniform void connectivity, yet these parameters are not constrained by real-world field measurements at seismogenic depths. In short, the mechanism rests on layered assumptions rather than observational confirmation. It is a lot like climate science.

Moreover, the invocation of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake and coincident solar flare activity as supporting evidence reads more like post hoc pattern matching than statistical demonstration . Solar flares are frequent; earthquakes are frequent; coincidences will occur. A convincing case would require rigorous statistical analysis across many events, controlling for flare magnitude, geomagnetic latitude, background stress state, and tidal forcing. Instead, the pressure estimates (e.g., ~5 × 10⁶ N/m² for 10 TECU) are presented as comparable to tidal or gravitational stresses , yet no sensitivity analysis is offered to show how stable those results are under more realistic conductivity, charge dissipation, or geometric heterogeneity. The Earth’s crust is not a laboratory capacitor with neatly parallel plates, and electric fields in conductive, fluid-rich rock are likely to dissipate rapidly. IMHO, the paper reads as speculative fiction.

Via Eurekalert:
Could ionospheric disturbances influence earthquakes?

Kyoto, Japan — Researchers at Kyoto University have proposed a new physical model that explores how disturbances in the ionosphere may exert electrostatic forces within the Earth’s crust and potentially contribute to the initiation of large earthquakes under specific conditions.

The study does not aim to predict earthquakes but rather presents a theoretical mechanism describing how ionospheric charge variations — caused by intense solar activity such as solar flares — could interact with pre-existing fragile structures in the Earth’s crust and influence fracture processes.

In the proposed model, fractured zones within the Earth’s crust are assumed to contain high-temperature, high-pressure water, potentially in a supercritical state. These zones behave electrically like capacitors and are capacitively coupled with both the ground surface and the lower ionosphere, forming a large-scale electrostatic system.

When strong solar activity increases electron density in the ionosphere, a negatively charged layer can form in the lower ionosphere. Through capacitive coupling, this space charge may induce strong electric fields inside nanometer-scale voids within fractured crustal regions. The resulting electrostatic pressure could reach magnitudes comparable to tidal or gravitational stresses known to affect fault stability.

Quantitative estimates in the study suggest that ionospheric disturbances associated with large solar flares — corresponding to increases in total electron content of several tens of TEC units — could generate electrostatic pressures on the order of several megapascals within crustal voids.

Ionospheric anomalies, such as increased electron density, lowered ionospheric altitude, and slowed abnormal propagation of medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances, have been repeatedly observed prior to major earthquakes. Traditionally, these phenomena have been interpreted as consequences of stress accumulation within the Earth’s crust.

The new model provides a complementary perspective by proposing a bidirectional interaction: while crustal processes may affect the ionosphere, ionospheric disturbances themselves may also exert feedback forces on the crust. This framework offers a possible physical explanation linking space weather phenomena and seismic processes without invoking direct causation.

The study discusses recent large earthquakes in Japan, including the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, as examples that are temporally consistent with the proposed mechanism. In these cases, intense solar flare activity occurred shortly before the seismic events. The authors emphasize that such temporal coincidence does not establish direct causality but is consistent with a scenario in which ionospheric disturbances act as a contributing factor when the crust is already in a critical state.

By integrating concepts from plasma physics, atmospheric science, and geophysics, the proposed model broadens the conventional view of earthquakes as purely internal Earth processes. The findings suggest that monitoring ionospheric conditions, together with subsurface observations, may help improve scientific understanding of earthquake initiation processes and seismic hazard assessment.

Future research will focus on combining high-resolution GNSS-based ionospheric tomography with space weather data to clarify the conditions under which ionospheric disturbances may exert significant electrostatic influence on the Earth’s crust.

###

The paper “Possible Mechanism of Ionospheric Anomalies to Trigger Earthquakes: Electrostatic Coupling Between the Ionosphere and the Crust and the Resulting Electric Forces Acting Within the Crust” appeared on 3 February 2026 in International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, with doi: 10.34343/ijpest.2026.20.e01003

https://ijpest.com/Contents/20/1/e01003.html

CERES Data Shocker: Clouds and Albedo Changes Account for All Modern Warming

Nikolov and Zeller use NASA CERES satellite data on planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and compare it to their semi-empirical model, which downplays or replaces the traditional greenhouse effect with a thermodynamic pressure-based explanation for atmospheric warming.

Nikolov and Zeller use NASA CERES satellite data on planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and compare it to their semi-empirical model, which downplays or replaces the traditional greenhouse effect with a thermodynamic pressure-based explanation for atmospheric warming.

Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller note that prior studies (including CERES satellite observations) have documented a decreasing planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and corresponding increase in absorbed solar radiation since the early 1980s, accelerating after 2000. They argue this has contributed significantly to observed surface warming but has been inadequately addressed by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

Note that prior studies (including CERES satellite observations) have documented a decreasing planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and corresponding increase in absorbed solar radiation since the early 1980s, accelerating after 2000. They argue this has contributed significantly to observed surface warming but has been inadequately addressed by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

They used Dimensional Analysis (an objective mathematical technique to identify functional relationships from data) applied to vetted NASA observations from six Solar System bodies with rocky surfaces and atmospheres (or lack thereof): Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan (Saturn’s moon), and Triton (Neptune’s moon). These span wide ranges of solar irradiance, atmospheric pressure, composition, and temperature.

The authors conclude that recent warming is entirely explainable by observed solar forcing via albedo changes (mainly clouds), leaving “no room” for GHG radiative forcing or positive feedback in climate models.

The standard greenhouse effect theory in mainstream climate science explains why Earth’s surface is about 33°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (average ~288 K or 15°C instead of ~255 K or -18°C for a bare “blackbody” planet at Earth’s distance from the Sun). This is a well-established process rooted in radiative physics, energy balance, and observations, dating back to foundational work by Joseph Fourier (1824), John Tyndall (1859–1860s experiments), Svante Arrhenius (1896 quantitative estimates), and modern radiative transfer models.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Challenges to the CO2 Global Warming Hypothesis: (13) Global Warming Entirely from Declining Planetary Albedo

From Clintel

By Ralph B. Alexander

One of my early posts in this series on challenges to the CO2 global warming hypothesis featured a paper claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Now the same authors appear to have sidestepped that claim in proposing instead that current global warming can be explained entirely by the observed decrease in planetary albedo over the last few decades.

In a new paper, U.S. research scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller compare empirical observations of albedo made by CERES (Earth’s Radiant Energy System) satellites to the output of a semiempirical mathematical model used in their earlier work. In their model, the radiative effects integral to the greenhouse effect are replaced by a thermodynamic relationship between air temperature, solar heating and atmospheric pressure, analogous to compression heating of the atmosphere.

Nikolov and Zeller conclude that the observed decrease of planetary albedo, together with variations of solar output or TSI (total solar irradiance), account for 100% of the global warming trend as well as 83% of the interannual variability in global surface air temperature. They find that temperature changes are driven primarily by albedo changes, with only a marginal contribution from TSI.

Albedo is a measure of the earth’s ability to reflect incoming solar radiation. Melting of light-colored snow and sea ice due to warming exposes darker surfaces such as soil, rock and seawater, which have lower albedo. The less reflective surfaces absorb more of the sun’s radiation and thus push temperatures higher.

The same effect occurs with low-level clouds, which are the majority of the planet’s cloud cover. Low-level clouds such as cumulus and stratus clouds are thick enough to reflect 30-60% of the sun’s radiation that strikes them back into space, so they act like a parasol and normally cool the earth’s surface. But less cloud cover lowers albedo and therefore results in warming.

The figure below shows CERES measurements of global albedo from 2000 to 2024, expressed as a percentage anomaly of the 2001 to 2022 mean. The albedo decrease since 2000 is approximately 0.79%, which implies an increase in absorbed shortwave solar radiation of 2.7 watts per square meter over that period. The two researchers point out that this absorption is very close to the total anthropogenic forcing of 2.72 watts per square meter from 1750 to 2019 estimated by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its AR6 (Sixth Assessment Report).

Source of all images: Scienceunderattack.com

The decline in albedo corresponds to a similar reduction in low cloud cover studied by a trio of German environmental scientists, which I discussed in a 2025 post. Their data for total (red curve) and low cloud (lower black) cover, calculated by the study authors from two separate sets of satellite data, is presented in the next figure. The lowered cloud cover is most prominent in northern mid-latitudes and the tropics.

The next figure shows CERES measurements of absorbed shortwave radiation from 2000 to 2024 along with global surface air temperature, measured as the average of six temperature datasets (HadCRUT5, GISTEMP4, NOAA Global, BEST, RSS and NOAA STAR). The temperature anomaly tracks changes in the absorbed solar flux with an average lag of approximately 4 months. Nikolov and Zeller say this close empirical relationship suggests that temperature is directly controlled by the absorbed solar flux.

The researchers quantify the individual effects of albedo and TSI on surface temperatures by using their semiempirical mathematical model. The following figure compares modeled temperatures based on each of these two factors with observations. It’s clear that variations in TSI play only a minimal role while variations in albedo dominate the temperature trend.

This conclusion is also supported by the next figure, which depicts the modeled contribution to albedo and TSI separately going back to 1981. According to Nikolov and Zeller’s model, the low contribution from TSI variation indicates that the earth’s climate is 5.6 times more sensitive to changes in solar absorption than to TSI variations.

The estimate is in good agreement with a conclusion reached by Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who has investigated the effect of TSI cycles on several climatic variables. Shaviv found that total solar forcing of the earth’s climate, which includes indirect effects, is 5 to 7 times larger than that associated with direct solar warming.  Such a large amplification factor would imply that the climate is much more sensitive to the sun than to CO2. Of the various possible indirect amplification mechanisms, Shaviv favors the influence of cosmic rays on low cloud cover.

Nonetheless, the observation of declining albedo or low cloud cover begs the chicken-and-egg question: is decreased albedo the cause or effect of current warming? While Nikolov and Zeller argue for the former, they also call for large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the earth’s albedo and cloud physics, in order to resolve the question.

This article by Ralph B. Alexander was published on February 16 at: scienceunderattack.com.

The hidden impact of polluted snow

From the “not that yellow snow” department. Research into light and snow interactions provides new insights into how black carbon pollution can affect vegetation growth and impact ecosystems. As I’ve always suspected, it plays a central role in some of the melts we see on surface ice in the Arctic. This study confirms what I’ve said and written in the past about it but takes it further and applies it to plant growth. -Anthony

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

From the “not that yellow snow” department. Research into light and snow interactions provides new insights into how black carbon pollution can affect vegetation growth and impact ecosystems. As I’ve always suspected, it plays a central role in some of the melts we see on surface ice in the Arctic. This study confirms what I’ve said and written in the past about it but takes it further and applies it to plant growth. -Anthony

Via Eurekalert:

As Canada experiences record snowfall, new research from the University of Waterloo suggests that tiny amounts of industrial pollution trapped in snow can change how sunlight reaches the ground below and significantly alter fragile environments.  

The culprit is black carbon, a sooty form of pollution produced when fossil fuels burn incompletely. It can come from vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions and other combustion sources. While black carbon is already known to contribute to warming, the Waterloo research highlights another, less visible effect: how it alters the “light environment” under snow in ways that affect plant growth.

Even at the height of winter, some sunlight is transmitted through snow and reaches soil, seeds and vegetation beneath. Snow doesn’t let all light through equally. As it propagates certain wavelengths of light and absorbs others that are vital for biological processes, like seed germination, cold activation tolerance and chlorophyll production, it can affect the development of vegetation that’s just below the snow. Conversely, snow reflects light at specific wavelengths that can actually disrupt plant dormancy and stimulate stem growth, influencing how higher plants develop.   

“Our research indicates that black carbon can have a significant effect on vegetation growth patterns even when there are only a few parts per billion in snow,” said Dr. Gladimir Baranoski, a professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo. “It can alter which wavelengths of light make it through snow, throwing off finely tuned natural cycles.”

The researchers used computer simulations to examine how different amounts of black carbon change the light that snow reflects into the atmosphere and transmits down to the ground. Their results show distinct changes at specific wavelengths, changes that align with “greening,” a phenomenon observed in some high-latitude and high-altitude regions where vegetation appears to be expanding or emerging earlier than expected. 

In places that normally remain snow-covered well into the season, plants may begin growing sooner, or different types of vegetation may gain an advantage. The team says their findings are consistent with reports of forested areas expanding in some northern landscapes, while some low-lying plants may struggle to develop under altered conditions.

Those shifts matter because northern and alpine ecosystems are finely tuned to short growing seasons and predictable snow cover. If plants start growing earlier, or if certain species begin to outcompete others, the effects can ripple outward, influencing biodiversity, habitat and how much carbon the landscape stores or releases.

The work builds on a detailed model of how light interacts with snow, developed by Baranoski and Dr. Petri Varsa, a recent PhD graduate in computer science. Using field measurements collected by scientists worldwide, the team has built a versatile model that can be adjusted to predict changes in the light emitted by snow, a major driver of climate change. 
 
This research reflects the University of Waterloo’s Sustainable Futures work—bringing together experts across disciplines to better understand climate-driven environmental change and develop evidence that supports resilient ecosystems and communities. 

While this research focused on black carbon, the next step is to investigate brown carbon, a pollutant produced by burning organic matter, such as during forest fires.

The team’s research is discussed in two papers, “Black carbon impacts on snow and vegetation interactions affecting environmental feedback loops and climate change” and “Aggregate effects of density and black carbon content variations on the hyperspectral reflectance of snow under natural conditions,” both found in the 2025 Proceedings of SPIE: The International Society for Optical Engineering.  

Negative Record in Germany: 94 Large Companies Bankrupt in 2025

In 2025, Germany recorded a negative record with 94 such large companies filing for insolvency. This represents an 8% increase from 2024 (when there were 87 cases) and marks the highest level since Allianz Trade began tracking these figures in 2015.

In 2025, Germany recorded a negative record with 94 such large companies filing for insolvency.

This represents an 8% increase from 2024 (when there were 87 cases) and marks the highest level since Allianz Trade began tracking these figures in 2015.

The sectors most heavily impacted included:

  • Healthcare services, particularly clinics and care facilities (with 9 major cases in this subsector alone, contributing to 14 in the broader services area).
  • Automotive industry (12 cases).
  • Construction sector (10 cases). Other notably affected branches were chemicals and metals (11 each) and retail (9).

This trend contributed to Germany accounting for about 20% of the global total of 475 major insolvencies in 2025 (a new worldwide record, with one large bankruptcy roughly every 18 hours).

Experts from Allianz Trade highlight risks of domino effects on supply chains, especially for smaller suppliers dependent on these large clients.

Allianz Trade and Creditreform forecast continued elevated risks for automotive suppliers into 2026, with major insolvencies potentially rising 15-20% globally and in Germany.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Insolvencies of large companies at record high in 2025 – focus on hospitals, cars and construction

From Blackout News

In the study by Allianz Trade, a company is considered a large company as soon as it reaches at least 50 million euros in annual sales. In 2025, Germany set a negative record for these major insolvencies, as 94 large companies slipped into bankruptcy. Clinics, cars and construction were particularly affected. This is an increase of eight percent compared to 2024 and at the same time the highest level since the beginning of the evaluation in 2015 (handelsblatt: 05.02.26).

Germany is driving the global wave of insolvencies among large companies

The number of major bankruptcies also increased worldwide, with 475 large companies filing for bankruptcy. In mathematical terms, this corresponds to a major insolvency every 18 hours and Germany accounts for around a fifth of the cases. This makes the Federal Republic one of the drivers of the current development, although the causes vary depending on the industry.

“When it crashes, it is often right,” said the CEO of Allianz Trade in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Milo Bogaerts. He also emphasizes: “We have been seeing a significant increase in major insolvencies for four years now, reaching the highest level since 2015 in 2025 – both worldwide and in Germany.” This statement classifies the record values, and at the same time it shows the long-term line behind the figures.

Hospitals, the automotive industry and construction: These sectors are particularly affected

The focus was on the service sector, where the study counted 14 major insolvencies. Among them were nine clinics and care facilities, and it is precisely there that cost increases quickly threaten their existence. This was followed by the automotive industry with twelve cases, while chemicals and metals each recorded eleven major insolvencies.

The construction industry also stood out clearly, with ten major bankruptcies. In addition, the retail sector remains a permanent problem, and it was once again far ahead with nine major insolvencies. This distribution shows how broad the pressure in the market has become, although individual sectors stand out in particular.

Domino effect in supply chains puts smaller companies under pressure to act

For many companies, the danger does not end when a major customer files for insolvency, but only begins then. After all, if a large customer fails, supply chains start to slide, and outstanding receivables quickly become a risk. “The problem with many major insolvencies is the possible domino effect on supply chains,” said Maxime Lemerle, head of insolvency analysis at Allianz Trade.

Smaller companies are particularly at risk because they are often heavily dependent on a few large customers. If one of these customers disappears, sales immediately collapse, and at the same time many partners tighten the payment terms. As a result, a single major insolvency can continue like a shock through entire supplier networks, even though the affected companies themselves appear solid.

Losses are rising worldwide, but Germany is seeing an easing in turnover

Globally, the economic damage increased, as the total turnover of the insolvent large companies rose by twelve percent to 208 billion euros. The largest insolvencies were in the US and China, and both countries accounted for 17 of the 20 largest bankruptcies by turnover. This means that the largest defaults are concentrated in a few markets, although insolvencies are increasing worldwide.

In Germany, on the other hand, there is a countermovement in turnover, as the total turnover of the large companies affected in 2025 fell significantly. It fell by around a third from just under 18 billion euros in the record year 2024 to around twelve billion euros. Bogaerts puts this into perspective: “There were significantly more major insolvencies in Germany in 2025, but the damage caused to suppliers decreased after the peak in 2024,” says Bogaerts. Nevertheless, the value remains high, and it has been at the second-highest level since 2015, which is why the topic remains explosive for companies and suppliers.

Datacenters and electricity costs by the numbers

While there is a push by some politicians of both parties to singularly blame, and in some cases scapegoat, datacenters for rising electricity prices, data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tells a much different story.

From CFACT

B yPaul Steidler

While there is a push by some politicians of both parties to singularly blame, and in some cases scapegoat, datacenters for rising electricity prices, data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tells a much different story.

EIA’s most recent Electric Power Monthly on January 26 found that the nationwide average cost of residential electricity was 17.78 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the month of November 2025. That is up 5.5% from a year ago. It exceeds the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for that period, continuing a disturbing trend that began in 2021, long before the datacenter boom took off.

If datacenters are the singular reason for high electricity prices, then the states with the most of them should be in dire straits, pricewise. They are not.

A January 2026 study from the American Edge Project found that the two states with the most datacenters are, by far, Virginia (663) and Texas (405). These two states account for 26% of all U.S. datacenters.

Yet the average residential electricity rate in Virginia is 15.94 cents per kWh, more than 10% less than the national average. Yes, those costs have increased over the past year, and by slightly more than the national increase (8.2% vs. 5.5%), while Virginia has gained an influx of high-paying jobs, tax revenue, and other economic activity.

In Texas, the average residential electricity rate is 16.04 cents per kWh, 9.8% less than the national average. Over the past year, in energy-friendly Texas, residential electricity prices have risen 2.3%.

At the other end of the cost spectrum is Vermont, home of Senator Bernie Sanders, who has aggressively sought to demonize datacenters. Vermont has the fewest datacenters in the country – three. Yet Vermont’s residential electric rates are 36% above the national average, an onerous financial burden, especially in a state that does not receive the vast economic benefits of datacenters.

Electricity costs have risen faster than the CPI over the past five years due to systemic problems: a shortage of supply (power plants), an aging transmission grid prone to bottlenecks, and regulatory inertia, including intractable permitting delays.

Datacenters can be catalysts for breaking these chains in our electrical system and revitalizing it, so that it not only meets our needs but does so at a lower cost. There is ample precedent for this.

Since electricity was first invented and was initially available only to the wealthy, its costs have trended lower. Despite significant price increases since 2021, according to the Federal Reserve, average residential electricity prices fell by 14.6% from 1978 to 2026 when measured in real dollars, that is, adjusted for inflation.

It is time to accelerate electricity production so that the increased supply dwarfs the rising demand from datacenters, new manufacturing facilities, homes that want to use more electronic devices, and other factors.

With many Americans facing high electricity bills amid the current cold snap, constructive dialogue should begin immediately, using the EIA data and a sober assessment of the immense electricity challenges now facing the country.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

WUWT Leads The Way Again

So … can we put this question to bed? 

There is no evidence of acceleration in the actual tide gauge sea level data, and the apparent acceleration in the satellite data is merely an artifact of splicing disparate satellite records.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@weschenbach on X, my personal blog is here)

I came across a most interesting study about the claimed acceleration in sea levels. For fifty years, we’ve been told that global warming would cause the rate of sea level rise to accelerate. The theory was that increasing temperatures would both cause the ocean water to expand and would also melt land ice and glaciers. Both of these would combine to cause acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

The study in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering is entitled A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes.

From the abstract (emphasis mine):

We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020.

Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis.

In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.

0jmse-13-01641-v3Herunterladen

I laughed out loud when I read this.

Why? 

Because for the last fifteen years, I’ve been saying the same thing. 

Here are my past posts on the subject, along with an AI summary of each one. When I collected them all up, I was surprised at how many analyses I’d written on the question

Putting the Brakes on Acceleration

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration/embed/#?secret=7p1hrcxVkN#?secret=AEtOWA9iMn

2011‑01‑08: Uses long tide‑gauge records to show that strong claimed acceleration in sea‑level rise is not evident in the observational data.

Sea Level Rise Accelerating? Not.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/20/sea-level-rise-accelerating-not/embed/#?secret=qlb7hz2m6j#?secret=d1FS2CRc5A

2017‑07‑19: Fits quadratics to PSMSL tide gauges and reports that average acceleration is effectively zero, contradicting high‑end alarmist claims.

Putting the Brakes on Satellite Acceleration

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/30/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration-2/embed/#?secret=uPsw9SnD4H#?secret=3IY9CKqFl2

2017‑07‑30: Extends the “brakes” analysis to satellite altimetry, arguing that purported acceleration is not robust.

Inside The Acceleration Factory

2018‑12‑17: Dissects how processing choices and model assumptions manufacture an apparent acceleration in sea‑level records.

Sea Level and Effective N

2019‑02‑20: Discusses model fitting and effective degrees of freedom, concluding that any fitted acceleration in sea‑level series is statistically weak.

Looking For Acceleration In All The Wrong Places

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/08/looking-for-acceleration-in-all-the-wrong-places/embed/#?secret=ASxHog8yar#?secret=ASccMM0KDV

2020‑03‑08: Re‑examines tide‑gauge records and reiterates that global data do not support a strong, coherent acceleration signal.

Munging The Sea Level Data

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/21/munging-the-sea-level-data/embed/#?secret=yAAqrh4axZ#?secret=75AYepSN3V

2021‑02‑21: Shows that NOAA’s splicing of TOPEX/Jason records creates an artificial acceleration that largely disappears with consistent treatment.

Historical UK Sea Levels

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/02/historical-uk-sea-levels/embed/#?secret=sxNbH6EzeL#?secret=AdyniFCZtf

2021‑03‑02: Uses long UK tide‑gauge series to show modest, nearly linear rise with no policy‑relevant acceleration.

The Uneasy Sea

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/02/the-uneasy-sea/embed/#?secret=5hpfXaKmSi#?secret=rNdIeC1yQJ

2022-03-02: Argues that tide-gauge and satellite data show no consistent long‑term acceleration in global sea‑level rise, undermining claims of a looming sea‑level “climate emergency.”

Science Catches Up With WUWT

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/29/science-catches-up-with-wuwt/embed/#?secret=2hwFOvwJsj#?secret=BH4nPNj9sk

2022‑12‑29: Highlights a high‑profile reanalysis that, consistent with your earlier work, finds little or no acceleration once TOPEX issues are corrected.

SEA LEVEL! EVERYONE PANIC!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/05/sea-level-everyone-panic/embed/#?secret=vftHVVcYC0#?secret=sP1DMOLSQ4

2024‑05‑05: Reviews spatial tide‑gauge trends and notes that dramatic CO₂‑driven acceleration still fails to appear in the observational data.

Sea Level: NASA Versus NOAA

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/05/sea-level-nasa-versus-noaa/embed/#?secret=qEwx6ONEAM#?secret=SNN74lOW96

2025-05-05: Compares NASA/JPL and NOAA/Colorado satellite series, arguing the supposed acceleration is an artifact of an improper splice and inconsistent processing.

So … can we put this question to bed? 

There is no evidence of acceleration in the actual tide gauge sea level data, and the apparent acceleration in the satellite data is merely an artifact of splicing disparate satellite records.

Further deponent saith not.

Tonight, here on the forested hillside, rain, blessed rain here in drought-prone California. The plants are rejoicing.

My very best to all, with wishes for good times with your families, laughter with your friends, and sunlight far-reaching on the sea …

w.

AS USUAL, I ask that if you disagree with anything I wrote, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS and SHOW us (not just claim) why it is wrong. Avoids endless unnecessary disputes.

Germany Impaled by Climate Virtue

Germany is getting poorer, productivity is falling, and GDP per capita
is declining realities that even the federal government’s massive
debt-financed spending programs can no longer conceal.

Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

“Imagine an argument so airtight about science so settled
over technology so reliable that you have to use censorship
to make sure nobody gives a dissenting opinion.”  @ProctorZ

Thomas Kolbe diagnoses what ails Germany in his article Germany’s Climate Policy Has Moved From Politics To The Courts… And The Economy Is Paying The Price.  H/T Tyler Durden

Germany is the political engine of the Green Deal, yet it continues to fall short of its own CO₂ reduction targets. Now Germany’s Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig has ordered the federal government to tighten its climate targets by the end of March. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by the German Environmental Aid (Deutsche Umwelthilfe), aimed explicitly at increasing political pressure. Germany is tightening the screws on its own catastrophe.

Germany in 2026: the economy has entered its eighth consecutive year of industrial decline. Companies are shutting down, and hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been lost in the core sectors of the country’s former prosperity—chemicals, mechanical engineering, and above all the automotive industry.

Climate change has struck—or rather, the ideologically skewed and
socially unprecedented self-destructive frenzy of German politics has begun
to shred any remaining hope of a return to normal economic conditions.

The attempt to free the country from conventional energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal through a rapid transition to CO₂-free energy—politically and psychologically inflated into a moral crusade to “save the planet”—has failed.

Given the devastating competitive position of the German economy, which now pays energy prices roughly three times higher than competitors in reference locations such as France or the United States, any rational observer would urgently recommend consigning the entire transformation agenda to the dustbin of failed political hubris and collective delusion.

What remains is damage control:

♦  a rapid return to a market-based energy system,
♦  an end to destructive environmental and social experiments, and
♦  an unavoidable restructuring of the welfare state to reflect new economic realities.

Germany is getting poorer, productivity is falling, and GDP per capita
is declining realities that even the federal government’s massive
debt-financed spending programs can no longer conceal.

Yet Germany in 2026 is no ordinary country. Its political elite, supported by an affirming media ecosystem, has entrenched itself in a self-referential system of emissions-centered economic control—a system now reinforced by judicial authority.

In its ruling, the court mandated that the government sharpen its environmental targets. Under current conditions, a gap of at least 200 million tons of CO₂ would remain by 2045, which must now be eliminated across Germany’s entire economic structure.

Judges who effectively substitute political objectives for democratic
deliberation is now setting the framework for Germany’s continued decline.

The lawsuit was brought by the German Environmental Aid—an organization already known for launching the first serious legal assault on Germany’s automotive industry during earlier battles over particulate emissions in city centers. The pressure on Germany is now coming from within: from a taxpayer-funded NGO complex that appears determined to politically delegitimize key industries, with the state apparatus firmly on its side.

According to Deutschlandfunk, a leaked draft from the SPD-led Environment Ministry outlines a new climate program aimed at achieving climate neutrality by 2045. Spanning more than 330 pages, it appears the government anticipated judicial escalation and preemptively prepared the groundwork for a revised climate law. Political conflict has been outsourced to the courts, to the relief of Berlin’s climate hardliners amid worsening economic conditions.

Among the core measures is the intensified “heat transition” in the building sector. The ministry proposes increasing subsidies for low-income households—up to 40 percent of costs—for heating replacements and heat pump installations. A generous solution for the climate-policy establishment, conveniently rolled out during an election season.

The leaked strategy signals a general increase in transformation pressure. No fundamentally new instruments are introduced; instead, property owners are placed under tighter time constraints to replace heating systems.

Climate policy and financial affordability are colliding ever more sharply. Amid a prolonged recession, the government is deliberately provoking social conflict while attempting to pacify it through ever-expanding subsidies.

Germany’s public debt, at roughly 65 percent of GDP, still appears moderate by European standards. In Berlin, this is interpreted as ample room to finance the transformation through rising debt while simultaneously increasing pressure on the private sector.

Environment Minister Carsten Schneider speaks optimistically of new “climate jobs.” The overall picture, however, increasingly resembles political farce. A state that secures public consent for its transformation agenda through debt, subsidies, and higher taxes acts obscenely and invites long-term economic damage.

Plans even include methane measurement programs for livestock, modeled after New Zealand—yet another blow to farmers. German emissions policy is entering a manic phase, blurring the line between real policy and political satire.

The subsidy machine continues to spin. The government plans to support 800,000 electric vehicles in the coming years. Credit resources remain abundant after Chancellor Friedrich Merz effectively neutralized the constitutional debt brake with the previous parliament. By 2040, electric vehicles are supposed to account for 70 percent of Germany’s car fleet—despite the absence of any credible plan for supplying the required electricity.

Artificial, technocratic necessity has replaced political debate. From the outset, it was clear that the supposed softening of the combustion-engine ban was mere political theater—a sedative for citizens gradually awakening to the scale of the green ideological disaster.

The energy sector faces further tightening. Dozens of reserve gas power plants are to be added, while existing plants are to be converted to hydrogen capability. Offshore wind projects abroad are being accelerated. These measures amount to desperate rescue attempts for a failed energy transition—an assessment implicitly acknowledged even by the Environment Ministry itself. Model-driven hope has replaced rational judgment.

Technocrats Deliver Catastrophes

Germany’s climate policy, entangled in a feedback loop with Brussels, has ossified into an auto-referential system marked by a narrow temporal vision and growing argumentative poverty. Looming over it all is the threat of further litigation by the German Environmental Aid should the final legislation fail to meet its standards.

Germany now finds itself in the grip of green ideologues who have subordinated all parties behind an ideological firewall. The environmental lobby’s greatest success came when it elevated the Net Zero target to constitutional status.

How much greater must the economic pressure become before a majority forms
—even in front of this firewall—to dismantle this manifest political folly?

Endangerment Finding Rescission Victory for Science and Law

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin in the Trump administration, finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding.

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin in the Trump administration, finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding.

Litigation is already underway or expected from states, environmental organizations, and others, potentially challenging the rescission as arbitrary/capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From The Daily Signal

By Jack Spencer

The Trump administration’s decision to rescind the endangerment finding regarding carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles is a huge win for all Americans—and the environment.

To recap, the Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that so-called greenhouse gases were pollutants and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act—if they contribute to dangerous air pollution. Then President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency took that opportunity in 2009 to declare that these gases threaten the public’s health and welfare, and emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that alleged problem.

As stated on the EPA website, the 2009 findings did not themselves create any environmental regulation but were a “prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles and other sectors.” Obama and President Joe Biden took full advantage of that prerequisite.

The Clean Power Plan, the Electric Vehicle Mandate, and a train wreck of other greenhouse gas regulations were a direct result of the Endangerment Finding. That is because even though the Endangerment Finding spoke on tailpipe emissions from vehicles, the Obama and Biden administrations claimed that it required them to regulate greenhouse gas emissions anywhere and everywhere.

Regulating everything everywhere all at once was, in fact, the true purpose of the Endangerment Finding.

The problem is that the entire argument to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act was built on a melting ice sculpture.

Though the detailed legal argument is worth diving into, suffice it to say the act was never meant to regulate greenhouse gases and such regulation was certainly not expressly authorized by Congress.

This matters a lot.

Gases like CO2 are naturally occurring and everywhere.

Nearly every activity and everybody emits carbon dioxide.

Thus, the endangerment finding essentially opened the floodgates for broader regulation of CO2 and that essentially gave a handful of bureaucrats in Washington the authority to regulate our entire lives.

It also helped to provide the justification for the Biden administration to integrate climate change considerations into regulatory actions, such as those related to the National Environmental Policy Act and from agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy. That is why CO2 regulations never stopped at cars or power production but included efforts to control everything from ice cream trucks to backyard grills to home furnaces.

Repealing the endangerment finding though is not just about legal overreach. Regulating CO2 never made sense at any level.

Despite the lectures, the virtue signaling, and promises of impending climate doom, global warming extremists never had much of a leg to stand on and anyone paying attention could see that.

They threw every propaganda technique at the wall and somehow got many to stick.

First, they created fear.

We were told that the science was settled—we were always just a few years away from the tipping point from which there would be no return. We were told that every fire, every tornado, every sex-changing lizard (yes) was caused by global warming.

Then they went after the kids. Schools began teaching global warming at almost every grade level.

Science is not something that is ever “settled” but is rather an approach of observation and testing that helps us to better understand our reality. Our understanding of climate and what causes it to change over time has never been as well understood as we were told.

Perhaps that biggest deception of all is that even if one accepts the science as purported by climate alarmists, the regulatory authority of EPA, and the fear mongering, there is no amount of CO2 reduction that the United States could do that would have any meaningful impact on climate.

According to the climate sensitivity models used by the same agencies that want to regulate CO2, not even the most draconian carbon dioxide reduction schemes would make a bit of environmental difference.

None of this means that we should do nothing. Environmental issues are important and should be taken seriously, but they should not be hijacked to advance ulterior agendas, which was clearly the case with global warming policy.

President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin should be applauded for actually following the science and respecting the rule of law–things that have been too often ignored when it comes to climate.

Jack Spencer is a senior research fellow for Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation.