Day: May 7, 2026

Satellite-Era Data Show Mostly Stable Landfall Intensities but Declining Frequency of Western North Pacific Typhoons (1980–2023)

Tropical cyclone (TC) landfalls in the Western North Pacific (WNP) affect several nations and territories, including the Philippines, Taiwan, China (especially southern and eastern coasts), Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong, and Micronesia. The WNP is the most active TC basin globally, but satellite-era observations (1980–2023) show nuanced patterns in landfall frequency and intensity.

Tropical cyclone (TC) landfalls in the Western North Pacific (WNP) affect several nations and territories, including the Philippines, Taiwan, China (especially southern and eastern coasts), Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong, and Micronesia. The WNP is the most active TC basin globally, but satellite-era observations (1980–2023) show nuanced patterns in landfall frequency and intensity.

Observations in this period are more reliable due to consistent satellite coverage.

Related findings include:

Global or basin-specific studies (e.g., Klotzbach et al.) have shown flat-to-declining overall TC frequency and ACE in recent decades, with mixed signals on intensity (some increase in the proportion of intense storms but not always in overall energy).

Longer-term reconstructions (e.g., Chand et al. 2022) suggest declining TC frequency over the 20th century, consistent with weakening Hadley/Walker circulations.

Climate models (CMIP6 and others) often project future decreases in global TC frequency (e.g., 2–10% by late 21st century under high-emissions scenarios), alongside potential increases in the proportion of intense storms or shifts in tracks/intensity in some basins.

Trends vary by basin (e.g., North Atlantic has shown increases in some metrics, partly linked to aerosols or other factors). Detection/attribution remains challenging due to natural variability (ENSO, etc.), data limitations pre-satellite era, and differences in metrics (frequency vs. intensity vs. landfalls vs. ACE). Individual events like landfalling major typhoons can still cause significant impacts regardless of overall trends.

There is an open-access paper by Bell et al. (2026) in Natural Hazards, which analyzes 1980–2023 satellite-era best-track data (interpolated to 30-min intervals) for TC landfall intensity (Vmax, maximum sustained winds) across WNP nations/regions.

This study adds to evidence of stable or declining activity in the WNP during the satellite era, highlighting the gap between some projections and recent observations. For the full paper, search for “Bell et al. 2026 Tropical cyclone landfall intensity western North Pacific” (published in Natural Hazards).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Tropical cyclone landfall intensity (Vmax) for western North Pacific nations: return period and trends

Bell et al. (2026) in Natural Hazards provides the most detailed recent analysis of tropical cyclone (TC) landfall intensity (Vmax, maximum sustained winds) trends and return periods for western North Pacific (WNP) nations/regions using 1980–2023 satellite-era best-track data.

Landfall Intensity and Frequency

Landfall frequency: Mostly insignificant trends across individual nations/regions after ENSO adjustment. Significant decreases appear in the northern Philippines and parts of Micronesia (including for intense storms with Vmax > 33 m/s).

Upper-tail intensity: The distribution of stronger Vmax values increased for 5 of 7 nations/regions in 2002–2023 compared to 1980–2001 (including the Philippines and Micronesia). This partially offsets the poleward shift in TC activity.

Ex-TC (post-tropical) landfalls: Some increases, notably over southwest Japan.

Basin-wide ACE: Weak decline (~–7.6 units/decade after ENSO adjustment); land-based ACE nearly flat (+0.1 units/decade).

ENSO modulation: Strong influences on tracks and landfall patterns (e.g., more landfalls/intense events in certain areas during El Niño vs. La Niña), but long-term trends often remain insignificant once adjusted.

Mean landfall Vmax trends are largely flat or insignificant in most areas, consistent with broader satellite-era observations of stable-to-declining overall activity in the WNP despite some signals of increased pre-landfall intensification in sub-regions.

Return Periods for Vmax

The study uses a modified extreme value analysis based on “peak average” winds and a reference curve to estimate return levels on a 1°×1° grid (accounting for sparse intense events). Higher return intensities concentrate around island nations and decay inland.

Table 3 from Bell et al. (2026) — Maximum Vmax return intensities (m/s) at different return periods (R) for each region (representative high-value grid points):

Region10 yr50 yr100 yr200 yrCoordinates
Philippines76.588.692.796.2122°E, 21°N
Japan Islands68.479.282.386.1124°E, 25°N
Micronesia65.475.779.282.3146°E, 16°N
Taiwan62.372.175.478.3122°E, 23°N
Japan-main55.764.567.570.0130°E, 33°N
China50.858.961.664.0121°E, 28°N
Hong Kong46.053.355.757.9115°E, 22°N
Korea43.850.853.155.2129°E, 35°N
Vietnam42.549.351.653.5107°E, 18°N

Interpretation: 1-in-200-year Vmax values are highest over the Philippines, southern Japanese islands, Micronesia, and Taiwan (often ~50–96+ m/s in exposed coastal spots). They are relatively lower over Vietnam, Korea, and (mainland) China. Southern Japan can have higher extremes than higher-frequency areas like Hainan despite fewer crossings. Return levels decay inland from coasts.

Maps in the paper show spatial patterns, with ENSO differences (e.g., certain areas more prone to extremes in El Niño or La Niña phases).

Caveats and Context

Data limitations: Pre-1980 records are less reliable; agency differences in wind averaging and intensity estimation add uncertainty, especially for the strongest storms.

Natural variability: ENSO and other modes dominate on decadal scales; the 44-year record is relatively short.

Projections vs. observations: Models often project decreases in overall TC frequency but increases in the proportion of intense storms and possible track shifts. Observed WNP trends (declining frequency/ACE) have not fully aligned with some earlier expectations of broad increases.

Risk implications: These metrics are useful for catastrophe modeling and planning but must combine with exposure, vulnerability, and local factors. Rare events remain highly impactful.

For full details, figures, and tables, read the open-access paper: Bell et al. (2026) in Natural Hazards. This provides a robust observational baseline grounded in satellite data.

Published: Natural Hazards

Authors: Samuel S. Bell, 
Savin S. Chand, 
Philip J. Klotzbach, 
Marie Ekström, 
Valentina Koschatzsky, 
Sarvesh Kumar, 
Krishneel K. Sharma & 
Mona Hemmati 

Abstract

Human impacts, including financial losses, are closely related to the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclone (TC) landfalls in the western North Pacific (WNP) region. Here, 44 years of observational TC wind speed (Vmax) and track records (1980–2023) are used to examine TC landfall intensity trends and recurrence. Analysis is conducted over individual nations and includes modulation by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which has recently exhibited increasing asymmetries in spatial and temporal evolution. Two modern ENSO indices are first evaluated before one is selected to classify TC seasons into canonical phases. Landfall trends over individual nations are insignificant, but significant decreases are noted for the northern Philippines and parts of Micronesia, including for intense (>  33 m s–1) Vmax. However, the distribution of upper-tail Vmax values increases for 5 of 7 nations over the recent period, including the Philippines and Micronesia, confounding the impact of the much-noted poleward shift in WNP TC activity. Ex-TC landfall trends, while less robust, are also evaluated, and shown to have increased over the southwest corner of Japan. Lastly, a modified return period framework is employed to estimate the recurrence of Vmax at various locations based on “peak average” speeds and the shape of a reference extreme value curve. The framework provides a consistent platform for estimating long-term return magnitudes with limited data, such as Vmax over land. 1-in-200 year Vmax intensities are estimated to be the highest over the Philippines, southern Japanese islands and Micronesia, and relatively lower over Vietnam, Korea and China.

Western Tibetan Vortex Drives Spring Warming Through Cloud Reduction and Increased Sunshine

The Tibetan Plateau, often called the “Third Pole,” experiences rapid warming that influences water resources, ecosystems, and weather patterns across Asia. While greenhouse gas forcing contributes to long-term trends, internal variability driven by atmospheric circulation patterns can dominate interannual and decadal fluctuations.

The Tibetan Plateau, often called the “Third Pole,” experiences rapid warming that influences water resources, ecosystems, and weather patterns across Asia. While greenhouse gas forcing contributes to long-term trends, internal variability driven by atmospheric circulation patterns can dominate interannual and decadal fluctuations.

The Western Tibetan Vortex (WTV), also linked to the Karakoram Zonal Index, is a large-scale circulation feature centered over the western TP. Previous studies identified its influence on temperature, snow cover, and precipitation. However, the precise radiative mechanisms connecting the WTV to surface warming remained underexplored. This study quantifies the radiative forcing pathway, emphasizing cloud modulation of shortwave radiation.

A 2026 study (Wang et al.) published in Geophysical Research Letters, highlighted on sites like NoTricksZone and Watts Up With That.

The paper examines the Western Tibetan Vortex (WTV), a dominant atmospheric circulation pattern over the western Tibetan Plateau (TP) and adjacent southwest Asia. It strongly influences springtime surface air temperature (T2m) variability in that region.

The study focuses on regional circulation-driven variability (especially spring), using surface energy balance diagnostics. It does not attribute global or long-term TP warming primarily to this, nor does it rule out other factors like greenhouse gases for broader trends. It highlights how natural atmospheric dynamics control cloudiness and thus surface solar input in this elevated, sensitive region.

Cloud Radiative Forcing (CRF), also called Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE), quantifies the impact of clouds on Earth’s energy balance by comparing the net radiative fluxes (energy entering/leaving the system) under all-sky (cloudy + clear) conditions versus clear-sky (no clouds) conditions.

It is typically calculated at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) but can also be evaluated at the surface (relevant to the Tibetan Plateau study). Data sources include satellites like ERBE, CERES, and GEWEX SRB (used in the Wang et al. 2026 paper).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Radiative Forcing of Western Tibetan Vortex on Surface Air Temperature in Spring

The paper “Radiative Forcing of Western Tibetan Vortex on Surface Air Temperature in Spring” by Jingzhi Wang et al. (2026, Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2025GL119603) is an open-access research letter.

The paper examines the Western Tibetan Vortex (WTV), a dominant atmospheric circulation pattern over the western Tibetan Plateau (TP) and adjacent southwest Asia. It strongly influences springtime surface air temperature (T2m) variability in that region.

Core Findings

The Western Tibetan Vortex (WTV) is the dominant atmospheric circulation pattern over the western Tibetan Plateau (TP). It strongly controls springtime (MAM) 2 m surface air temperature (T2m) variability in the western TP and adjacent southwest Asia.

The WTV (measured via the Karakoram Zonal Index, KZI) explains ~66% of T2m variance (correlation R = 0.81) over the key region (roughly 26–36°N, 63–77°E).

Mechanism (surface energy balance diagnostics):

  • Anticyclonic (positive) WTV phases → Reduced total cloud cover → Positive cloud radiative forcing (CRF) anomalies → Increased downward shortwave radiation (DSW) at the surface → Surface warming.
  • Cyclonic (negative) WTV phases → Increased cloud cover → Negative CRF anomalies → Decreased DSW → Cooling.

Downward shortwave radiation (DSW), modulated via clouds/CRF, is the primary radiative driver. Longwave effects and other terms play lesser roles in this context. The study uses satellite observations (GEWEX SRB) combined with ERA5 and MERRA-2 reanalyses for robust verification, addressing known uncertainties in reanalysis radiation data over the TP.

Quantitative examples (from composites and related reporting):

  • An ~11% decline in total cloud cover (TCC) can yield ~7 W/m² more DSW, linked to substantial regional warming (e.g., ~1.87 K in one highlighted case).
  • Anticyclonic events: ~7% TCC reduction, +4.4 W/m² DSW CRF contribution, +0.81 K warming (composites). Opposite for cyclonic phases.

Methods Highlights

Data: GEWEX SRB satellite radiation (all-sky/clear-sky for CRF), ERA5/MERRA-2 for meteorology (1988–2009 overlap period).

Analysis: Correlations, composites of positive/negative KZI events, surface energy balance (SEB) equation to link radiation anomalies to T2m/Ts changes. CRF defined as the cloud-induced difference in fluxes.

Focus is on interannual variability in spring (when WTV is active with a distinct structure), not long-term trends or global attribution.

Context and Implications

This builds on prior work identifying the WTV’s role in circulation, snow cover, and temperatures. It provides observational support (satellite + reanalysis) for a circulation → cloud → shortwave radiation pathway, consistent with Li et al. (2022) theory but now quantified with independent radiation data.

It illustrates how natural atmospheric dynamics (internal variability) can drive significant regional temperature fluctuations through cloud modulation and shortwave forcing. This aligns with broader evidence that clouds and shortwave radiation are critical (and uncertain) in the climate system—small cloud cover changes produce large energy budget impacts. The TP warms rapidly overall, but this study highlights a key local/regional control mechanism independent of uniform greenhouse gas forcing.

Caveats (from the paper’s scope):

  • Regional and seasonal (spring variability focus).
  • Does not negate other drivers of long-term TP warming (e.g., greenhouse gases, black carbon, elevation feedbacks, snow-albedo).
  • Models often struggle with clouds and regional circulation details.

The full paper is freely available on the AGU site (HTML and PDF). It includes figures showing spatial correlations, time series, composites, and SEB breakdowns—highly recommended for details. This adds valuable observational evidence to debates on cloud/shortwave roles in warming.

Published: Geophysical Research Letters

DOI: 10.1029/2025GL119603

Authors: Jingzhi Wang, Xiao-Feng Li, Jing Wang, Song Yang, Hayley J. Fowler

Abstract

As the dominant atmospheric circulation pattern over the western Tibetan Plateau (TP), the Western Tibetan Vortex (WTV) exerts substantial control on springtime 2 m surface air temperature (T2m). However, its underlying radiative processes remain unclear. This study integrates GEWEX satellite observations with ERA5 and MERRA-2 reanalysis, applying surface energy balance diagnostics to quantify the WTV’s radiative forcing on T2m variability. We find the WTV explains ∼66% of T2m variance (R = 0.81) across the western TP and the adjacent Southwest Asia. Downward shortwave radiation (DSW) emerges as the primarily radiative factor modulated by the WTV via cloud radiative forcing (CRF) processes. Specifically, anticyclonic WTV events reduce cloudiness, generating positive CRF anomalies that enhancing surface DSW and cause warming. Conversely, cyclonic events increase cloudiness, producing negative CRF anomalies that diminish DSW and induce cooling. These findings advance understanding of the radiative processes by which the upper circulations modulate the surface climate over the TP.

Not All Temperature Records Are Equal

Some records are more significant than others.

And some records are being used to hype normal temperature variability in unfortunate ways.

From The Cliff Mass Weather Blog

By CliffMass

Some records are more significant than others.  

And some records are being used to hype normal temperature variability in unfortunate ways.

Consider yesterday (Sunday).   SeaTac Airport beat its daily record (77F0 for that specific date, reaching 81°F.   

The Seattle Times puts the 81°F day on the FRONT PAGE!  Must be a slow news day.

The Seattle Times story was heavy on hype, with several unfounded statements (see below).

Temperatures scorched past their record high.

Foreshadowing the inevitable summer of drought.  (This is total nonsense, by the way).

Should you worry about the RECORD high temperature yesterday?    Read on.

Why Monday’s record did not mean much.

Monday’s record high was a daily record.   

Daily records are frequently broken because there are so many opportunities to do so (365 chances each year!).    Breaking an annual record (the warmest day of the year) is much more significant.

Breaking the daily high-temperature record yesterday was particularly lame.  

Why?  Because the previous high temperature on that date (77F) was particularly low.  

You can see this by looking at the plot  (at SeaTac) of observed temperatures (blue lines) and record highs (red shading).   The previous record high temperature on that day (77F) was anomalously COLD.  The coldest daily high for ANY DAY IN MAY.    Even the end of April had warmer record highs. 

By the luck of the draw, May 3 never got above 77°F, and thus this was a record ready to be broken.  Low-hanging meteorological fruit.

The 81F record is still a low record high in May at SeaTac, cooler than ALL the other record highs for the month.

Breaking this wimply record has little meaning and does not foretell an inevitable summer drought as stated by the Seattle Times reporter (Conrad Swanson).

The latest forecasts are emphatic that there will be a cool down, with light precipitation returning.

The latest European Center Forecast has  SeaTac temperatures dropping to normal  (highs in the 60s).

Showers will return on Friday and Saturday (see below).

The kind of hype and exaggeration of heat and drought found in the Seattle Times and several amateur YouTube channels is unfortunate.

People are being misinformed and made to worry without cause.  Hyping climate change and exaggerating normal climate variability may get more clicks and revenue, but the costs of such misinformation are substantial.

Save Long Beach Island (LBI) Sues NOAA for Failure to Protect the Migration Corridor of the Critically Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale (NARW, Eubalaena glacialis) is critically endangered, with a population of approximately 380–384 individuals as of recent 2024–2025 estimates (including roughly 70 reproductively active females).
Human activities drive the primary threats, preventing recovery despite protection from commercial whaling since the 1930s. The species faces an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME) declared in 2017, with dozens of documented deaths, serious injuries, and sublethal cases representing a significant portion of the small population.

From Watts Up With That?

From Save Long Beach Island

Lawsuit seeks to compel NOAA to act on a year-old petition to designate the whale’s migration path a “critical habitat” to ensure its survival.

LONG BEACH ISLAND, NJ, May 4, 2026 – Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI), a nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting our oceans from needless industrialization, along with other concerned parties, filed suit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to compel the agency to act on a 2025 petition intended to protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (NARW).

With a population that has dwindled dramatically in recent years, the magnificent right whale is inching perilously close to extinction as it faces a number of ongoing threats. Save LBI filed the petition a year ago on March 31, 2025 requesting designation of the whale’s primary historic migration corridor a “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That corridor was identified in the Petition, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-finding, based on historical migrating whale observation, and its prey locations.

Notwithstanding multiple follow-up letters, NOAA has not acted on the request, despite the mandated 90-day deadline for doing so. “The deadline for response from the Agency has long since passed so we must go to court,” said Thomas Stavola, Jr., attorney handling the action. “This lawsuit compels NOAA to fulfill its legal duty to consider Save Long Beach Island’s critical habitat petition.”

The primary historic migration corridor designation would require federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the corridor essential to the whale’s migration and survival. It would, in effect, create a vital “missing link” between critical habitats that NOAA designated in 1994, and later expanded, to protect the right whale’s feeding grounds off the coast of Maine (and New England) and its calving and nursery grounds off the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. No habitat protections currently exist between these areas in the far north and south, putting the whale’s survival at great risk.

“Only about 380 North Atlantic right whales are believed to remain, which means every preventable impact matters,” explained Denise Boccia, Save LBI Board Member and the primary architect of the petition. “Protecting their connected and continuous primary migration corridor as critical habitat is the most direct, science-based tool we have to keep this species from sliding into extinction.”

What a Critical Habitat Designation Would Do. If NOAA designates the NARW’s primary historic migration corridor as critical habitat, federal agencies would be required to:

·        Evaluate impacts of major projects – such as large-scale offshore industrial development- on the miles-wide corridor itself.

·        Avoid actions that are likely to destroy or appreciably degrade the whale’s migratory corridor, including activities that create wide-ranging elevated levels of underwater noise across the corridor or appreciably alter the availability of its prey.

A critical habitat designation would deter wind projects in the Atlantic Shores South and North lease areas that were unwisely positioned in the whale’s primary migration corridor. Save LBI’s detailed analysis of operational noise from wind-energy complexes (summarized in the Addendum below) reveals that noise from operating wind turbines extends for miles above levels that disturb the whale’s behavior. “Consequently, those projects could adversely and appreciably affect the miles-wide migration corridor itself and not only seriously impair, but potentially block, the whale’s essential annual migration,” said Save LBI President Bob Stern, a Ph.D. scientist and former manager of the Office of National Environmental Policy Act Affairs for the U.S. Department of Energy.

What the Designation Would Not Do. A critical habitat designation for the NARW corridor would not, as NOAA has said regarding prior, similar designations:

·        Regulate or restrict vessel traffic: the areas NOAA designates for lower vessel speeds are governed through separate authorities and processes and based on whale presence. Whether those areas are labeled critical habitat or not has no bearing on those restrictions.

·        Regulate or restrict commercial or recreational fishing: The designation has no effect on private or state-sanctioned fishing. Federal fishing gear regulations and related measures are governed through separate authorities and processes based on perceived impacts to the whale itself. Any additional measures based on the critical habitat designation would require a separate determination that fishing is likely to destroy or adversely and appreciably modify the miles-wide migration corridor itself, which is not a plausible argument.

About Save Long Beach Island, Inc. Save Long Beach Island, Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting the marine environment, coastal ecosystems, and quality of life for residents and visitors of Long Beach Island and the surrounding region. The organization advocates for science‑based, balanced policies that safeguard wildlife, preserve local economies, and promote responsible stewardship of ocean resources.

ADDENDUM- SAVE LBI ESTIMATED NOISE RANGES

Summary: The Extent of Behavior-Disturbing Noise from Offshore Wind Energy Complexes.    

Save LBI’s calculations of the noise from the wind-turbine complexes proposed in the NY Bight showed that sound levels exceeding the whale’s behavioral disturbance threshold, represented by the red lines in the illustration above, extend through the wind complex and for miles from its perimeter (the green line represents all known migration paths which is wider than the closer-to-shore primary historic migration corridor identified in the petition).

Some straight-forward math leads to the same conclusion. During wind-turbine construction, noise source levels from pile driving are on the order of 240 decibels (dB). A significant reduction of about 80 dB is necessary to reduce those noise levels to NOAA’s “impulsive-noise behavioral disturbance threshold” of 160 dB. For turbine operation, the aggregate noise source level from a typical complex is about 200 dB, which would also have to be reduced by around 80 dB to meet NOAA’s lower “continuous-noise behavioral disturbance threshold” of 120 dB.

Because both cases require essentially the same 80 dB reduction in noise level, the distances over which sound must travel to drop to acceptable behavioral thresholds is similar. Numerous acoustic analyses conducted by the wind-energy projects have shown that pile-driving noise remains above the acceptable impulsive noise levels for a number of miles beyond the source. So those same multiple-mile ranges are needed to reduce the continuous operational noise generated by the wind complex to the acceptable continuous level, as shown by the red lines in the figure above. Such long distances of elevated noise level  create a noise barrier to migration and degrade the viability of the migration corridor itself.

Zap Energy: The first fission-fusion company

According to a recent report from ETH Zurich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, “policymakers should not rely on, or fund, fusion power as a core pillar of future clean energy systems” for the two primary current fusion designs (magnetic and laser inertial) because of their low “experience rates” (economies of scale).

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

According to a recent report from ETH Zurich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, “policymakers should not rely on, or fund, fusion power as a core pillar of future clean energy systems” for the two primary current fusion designs (magnetic and laser inertial) because of their low “experience rates” (economies of scale).

Fusion industry professionals already pursuing commercial development discounted these findings. Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO Bob Mumgaard says ETH Zurich’s authors are unaffiliated with fusion and never spoke to any industry leaders. Helion co-founder Anthony Pancotti, whose company is developing a pulsed, non-ignition fusion system, “absolutely” believes fusion can be affordable and cost-competitive with other energy sources.

Zap Energy, which has been in the fusion business for nearly a decade, last week announced it was moving in a radical new direction – building the world’s first integrated fission and fusion nuclear energy company. Zap’s principals argue that a false wall exists between fission and fusion, whereas they are two points along the same technological continuum, and developing them together accelerates deployment of both.

Zap’s core mission, according to co-founders Benj Conway, Uri Shumiak, and Brian A. Nelson, remains the commercialization of fusion using the sheared-flow stabilized (SFS) Z-pinch, initially developed in Japan. But, he adds, “We also believe the energy transition cannot and should not wait for fusion alone.”

To jumpstart the company’s new direction, Zap recruited Zabrina Johal from Canadian nuclear firm AtkinsRéalis to serve as CEO. Johal, a former U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion officer, will lead the development of an integrated nuclear platform that brings together fission, fusion, and hybrid systems to deliver scalable, carbon-free power.

In a recent interview, Johal said that she and Zap’s founders had been in discussions for months since they realized they all see fission and fusion as “two sides of the same coin.” It makes so much sense, she has believed for years, to integrate the two into a single business to accelerate innovation across the entire nuclear energy system.

As Conway describes it, “fission and fusion are two expressions of the same underlying physics. By integrating them into a single platform, we can move faster, reduce risk, and build a more enduring company.” Johal calls the union “the perfect marriage” and says that Zap Energy is agile – not bureaucratic – and that she can hardly wait to get up in the morning and get to work.

Zap’s strategy comes as a direct result of its work in developing its fusion power plant, with the key insight that many of the hardest problems in nuclear energy are problems of industrialization and not specific to either fission or fusion.

Both require high-temperature materials, nuclear-grade manufacturing, advanced heat-transfer systems, modular construction, and sophisticated balance-of-plant engineering. Zap’s goal is to build reactors in factories and transport them to sites where they will operate safely for decades, following the expected regulatory revisions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Johal says that artificial intelligence is driving demand and helping technology develop faster. AI also enables a greater focus on deep tech ideas and concepts because of its expedited computing and modeling capabilities. This enables running thousands of experiments in real time and picking those with the best results for further study– dramatically cutting the time to get new technologies to market.

Johal says that, rather than pursue fusion in isolation, Zap’s integrated platform is designed to deliver near-term, bankable power through compact, modular fission systems and exploit deep technology overlaps between fission and fusion, particularly in liquid-metal power systems (where Zap has developed world-leading expertise), neutron environments, and high power density design that can speed progress across both technologies.

In a Z-pinch system, plasma is produced by applying a high-voltage pulse across an anode-cathode gap of cylindrical geometry that is either pre-filled with gas or bridged by an array of (typically tungsten) wires. The plasma is imploded by the azimuthal magnetic field produced by the axially flowing discharge current, and the kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy and radiation as a hot, dense core is formed at the center.

The Japanese abandoned research on the Z-pinch process after the Fukushima incident. The chief obstacle to the technology was that the Z-pinch plasma would become unstable and thus uneconomic. Shumiak and Nelson, during their research at the University of Washington, developed the sheared-flow stabilization technique in which the plasma particles are made to move at different velocities and cannot “change lanes.”

Johal’s work has primarily focused on fission technologies, most recently AtkinsRéalis’ CANDU (Canada deuterium uranium) heavy-water reactor, but in her earlier work at General Atomics she was involved with fusion from a government program perspective. Like Zap’s founders, she too had long seen the many parallels between the two technologies.

Both, she says, share the concept of a core technology focused on high power density, similar materials, liquid metal cooling, and many business-related similarities. With the growing energy demands of data centers, AI, electrified transport, advanced manufacturing, and national energy security, the need for nuclear energy is escalating rapidly. Meeting that demand requires an expansion of nuclear energy at a scale not seen in generations.

Given the potential for both technologies to supply much needed electricity, it makes so much sense to do both. Zap chose to integrate fusion and fission into a single business, so when its fission reactors go commercial they will pull fusion closer to commercial deployment. Johal says Zap is looking to commercialize fission in the early 2030s – thanks in part to the coming Nuclear Regulatory Commission reforms — and fusion a few years later.

Longer term, working with both technologies places Zap Energy in the pole position for hybrid systems. This can involve fusion-driven neutron sources supporting advanced fission fuel cycles or waste reduction (utilizing rather than storing spent nuclear fuel), both of which have been studied in the scientific community. The Chinese have already been investing in hybrid fission-fusion systems as part of their long-term strategy.

Responding to the ETH Zurich study, Johal says she hopes all the fusion designs become commercially successful – but believes that Zap’s design will produce economies of scale thanks to their modular design.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Duggan Flanakin

Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas. A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”

Positive national energy momentum at risk of being swamped by…everything else

Energy realism is gaining ground because physics, economics, and security demand it—especially with rising global demand and unreliable alternatives for baseload. But governance quality, rule of law, and avoiding self-inflicted wounds (poor alliances, over-regulation, ignoring allies) determine whether momentum turns into durable prosperity or another cycle of frustration.

From The BOE Report

By Terry Etam

There are a thousand inspirational wall hangings and memes and coffee mugs that all exhort similar messages, to think positively, to avoid negative energy and negativity in general, that humans are just better overall by doing so. They are in general all correct. The words are simple, high-quality life advice that we probably know deep down but that are hard to live by. Which is why so many of those things are sold. We need the reminders. A lot of people have made careers doing exactly that, saying the same old things in slightly new ways and earning millions. Which is kind of annoying in that it seems disingenuous, to be peddling vital life lessons in not a monk-like way but in a traveling elixir salesman kind of way. Big pearly white grins and a dash of stage charisma and look at that, the entire crowd is emptying their wallets in sheer happiness from hearing what they’ve heard a thousand times before. It’s enough to make one want to punch the slick marketeers in the head.

See? That’s how close negative energy is. It’s just that easy. There’s a reason we aren’t in some perpetual state of mental bliss; the complexities of life are highly effective at overriding the dopamine hits.

All these thoughts came crashing in last week, speaking of dopamine hits, while attending a luncheon with a lot of people in attendance. The event was the CAOEC (Canadian Association of Energy Contractors) spring luncheon.  Someone dropped out of a lunch time presentation and thus the empty seat that was offered to me, and so I went, mostly expecting the highlight to be the grub. And the people in the audience. Boots on the ground energy people are awesome to be around, full of energy and can-do attitude. I sat in a room, a big room, that also included a federal Liberal cabinet minister as keynote speaker – Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.  As he rose to the podium to speak, a respectable round of applause greeted him. I did not participate. Not even a twitch. He was going to have to earn it. The past ten years will not be erased from memory for a very long time, and while this guy might not have been in the front lines of federal “governance” the whole time, his party and its architecture most definitely were.

But lo and behold, he did it. Hodgson made me clap. He went out of his way to make a point, multiple times (as recorded by Global News who captured these things; I was too paralyzed for note-taking): “This government and Canadians now understand that energy is the engine of Canada’s economy.” He made the same point loudly, and often, to the point where my spidey senses were on high alert. We get it, you love us now. Let go of my leg, sheesh.

But it was a great thing to say, and I don’t mean to make light of that; it is significant that he wanted to drive that point home and it is worth parsing. “This government” now understands – trying to underline the point that things are different now, and they know a difference is relevant. “…and Canadians” now understand – pointing out what is reflected in national polls, that sentiment has shifted, that the general population now understands the value of the oil and gas industry, and that it did not seem to five years ago (see: oblique accusations to ‘old government’ of Trudeau). “Energy is the engine of Canada’s economy” – another piece of relevant messaging. Trudeau/Guilbeault/Butts/Mckenna/Wilkinson…all key members of the previous government that worked hard to distance themselves from the industry, to downplay its significance.

Even in that one repeated point were a lot of messages that were very good to hear, and welcome news to the audience.

The question is, now what. For 10 years we were governed by squirrels. Actually scratch that. Squirrels have pure motives. We were governed by people who knew nothing about governance. They were like children. Idealistic, wanting to give every homeless person a hamburger and a new house. Wanting to save the environment in ways so wildly impractical that only childish enthusiasm could have propelled them.

But again, now what. What is the North Star for this government? They are taking energy seriously because they have to. What about everything else? Foreign interference in elections. Central bank digital currencies. A drug problem that drives are largest trading partner crazy brought about by sloppy immigration policies which have not been fixed. A globalist mentality that seeks to tie us to anyone than to our natural trading partner with whom we will never ever be separated, and for whom will always be our largest trading partner. Much is made of how recalcitrant the US has become over trade issues; very little is made about how Canada has been dragging its feet for years on things that it knows bug the US very much. Are we taking the drug trade seriously, when the poor police can hardly be bothered to pursue criminals with the knowledge that laws are toothless? We complain about tariffs, then stand resolutely in defiance over outrageous dairy tariffs that we ourselves impose and refuse to talk about. Is that being a good trading partner? Are we taking national defence seriously, or a reacting to a gun to our head? As a matter of fact that brings up the bigger question, what are we doing only because there is a gun to our head, versus what would we really want to do, we being the government?

All this speculation isn’t an attempt to take on the role of opposition, one of the grimiest jobs in the world, whereby the imperative is to run counter to absolutely everything the governing party does. No quarter, no exception, no thinking allowed. Just bark the opposite. That isn’t helpful.

And it is cool to see the media even starting to ask challenging questions of the government, including the likes of Andrew Coyne on a CBC news show that usually appears to be acutely aware that Liberals feed them and Conservatives will not. Mr. Coyne has been asking tough questions, such as this clip where he challenges the federal government’s sovereign wealth fund concept in an articulate way. He still has a wild political slant to his feed, which makes Coyne’s criticism of the Carney government even more stark. Other clips from the same panel if usually Lib-friendly voices show growing concern at the lack of genuine progress on anything.

But then just when it seems like progress is actually imminent, via the above developments, nope, it all has to come crashing down in a blinding reminder of where Canada is actually headed (whether it voted for it or not). Carney takes the stage at European conference and clearly proclaims he is siding with Europe: “It is my strong personal view that as the international order will be rebuilt,  but it will be rebuilt out of Europe, and so I am very appreciative of the symbolism of this invitation.”

Europe is a basket case. It won’t rebuild anything; it can hardly build anything. It is willing to die on a net-zero illusion, and so is Carney (who also reaffirmed in this speech his shared commitment with Europe to fighting climate change, meaning he doesn’t understand what got Europe into the hole it is in). Euro-love might sell in some parts of Canada, so this could be just a sad vote-pandering speech, and maybe Hodgson’s Calgary address was also.

Aligning with Europe because Trump is unpopular in Canada is some pretty bizarre long range strategic thinking. It panders to the worst of Canadian identity, whereby Canadians define themselves and explain their actions by saying “We’re not Americans.”  That is vacuous and pompous, if for no other reason than that I know and like a lot of Americans and stereotyping isn’t helpful or the high ground. And it is just dumb. Kanye West, Warren Buffett, Bob Dylan, Meryl Streep and the Pope are all Americans…how are those sweeping generalizations coming?

And now here we are again. Headed for the world stage instead of worrying about the heartland. Heading straight out into a blizzard with no mittens. Or shoes. Shrugging our national collective shoulders again, year after year, until we hit the next breaking point.

Carney came to power by convincing boomers that he was the best man to cut a deal with Trump. In the past month or two he has declared the old relationship with the US to be “over” and is now in Europe telling them that our future is with them.

This all sucks. Talking about politics. The past decade was enough to test anyone’s sanity, and, incredible as it sounds, by late 2024 pretty much all of Canada agreed. So we all wanted change. It was as close to national unity as I’ve ever seen.

As noted initially, some things have changed. The high level talk with respect to energy is indeed welcome. But Carney’s Euro speech is making it look like the new pro-energy talk was forced on them by necessity, by the fact that the world is scrambling for hydrocarbons, and that the true desire all along was more Euro-bonding. Carney is EU climate policy incarnate, and he sits at the epicentre of why Canadian hydrocarbons are not now getting to global markets as the whole world wants. He lit the fire as much as anyone. And his comments from the European conference were noted far and wide, across North America and Europe. It has been duly noted that, officially, Canada is turning its back on its largest and most natural trading partner, and seeking to forge an alliance (of moral superiority – “the international order will be rebuilt…out of Europe”) with an economic basket case. A self-inflicted one.

Maybe this speculation is entirely wrong, and we come out of this all with diversified global trade and a renewed alignment with the US as well, which we desperately need. We can hope.

But the winds now blow as though we are integrating Canada into the EU, rather than mending the US relationship, and I can’t think of a stronger boost to Alberta separatist sentiment than that. Maybe Quebec has a lot in common with France, and good for them, but here in Alberta there is a lot more in common with Montana or Texas than Quebec. Seeking alignment with Europe will without question cause even more national bifurcation and disharmony.

Hey, anyone that’s been in the hydrocarbon industry for more than a decade is bound to wear at least some shield of cynicism. Even Ontario’s premier Doug Ford has chastised the federal government to show some respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan, singling them out, an act that has happened exactly never times before.

That’s what makes this all so exhausting. The positive messaging from Hodgson is the equivalent of the inspirational poster, exhorting us all to focus on positive energy. How great would that be…to have everyone on the same page and striving for similar goals. As Hodgson says, “this government and Canadians” are getting closer, by reaching alignment on the value of our natural resources.

That part is really great, to see some national alignment on something like that. But the rest simply can’t be ignored. When media pundits like Coyne and CBC panels, long accused of being Liberal toadies, are speaking out about the train wreck of much of the rest of the federal program…all the cheery sub-category messaging gets kind of overwhelmed. It is all so very ironic that things are finally looking up for the energy sector on the national scene, at the same time that unease is growing everywhere else.

At the peak of the energy wars, The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity challenged the narrative of imminent fossil fuel demise, facing into the storm. And now everyone is coming around to this realization as well. Read the energy story for those that don’t live in the energy world, but want to find out. And laugh. Available at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

The Pandemic Treaty Fails Again: It’s Time to Talk About Replacing the WHO

Finalisation of the much-heralded Pandemic Agreement, the flagship of the World Health Organisation’s pandemic agenda, has just been postponed again after another failure to resolve disagreements. Despite heavy pressure from the WHO and European Union in yet another meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, a large bloc of African states is refusing to sign on to what the states consider a clear colonialist agenda. Which of course it is, aimed at putting Covid-era wealth transfers on a more permanent footing.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Dr David Bell

Finalisation of the much-heralded Pandemic Agreement, the flagship of the World Health Organisation’s pandemic agenda, has just been postponed again after another failure to resolve disagreements. Despite heavy pressure from the WHO and European Union in yet another meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, a large bloc of African states is refusing to sign on to what the states consider a clear colonialist agenda. Which of course it is, aimed at putting Covid-era wealth transfers on a more permanent footing.

The WHO, for reasons explained below, is doing what it is paid to do. Major financial sponsors of the WHO have much to gain from getting this agreement through. It has fallen on African leaders, attuned to the model of rich countries and their corporations imposing rules designed for wealth extraction, to protect the rest of us from the farce that the current public health approach to pandemics has become.

The fact that the agency tasked with building capacity and promoting sustainability of low-income health systems is instead doing the opposite now needs to become the central issue of this whole shabby episode. It is time for the international public health community to face itself and decide on which side – people or profit – it should stand.

The modern basis of multilateral health cooperation

There are obvious reasons for countries to cooperate in matters of health, as there are for neighbours in a suburban street: mutual interest in facing common threats where action by neighbouring states or access to their resources helps protect your own, as well as moral reasons based on the generally accepted ‘good’ of helping neighbours when they are in difficulty or lack resources through no fault of their own. Or because a stable and more prosperous neighbourhood (world) is good for business, and a sick one may not be.

Cooperation is not submission, and few self-respecting people would opt for that. Mutual interests and morality all dissolve fairly quickly when cooperation becomes coercion, and the interests of the most powerful player then become the goal. Health is well defined in the WHO’s constitution as physical, mental and social well-being. Accordingly, it rests on economics and social capital and is degraded by poverty and inequality. Neither aspect of wellbeing – mental, social or physical – is supported by forced compliance or slavery.

The basis of modern medical ethics hinges on Hippocrates’s assertions on physician conduct from around 400BC, commonly summarised as to do good rather than harm and respect a patient’s privacy (confidentiality). As a counter to fascism since the Second World War, we added voluntary informed consent, i.e., absence of coercion. This means the final decision in any aspect of medical care or intervention must rest with the individual concerned.

These basic medical ethics rest on the concept that all people are equal and their individual sovereignty (i.e., bodily autonomy) is inviolable. Accordingly, it is obviously unethical to force a person to be injected or undergo some other procedure just because someone else wants them to or for a third person’s benefit. Unethical, that is, outside a medico-fascist or similarly authoritarian approach that post-World War Two human rights law was supposed to suppress. There were very good reasons why we stopped all that, even if it made the streets look cleaner and we are assured it was for a ‘greater good’.

As the Hippocratic Oath and voluntary informed consent govern clinical medical practice, public health is consequently subject to the same requirements at a community, national and global level. Populations are the sum of individuals, each being imbued with equal rights and intrinsic sovereignty. Therefore, decisions made at a regional or global level can only be made by agencies over which those individuals, as a collective, exert control. This is the basis of the UN charter: sovereign states, being the best means we have of expressing the collective decisions of sovereign individuals. It is a massively flawed model – some states are dictatorships and many oppress minorities and ignore their individual sovereignty – but this is because we are working with flawed humans. Sovereign states are the basis of the modern world.

The alternative is a technocracy in which self-designated individuals make decisions and simply force or coerce others to obey – a form of fascism (an unpopular term for a relatively popular approach). This is the antithesis of modern understandings of human rights. It remains popular, including in the public health community, because it provides a sense of self-importance whilst also addressing the needs of wealthy sponsors. It also provides simple rules to live by and a group to belong to. But fundamentally fascism, like feudalism which served the same purpose in former times, relies on acceptance of inequality. This is why we need to name it when we see it, and insist on individual decision-making over any dictatorship of experts.

What should modern public health cooperation look like?

Once we accept basic human rights – individual sovereignty – as a prerequisite for legitimate public health, we can then decide what type of interventions might be useful. Given the heterogeneity of disease-risk related to differing population age structures and environments and the wide variation in human culture that influences what each of us define as important, such decisions would have to be taken at a decentralised level. Advice may be given from a distance, but action can only be decided in context or it is likely to be counterproductive. Subsidiarity rather than centralisation is therefore a prerequisite for effective decision-making, not just to protect individual rights but to achieve a meaningful and lasting impact on health. Though obvious to most people, this is really hard for many credentialled public health professionals to accept. We all have egos and think of ourselves as experts.

Fortunately, modern communications make decentralisation easy. Travel is easy, and we can meet instantaneously by digital means. Centralisation made sense for certain aspects of the Roman state – and in many ways for the WHO on its formation in 1948. The days of steam ships and elephants disrupting landlines are gone now, though the human desire for a comfortable life by a Swiss lake persists.

Decisions must also (rather obviously) be based on evidence and be amendable to change as new information emerges.  Efficiency dictates a focus on building systems and expertise that address overall health outcomes such as nutrition, sanitation and access to basic clinical care. It also suggests prioritising the largest disease burdens readily amenable to prevention or treatment such as endemic infectious diseases (malaria, tuberculosis etc.) rather than, say, diseases based on individual and deliberate lifestyle choice.

Evidence-based public health also emphasises the importance of building strong economies. Building national economies allows countries to maintain better health systems. Promoting impoverishment, such as through prolonged school closures, workplace closures or closing borders, sets everything back and so is expected to cause great long-term harm to health.

At a global level, diseases that cross borders and sudden crises such as epidemics are also good targets for cooperation. More time to prepare for an outbreak or better standards to collectively address it are a good thing. But such events are occasional and of low overall burden compared to the big killers of humankind. Addressing outbreaks in a way that undermines economies and the underlying determinants of health would obviously be foolish. As we saw during the Covid response, such poor public health responses promoted by WHO increased child marriage, child labour and deep poverty, and grew national debt. They did make some other people very wealthy, but had little impact on COVID-19 itself.

Why the WHO can no longer help

All the foregoing should be non-controversial. Some will push back on the Covid bit from a career or political viewpoint but in fact it’s orthodox public health. The agency meant to fill the role of coordinating all this today is the WHO. When the WHO started its work, colonial powers still admitted to being colonial powers and we gave Nobel Prizes for frontal lobotomies. However, WHO was supposed to help improve things. Its governance was based on one-country one-vote, and it was core-funded based on each country’s capacity. With its original intent of egalitarianism, evidence-based policy, prioritisation of low-income populations and contextual decision-making in mind, it is worth looking quickly at what the WHO has become:

  • The WHO is headquartered with over a quarter of its staff in headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, one of the most expensive cities on earth.
  • The bulk of the WHO’s work is dictated by individual funders who directly specify the use of their money – making the organisation a tool for those with the most money, rather than the populations who need more assistance).
  • The largest funder, Bill Gates, is from a wealthy United States background with no low-income country or hands-on public health experience but strong connections to the pharmaceutical and software industries.
  • The WHO’s second largest funder over the past two years was Gavi, a public-private partnership including multinational pharmaceutical corporations. The WHO acts as a de facto market development and access agency for those corporations (which enables executives from them to justify their involvement to their shareholders).
  • WHO staff receive good salaries, generous education subsidies for their children, good health insurance, are tax exempt and have a pension scheme structured to kick in after years of service and then rapidly accumulate, promoting longevity and institutional loyalty (i.e., to institution rather than mission).

The result is, as expected, a focus on commodity-heavy vertical programmes and a workforce incentivised to maintain such a model. Pharma company executives and their major investors are there to maximise return on investment, not ensure good nutrition. They may care, but their job is elsewhere. There are no large companies thriving off good diets or sanitation and accordingly no public-private partnerships to promote these. The WHO must comply with the priorities its funders dictate.

Time for a return to legitimacy

An international public health agency should prioritise building national health system capacity, independence and resilience. In contrast, the WHO has become a colonialist endeavour, serving the same partnership of powers and commercial interests while sanitising it as keeping the world ‘safe’.

The outcomes of the Covid response will be repeated: millions more children having prospects stolen and poverty ensured. Funding for nutrition – critical to build resilience against both endemic and epidemic disease – is falling while WHO and partners construct veritable fairytales to promote more profitable agendas. Resources diversion in public health is never value-neutral.

Advocating reform or replacement of the WHO is therefore not radical but intrinsically anti-colonialist, pro-human rights, pro-evidence and pro-public health. The Right to Health Sovereignty reports follow this model. But there is much invested in maintaining the status quo and a global health workforce strongly incentivised to support this.

The job of leaders of modern states is to ensure the welfare of their people, and this is the only legitimate mechanism from which meaningful change can come to international health. The United States’ withdrawal from the WHO offers an opportunity, but it is the low-income countries on the receiving end of the WHO’s capture who need to drive change. The pushback on the Pandemic Agreement suggests that this may be happening. The global health workforce needs to cease its subservience to vested interests and stop blocking progress. We need international health cooperation based on sovereignty, ethics and integrity, not a continued slide back to the failures of a bygone colonial era.

Dr David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was programme head for malaria and acute febrile disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.

Solar Peaks Accelerate Space Junk Fallout: New Threshold Reshapes Orbital Decay Forecasts

Increased solar activity during the peak of the Sun’s ~11-year cycle causes space junk (and satellites) in low Earth orbit (LEO) to lose altitude and re-enter Earth’s atmosphere faster.

Increased solar activity during the peak of the Sun’s ~11-year cycle causes space junk (and satellites) in low Earth orbit (LEO) to lose altitude and re-enter Earth’s atmosphere faster.

The Sun emits more extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation during solar maximum (when sunspot numbers are high).

This heats and expands Earth’s thermosphere (the upper atmosphere layer where LEO objects orbit, roughly 160–2,000 km altitude).

The expanded atmosphere increases density at orbital altitudes, creating greater atmospheric drag on objects.

Drag slows the objects down, lowering their orbits and accelerating decay until they burn up on re-entry.

This effect is well-known in principle, but a May 6, 2026, peer-reviewed study from India’s Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (ISRO) provided strong new quantification using 36+ years of data on 17 long-lived debris pieces across solar cycles 22–24.

Decay isn’t linear. Below a certain level, altitude loss is gradual. Once sunspot numbers reach roughly 67–75% (about two-thirds) of the cycle’s peak, there’s a sharp “transition boundary” where decay rates increase noticeably. This ties directly to rising thermospheric density.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Characterizing solar cycle influence on long-term orbital deterioration of low-earth orbiting space debris

“Characterizing solar cycle influence on long-term orbital deterioration of low-earth orbiting space debris” is the title of a peer-reviewed paper published on May 6, 2026, in Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences.

Led by Ayisha M. Ashruf (corresponding author) with co-authors Ankush Bhaskar, C. Vineeth, and T.K. Pant from the Space Physics Laboratory, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (ISRO), Thiruvananthapuram, India.

The researchers analyzed 36+ years of Two-Line Element (TLE) orbital data for 17 long-lived space debris objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO, primarily 600–800 km altitudes). These objects, launched in the 1960s, provided a consistent dataset across Solar Cycles 22, 23, and 24.

They correlated orbital decay rates with solar activity proxies:

  • Sunspot Number (SSN)
  • F10.7 cm radio flux index
  • Supporting EUV flux measurements (e.g., SOHO/SEM)

Key Findings

Non-linear threshold effect: Orbital decay rates increase sharply when SSN reaches ~67–75% of the cycle’s peak value. This marks a “transition boundary” where enhanced solar EUV radiation heats and expands the thermosphere, significantly raising atmospheric density and drag at LEO altitudes.

Cycle-to-cycle trends: Peak decay rates declined progressively from the stronger Solar Cycle 22 to the weaker Cycle 24, mirroring the long-term decrease in solar activity.

Modeling and validation: Ballistic coefficients from earlier cycles + NRLMSIS 2.0 atmospheric density model successfully predicted Cycle 24 decay (with scaling factors) for most objects. Lower-inclination objects matched well; two high-inclination (~99°) objects deviated, suggesting model limitations at high latitudes/polar regions.

Geomagnetic activity: Indices like AE and Dst showed weak correlation with long-term decay, indicating solar EUV-driven thermospheric changes dominate over geomagnetic effects (Joule heating, particle precipitation) on these timescales.

Implications

Improved predictions: The identified SSN/F10.7 threshold enables better forecasting of re-entry times and periods of elevated risk during solar maximum.

Space traffic management: Helps operators plan fuel use for active satellites, refine conjunction assessments, and leverage natural “cleanup” during high solar activity.

Model refinement: Highlights needs for better atmospheric density models, especially for polar orbits, as mega-constellations grow in LEO.

This is the first study to provide such long-term, multi-cycle observational quantification using passive debris (which don’t perform station-keeping maneuvers, making them ideal tracers of drag). An earlier arXiv preprint (2024) was titled “Deciphering Solar Cycle Influence…”.

Published: Frontiers

DOI: 10.3389/fspas.2026.1797886

Authors: Ayisha M. Ashruf, Ankush Bhaskar, C. Vineeth, and T.K. Pant

Abstract

The rapid increase in space debris poses a major threat to sustainable space operations and underscores the importance of understanding long-term drivers of orbital decay. Because debris objects do not perform station-keeping maneuvers, their orbital evolution directly reflects variations in thermospheric density, unlike that of operational satellites. This makes space debris an effective natural testbed for examining the long-term influence of solar activity on atmospheric drag. This study analyzes the impact of solar activity on the decay of 17 LEO debris objects across solar cycles 22, 23, and 24 using Two-Line Element (TLE) data. TLE-derived decay profiles, combined with sunspot numbers (SSN) and the F10.7 index, reveal a threshold: decay rates rise sharply when SSN exceeds ∼67%–75% of its cycle peak, corresponding to increased Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) fluxes, thermospheric density and atmospheric drag. Peak decay rates declined progressively from cycle 22 to 24, reflecting reduced solar activity. Decay profiles for cycle 24 – predicted using ballistic coefficients from earlier cycles and MSIS 2.0 atmospheric densities – match observations well after applying a scaling factor. However, two high-inclination objects showed significant deviations, suggesting possible MSIS limitations at high latitudes, while lower-inclination objects aligned closely. Moreover, geomagnetic activity indices such as AE and Dst show little correlation with long-term orbital decay rates, suggesting a comparatively weaker role at the timescales examined, for Joule heating and particle precipitation than for solar EUV forcing in driving sustained orbital decay. Overall, the findings support solar EUV-driven thermospheric variability as a primary factor influencing long-term orbital decay and emphasize the need to refine atmospheric models, particularly for polar regions, to improve reentry predictions and satellite mission planning.