Day: May 8, 2026

Why electricity costs more than we think…and why, in Germany, solar is about 10x more expensive than coal

Most of us believe the cost of electricity is a question already answered. We compare technologies, quote numbers per kWh, and rely on a couple of familiar metrics to tell us what is cheap and what is not. But, what if I tell you that those numbers only tell part of the story?

From Watts Up With That?

Dr. Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author

Details including the full Blog “Rethinking the cost of electricity in a complex energy system” are available at www.unpopular-truth.com

We think we understand electricity costs. We don’t.

Most of us believe the cost of electricity is a question already answered. We compare technologies, quote numbers per kWh, and rely on a couple of familiar metrics to tell us what is cheap and what is not. But, what if I tell you that those numbers only tell part of the story?

For decades, the conversation has been shaped by simplified measures like the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). These figures seem easy to communicate and widely accepted, yet they focus narrowly on individual power plants while ignoring the system they operate in… and that matters allot!

Electricity is not a product

Electricity is often treated as a commodity or a product . A unit of energy sold at a price per kWh.

In reality this is not correct as electricity is a service provided on demand 24/7/365.

Therefore, it must be delivered reliably, at the right voltage, frequency, phase, and current every milli-second of every day. That requires a highly complex system made up of generation, reserve capacity, storage, transmission networks, and stability mechanisms.

Once you look at electricity this way, the question to be asked changes quite a bit.

We are no longer just asking “what does this technology cost?”  But rather “what does it cost to make the entire system work?” Because what would you do with electricity if it is not delivered to your location, ready for use?

What the standard metrics miss

Common metrics like LCOE were never designed to answer system-level questions as they capture plant-level costs, but leave out balancing, grid integration, backup, and storage (system-costs).

More complete approaches exist, such as the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE), which attempt to account for the entire system required to deliver reliable electricity and when these broader costs are considered, the picture begins to shift.

Even institutions like the OECD and UNECE now acknowledge that increasing the share of wind and solar can raise total system costs (see links in the original blog here). Not because the technologies themselves are inherently flawed, but because they require additional infrastructure and support to function within a stable grid.

The paradox of adding more wind and solar

At first glance, expanding wind and solar seems like a straightforward path to cheaper and “cleaner” energy…but systems rarely behave that simply.

As their share increases, the cracks start to show….

  • additional balancing and backup capacity is required
  • grid infrastructure must expand and become more complex
  • storage becomes a necessity and eats away at the generated energy
  • market value declines through falling capture rates and on the list goes…

So as you can see, the more these technologies are deployed, the more they reshape the system around them and the more costs shift into areas that are often not immediately visible but should be considered!

A system under tension

Let’s look at today’s energy debate.

On one hand, there is a strong push to electrify quickly using wind and solar, reducing dependence on imports and lowering emissions.

On the other, there is continued reliance on coal, gas, and other dispatchable sources to maintain reliability, stability, and security of supply.

Both perspectives operate on different assumptions about how the system behaves and what it actually costs, but in the end coal and its dispatchable friends, seem to be the ones we can depend on.

Germany as a real-world example

Despite significant investment and a large expansion of wind and solar capacity, total system costs remain high and continue to rise. Installed capacity now far exceeds peak demand, yet the system still depends on conventional generation to ensure reliability.

So, how long will we avoid the unpopular but necessary question of:

Are we measuring the cost of electricity in a way that reflects reality, or are we relying on metrics that overlook the most important factors?

We are doing the latter…

In fact, in Germany, domestic lignite is the lowest cost of generating electricity with 40 EUR/MWh excl. CO2 and 120 EUR/MWh incl CO2. As you can see below, solar is and remains the most expensive.

A different way to look at cost

In my latest blog, I step back from the usual debate and looks at electricity from a system perspective.

I explore:

  • the limitations of commonly used cost metrics
  • the role of capture rates in understanding market value
  • the often overlooked system costs of wind and solar
  • and a simplified estimate of electricity costs in Germany

with the aim to better understand the full picture and not to provide a perfect number.

The question worth asking

If electricity is a system, not a product…

If costs extend far beyond individual technologies…

And if those costs rise as complexity increases…

Then the real question is no longer which technology is cheapest, it is:

What does it actually cost to keep the lights on, reliably, 24/7/365 year after year?

Read the full blog and try out my calculator linked in the blog to see for yourself how the numbers behave. 😉

UAH April 2026 Land Chills More Than Ocean Warms

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.

From Science Matters

By  Ron Clutz

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.  It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition.  Yes, there was warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.

As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022  At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Then there was an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, unrelated to steadily rising CO2, and now dropping steadily back toward normal values.

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~66 ppm, an 18% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

gmt-warming-events

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And in 2024 we saw an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping well below its peak.

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT

See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

April 2026 UAH Temps: Land Cools More Than Ocean Warms

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995.  Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into 2024 peaking in April, then cooling off to the present.

UAH has updated their TLT (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for April 2026. Due to one satellite drifting more than can be corrected, the dataset has been recalibrated and retitled as version 6.1 Graphs here contain this updated 6.1 data.  Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month are ahead the update from HadSST4.  I posted recently on March 2026 Mild Warming SSTs Continue. These posts have a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes. 2025 showed a sharp contrast between land and sea, first with ocean air temps falling in January recovering in February.  Then in November and December SH land temps spiked while ocean temps showed litle change. In February 2026 NH land temps doubled, from Dec. 0.53C up to 1.14C last month.  Despite SH land changing little, and Tropical land cooling, the Global land anomaly jumped up from 0.53 to 0.93C.  That reversed in March with both NH land and Global land anomaly back down to 0.63C. That cooling offset SH Ocean warming doubling from 0.19C to 0.38C. Now in April NH land has cooled further down to 0.51C while NH ocean warmed slightly.  SH air temps went oppositely: SH land wamed slightly while SH ocean dropped from 0.38C to 0.27C.  Note that in the first 4 months of 2026 the Global land and ocean air temps have hardly varied from 0.38C.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.   v6.1 data was recalibrated also starting with 2021. In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6.1 which are now posted for April 2026.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.

After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, there was a remarkable spiking of Tropical ocean temps from -0.5C up to + 1.2C in January 2024.  The rise was matched by other regions in 2024, such that the Global anomaly peaked at 0.86C in April. Since then all regions have cooled down sharply to a low of 0.27C in January.  In February 2025, SH rose from 0.1C to 0.4C pulling the Global ocean air anomaly up to 0.47C, where it stayed in March and April. In May drops in NH and Tropics pulled the air temps over oceans down despite an uptick in SH. At 0.43C, ocean air temps were similar to May 2020, albeit with higher SH anomalies. In November/December all regions were cooler, led by a sharp drop in SH bringing the Global ocean anomaly down to 0.02C. In 2026, ocean warming is evident, but now SH cooling offset NH and Tropical warming.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for March is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  The seesaw pattern in Land temps is similar to ocean temps 2021-22, except that SH is the outlier, hitting bottom in January 2023. Then exceptionally SH goes from -0.6C up to 1.4C in September 2023 and 1.8C in  August 2024, with a large drop in between.  In November, SH and the Tropics pulled the Global Land anomaly further down despite a bump in NH land temps. February showed a sharp drop in NH land air temps from 1.07C down to 0.56C, pulling the Global land anomaly downward from 0.9C to 0.6C. Some ups and downs followed with returns close to February values in August.  A remarkable spike in October was completely reversed in November/December, along with NH dropping sharply bringing the Global Land anomaly down to 0.52C, half of its peak value of 1.17C 09/2024. In 2026 January and February Global land rebounded up to 1.14C, led by a NH warming spike. That NH spike was reversed in March and April back down to 0.43C and the Global land anomaly pulled back down despits some SH and Tropical land warming.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly Global Land and Ocean anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.02 for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed

With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016. In 2024 March and April took the Global anomaly to a new peak of 0.94C.  The cool down started with May dropping to 0.9C, later months declined steadily until  August Global Land and Ocean was down to 0.39C. then rose slightly to 0.53 in October, before dropping to 0.3C in December, and slightly higher since, now at 0.39C in  2026.

The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps. Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak. Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force. TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST4, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming had not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995. Of course, the future has not yet been written.

No, Washington Post, ‘Carbon Pollution’ Isn’t Making Food Less Healthy

The Washington Post (WaPo) claims in “The invisible force making food less nutritious” that rising carbon dioxide pollution is steadily degrading the nutritional quality of crops, putting billions at risk of hidden hunger. This is false.

From ClimateRealism


By Anthony Watts

The Washington Post (WaPo) claims in “The invisible force making food less nutritious” that rising carbon dioxide pollution is steadily degrading the nutritional quality of crops, putting billions at risk of hidden hunger. This is false. The article amplifies small projected changes in the vitamins and minerals in food based on modeling exercises while downplaying the massive gains in global food production, nutrition access, and agricultural resilience made possible in part by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

The WaPo frames carbon dioxide as “the invisible culprit behind this damaging phenomenon,” arguing that “surging concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere” are depleting essential nutrients like zinc. That framing ignores a fundamental biological reality: plants are built from carbon. Carbon dioxide is not pollution to plants, rather it is the raw material of photosynthesis.

CO2 enrichment has been shown repeatedly to stimulate plant growth, increase biomass, improve water-use efficiency, and boost yields in many staple crops. This is not controversial. It is basic plant physiology. Even the article acknowledges that extra carbon dioxide helps plants produce more carbohydrates and grow bigger and faster.

The central claim rests on a meta-analysis suggesting average nutrient declines of roughly 3.2 percent across crops since the late 1980s. That is a small change, nearly within the noise of agricultural variability. Soil composition, fertilizer use, irrigation, crop variety selection, harvest timing, and post-harvest storage all influence nutrient content. A few percentage points over decades is not a nutritional apocalypse and won’t result in hunger or even malnutrition.

Meanwhile, global food production has soared. Grain yields per acre have increased dramatically since the 1960s. See the graph below:

Caloric availability per capita worldwide has risen. The number of people suffering from outright caloric deficiency has fallen significantly relative to global population growth. Populations do not expand from three billion to eight billion in a century if the food supply is collapsing nutritionally.

WaPo highlights projections that by 2040 chickpeas could contain 17 percent of recommended daily zinc instead of 22 percent in 1988. That is a difference of five percentage points in a single serving. If such a shift occurred, multiple solutions are available, like eating slightly more of that food, diversifying one’s diet, or taking a supplement. In wealthy nations, fortified foods and multivitamins are ubiquitous. In developing nations, fortification programs already address iron and zinc deficiencies regardless of CO2 levels. As an alternative, crops can and have been genetically modified safely to enhance the vitamins and minerals in them.

Even the article concedes that “people in wealthy countries with strong health care systems will have many tools to cope with the change.” That admission undermines the apocalyptic tone.

WaPo further leans on projections from a 2018 modeling study estimating millions could experience additional zinc or protein deficiency by 2050. Those are modeled outcomes built on dietary assumptions, emissions scenarios, and fixed consumption patterns. They assume limited adaptation. They assume static diets. They assume no agricultural innovation. Models are not destiny.

Agriculture is dynamic. Plant breeding programs already select for nutrient density as well as yield. Biofortification initiatives, such as iron-rich beans and vitamin A-enhanced rice, are expanding. Governments and NGOs routinely address micronutrient deficiencies independent of climate debates.

The article also claims that carbon dioxide’s benefits are “far outstripped by the damage from rising temperatures,” citing worst-case warming scenarios that could reduce yields by more than 20 percent. That claim, based on extreme, unverified assumptions, flies in the face of what agronomy tells us about the necessity and benefits of higher of CO2 for crops. Thousands of lab and field experiments over decades show crop yields should continue to increase as CO2 goes up at any reasonably foreseeable levels.

In reality, global agricultural productivity has continued as the Earth has modestly warmed over the past century, in part due to the better growing conditions resulting from the reduction in late season freezes and better water conditions, due almost entirely to that warming and higher CO2 levels. Technological innovation, improved irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, pest management, and crop genetics have also consistently outpaced environmental challenges.

The “dilution effect” described in the article is not new. Larger, faster-growing crops often distribute minerals over more biomass. That does not mean famine. It means higher yields with slightly altered nutrient ratios. Nutrition is determined by total intake, dietary diversity, and access, not by miniscule percentage declines in minerals in particular crops, considered in isolation from food intake as a whole.

The most telling statistic is not a projected 3 percent mineral change. It is that global life expectancy has increased, childhood mortality has plummeted, and food supply per capita has expanded during the very decades atmospheric CO2 rose most rapidly. These are all, at least in part, a reflection of improved access to more abundant, nutritious foods.

Carbon dioxide is not a toxin to crops. It is a growth substrate. Demonizing it as the “invisible force” behind nutritional decline ignores the broader picture of agricultural abundance and human adaptation.

The Washington Post has taken a modest statistical decline in select minerals and inflated it into a planetary health crisis. That is not balanced reporting. Their readers deserve better.

The Closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the Obsolescence of Solar Modules

The recent U.S./Israel-Iran War, which began on February 28, 2026, triggered the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical oil chokepoint—halting roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids supply and effectively stopping oil and LNG exports from the Persian Gulf.

From CO2-Coalition`s Substack

By Ganapathy Shanmugam, Ph.D.

The recent U.S./Israel-Iran War, which began on February 28, 2026, triggered the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical oil chokepoint—halting roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids supply and effectively stopping oil and LNG exports from the Persian Gulf.

This sudden disruption has caused sharp price spikes in fossil fuels and forced major producers to curtail output, underscoring their indispensable role in meeting global energy demand. In contrast, solar module prices have shown no meaningful response, revealing that solar energy has failed to act as a viable or scalable substitute during this genuine energy crisis. These events empirically demonstrate that fossil fuels remain absolutely essential, while solar modules have proven largely obsolete when they are needed most.

Here are some very important points to consider:

  • The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical oil chokepoint (Fig. 1). Roughly 20 million barrels per day—about 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption—normally pass through it.
  • The Persian Gulf sits within the Persian Gulf Basin; a wedge-shaped foreland basin located between the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate (Fig. 2). Its formation is tied directly to plate tectonics: as the Arabian Plate moved northward and collided with Eurasia, it created the Zagros Fold and Thrust Belt (Sembroni et al. 2024) to the northeast and caused the crust to bend downward, forming a deep basin.
  • This basin later filled with 12–13 km of sediment, mostly carbonates and evaporites, deposited over hundreds of millions of years. These conditions also produced the region’s exceptional hydrocarbon richness (e.g., Ahvaz and Marun oil fields).
  • The U.S./Israel-Iran War, which began on February 28, 2026, not only led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz but also halted the passage of oil and LNG effectively.
  • From a global market perspective, losing this volume is equivalent to shutting down major oil-producing regions entirely. With no alternative export routes for most Gulf producers, countries like Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia were forced to cut production because storage filled up.
  • The sudden removal of such a large share of global supply triggered immediate price spikes (Fig. 3).
  • If the Solar Energy is truly the Savior of the Planet Earth from Climate Change, then the global community should welcome the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and related shortage of Oil and LNG. They should pivot towards Solar Energy. Surprisingly, there is no change in the Price-Index trend for solar modules due to the U.S./Israel-Iran war (Fig. 4).
  • These empirical datasets clearly reveal that at the time of global energy crisis, fossil fuels are absolute, but solar modules are obsolete!

References

Sembroni, A., Reitano, R., Faccenna, C. et al. 2024. The geologic configuration of the Zagros Fold and Thrust Belt: an overview. Med. Geosc. Rev. 6, 61–86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42990-024-00118-6

G. Shanmugam, Ph.D. is a Member of the CO2 Coalition and formerly employed as a Research Scientist by the Mobil Oil Company in Dallas, Texas (1978-2000).

Originally published on CO2 Coalition Substack on May 6, 2026.

What’s New!

The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate Debrief Podcast, Reassessing Climate Science Claims, featuring Dr. Wally Manheimer. Watch the full video on YouTube here!

The Climate Debrief Podcast is now also available on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and iHeartRadio!

Infrasound from Wind Turbines: Mainz University Medical Center Warns of Increased Risk of Heart Failure and Arrhythmias

Infrasound (sound below ~20 Hz) effects on human sleep have been studied in laboratory, field, and epidemiological contexts, particularly in relation to wind turbines, industrial sources, and natural/urban environments.

Infrasound (sound below ~20 Hz) effects on human sleep have been studied in laboratory, field, and epidemiological contexts, particularly in relation to wind turbines, industrial sources, and natural/urban environments.

Evidence is mixed, with self-reported issues more common than objective physiological disruptions at typical environmental levels.

Controlled Laboratory Evidence

Marshall et al. (2023): A rigorous double-blind, randomized crossover study exposed 37 noise-sensitive healthy adults to 72 hours of simulated wind turbine infrasound (~90 dB peak, 1.6–20 Hz signature) vs. sham (silent speakers) and active control (traffic noise). Polysomnography (PSG) measured wake after sleep onset (WASO; primary outcome), sleep stages, arousals, EEG power spectra, and more. Infrasound had no significant effect on WASO, sleep architecture, arousals, or other objective/subjective sleep measures compared to sham. Traffic noise worsened WASO. No participants developed “wind turbine syndrome” symptoms. This is one of the strongest studies isolating infrasound effects.

Older studies (e.g., Landström et al.): Exposure to infrasound during sleep (e.g., in students) showed minimal impact on sleep patterns via EEG, with audible noise (like traffic) causing clearer disruptions (e.g., longer sleep onset, more awakenings). Some subtle EEG shifts (e.g., theta activity) were noted but often non-significant.

High-intensity or prolonged exposures in some pilots have suggested subtle changes (e.g., altered resting-state brain networks or minor EEG power shifts in N2 sleep at ~80 dB(G)), but these are not consistent and often lack strong clinical relevance.

Infrasound effects on human sleep

Infrasound (sound below ~20 Hz) effects on human sleep have been studied in laboratory, field, and epidemiological contexts, particularly in relation to wind turbines, industrial sources, and natural/urban environments.

Evidence is mixed, with self-reported issues more common than objective physiological disruptions at typical environmental levels.

Infrasound health effects

Infrasound refers to sound waves with frequencies below the typical human hearing range, generally under 20 Hz. Humans can perceive very high-intensity infrasound as vibrations or pressure sensations, though it is usually inaudible at environmental levels. It occurs naturally (e.g., from wind, ocean waves, earthquakes, or thunderstorms) and from human sources like industrial machinery, traffic, aircraft, and wind turbines.

Health effects depend heavily on intensity (measured in decibels, often dB(G) or dB(Z) for low frequencies) and duration. Typical residential exposure near wind turbines is very low—often 30–80 dB or below for relevant frequencies—far lower than levels used in many lab studies showing effects (>100 dB). Background infrasound from natural sources is common and usually harmless.

Commonly mentioned symptoms in self-reports (especially near wind turbines or other low-frequency sources) include:

  • Annoyance and psychological effects — Irritability, anxiety, or unease.
  • Sleep disturbance — Difficulty falling asleep, awakenings, or fatigue.
  • Other symptoms — Headaches, concentration issues, dizziness, nausea, or “pressure” sensations (sometimes called “wind turbine syndrome”).
  • Cardiovascular — Potential changes in heart contractility or arrhythmias (from specific research like Mainz group).
  • Other — Rare reports of vestibular (balance) effects or cognitive changes at high intensities.

Scientific Evidence

High-intensity infrasound (>100 dB): Clearer evidence of effects. The Mainz University group’s in-vitro studies on human heart tissue showed reduced contractility (negative inotropic effect) at 110–120 dB (16 Hz), linked to calcium handling and mitochondrial disruption. Animal and cellular studies report oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, or neuronal changes at high doses.

Typical environmental levels (e.g., wind turbines): Evidence for direct physiological harm is weak or absent in rigorous controlled studies.

  • Sleep: A strong 2023 double-blind randomized crossover study (Marshall et al.) exposed noise-sensitive adults to 72 hours of simulated wind turbine infrasound (~90 dB peak). No significant effects on objective sleep measures (polysomnography: wake after sleep onset, arousals, stages), cognition, stress markers, or symptoms compared to sham. Audible traffic noise did disrupt sleep. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • Annoyance and symptoms: Self-reported issues correlate more with audible noise, visual impact (turbines), attitudes, and nocebo effects than infrasound alone. Meta-analyses show associations with annoyance and reported sleep problems, but objective measures often do not confirm major physiological disruption. sciencedirect.com +1
  • Cardiovascular/Other: Epidemiological observations (e.g., Mainz 2026 poster) suggest higher heart failure/arrhythmia diagnoses in high-wind areas, but these are ecological studies with confounding risks. Controlled reviews generally find no consistent causal link at real-world exposures.

At high industrial or experimental intensities, infrasound can produce measurable biological effects, including on heart tissue and possibly sleep or mood. At typical environmental levels from wind turbines or daily life, controlled evidence does not support widespread direct organ damage or sleep disruption from the infrasound component alone. Annoyance and reported symptoms are real for some people and may stem from audible noise, individual sensitivity, or contextual factors.

There is research from the Infrasound Working Group at Universitätsmedizin Mainz (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), led by cardiac surgeon Prof. Christian-Friedrich Vahl.

It builds on earlier lab work and a recent 2026 epidemiological poster presentation. While the underlying experiments are real, the extrapolation to real-world wind turbine risks at typical exposure levels remains debated and contested.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Negative Effect of High-Level Infrasound on Human Myocardial Contractility: In-Vitro Controlled Experiment

Here’s a clear, detailed explanation of the key Mainz infrasound studies from the Infrasound Working Group at Universitätsmedizin Mainz (Johannes Gutenberg University), led by cardiac surgeon Prof. Dr. Christian-Friedrich Vahl.

1. In-Vitro (Lab) Study – Chaban et al. (2021)

Title: Negative Effect of High-Level Infrasound on Human Myocardial Contractility: In-Vitro Controlled Experiment

Published in: Noise & Health (2021)

Design:

  • Used living human heart muscle tissue (right atrial trabeculae) obtained from patients undergoing heart surgery.
  • For each patient, two small muscle strips were prepared: one exposed to infrasound, one as control.
  • Exposed to pure sinusoidal 16 Hz infrasound (a frequency typical of modern wind turbines) for 60 minutes.
  • Sound pressure levels tested: 100 dB(Z), 110 dB(Z), and 120 dB(Z).
  • Muscle strips were electrically stimulated to beat at 75 beats per minute in a physiological solution.
  • Measured contractile force (how strongly the muscle contracts).

Main Results:

  • No significant effect at 100 dB.
  • ~11% reduction in contractile force at 110 dB.
  • ~18% reduction in contractile force at 120 dB.
  • Effects appeared within one hour and were linked to disturbances in intracellular calcium handling and possibly mitochondrial function.
  • The authors concluded that high-level infrasound interferes with heart muscle contractility.

This is a direct mechanical/cellular effect observed in isolated tissue (no whole-body physiology involved).

2. Epidemiological Poster – Vahl & Dietz (2026)

Title: Significantly Increased Incidence of Heart Failure and Arrhythmias in Municipalities with Significant Expansion of Wind Energy


Presented at: 132nd DGIM Congress (German Society for Internal Medicine), April 2026


Poster: P-15-07, Abstract ID 85384

Design (Retrospective ecological study):

  • Compared two groups of municipalities in the Paderborn district (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) using health insurance data (new ICD-10 diagnoses).
  • Exposed group (high wind energy): Borchen + Lichtenau (~25,550 inhabitants, 224 turbines, 533 MW as of 2024).
  • Control group (low wind energy): Delbrück + Hövelhof (~49,700 inhabitants, 8 turbines, 14 MW).
  • Municipalities were chosen for similarity in climate, wind conditions, demographics, socioeconomic factors, and lack of other major industrial confounders.
  • Time period: 2015–2024, focusing especially on 2021–2024 after major wind expansion.
  • Outcomes: New diagnoses of heart failure (I50) and arrhythmias (I49).

Key Findings (as reported):

  • Statistically highly significant increases (p < 0.0001) in new heart failure diagnoses in the exposed municipalities.
  • Average increase 2021–2024: 21–51% in Borchen, 20–68% in Lichtenau (control = 100% reference).
  • Similar significant increases for life-threatening arrhythmias.
  • Authors attribute this to infrasound exposure from the turbines.

Overall Interpretation by the Mainz Group

They combine the lab evidence (direct negative effect on heart muscle at high infrasound levels) with the real-world epidemiological data to argue that the massive expansion of wind energy is associated with measurable increases in serious cardiovascular disease. They call for public information, further research, and stricter infrasound regulations.

Important Context and Limitations

  • The lab study used very high sound levels (110–120 dB) that are much higher than typical residential exposures near wind turbines (often <60–80 dB, frequently near background levels).
  • The 2026 poster is an ecological study (area-level comparison, not individual data). It cannot prove causation and is subject to potential confounders (lifestyle, healthcare differences, etc.).
  • It remains a conference poster, not yet a full peer-reviewed publication.
  • Broader scientific consensus and controlled studies (e.g., long-term simulated infrasound exposure trials) have generally not confirmed clinically relevant harm at real-world wind turbine distances.

Here is a clear, accurate English translation of the poster (DGIM 2026, Abstract ID 85384):

DGIM 2026, Poster No. P-15-07, Abstract ID: 85384
132nd Congress of the German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM)

P-15-07: Significantly Increased Incidence of Heart Failure and Arrhythmias in Municipalities with Substantial Expansion of Wind Energy

Christian-Friedrich Vahl and Oliver Dietz
(Infrasound Working Group, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz)

Background

Experimental studies on isolated human myocardium demonstrated reductions in contractility and rhythm-relevant changes in intracellular calcium metabolism following infrasound exposure. The aim of the current epidemiological study was to investigate whether changes in myocardial health due to low-frequency sound (including infrasound) are detectable under “real-life” conditions. The incidence of the target parameters “heart failure” and “arrhythmias” was to be compared in two populations with high versus negligible exposure to the potential noxious agent.The study design required a retrospective approach with respect to both investigators and subjects, with neutral blinded data collection in a target region characterized by the forced installation of new-generation wind turbines during the observation period.

Methods

From an epidemiological perspective, the retrospective, diagnostically blinded study design required two populations with at least 18,000 exposed individuals each for comparative analysis. Comparable climatic conditions (including prevailing wind directions and intensities), comparable ethnic composition, age and gender structure, and comparable socioeconomic parameters were required. The absence of other cardiovascular interfering noxious agents had to be ensured (nuclear power plants, chemical plants, aircraft noise, large construction sites, etc.).

Through elaborate systematic socio-geographical analysis, it was possible to identify four municipalities in the district of Paderborn (Germany) that fulfilled the statistically required inclusion criteria:

  • The town of Lichtenau and the municipality of Borchen were identified as significantly burdened by wind energy-associated infrasound exposure (as of 2024: 533 MW, 224 wind turbines).
  • The municipality of Hövelhof and the town of Delbrück formed the low-exposure control group (14 MW, 8 wind turbines).

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Westphalia-Lippe provided the case numbers for new cardiovascular diseases in these municipalities.

Control group: Delbrück and Hövelhof (n ≈ 49,700)
Test population: Borchen and Lichtenau (n ≈ 25,550)

Results

Exposed residents (minimum number in the observation period):

  • Town of Lichtenau (min. n = 11,900)
  • Municipality of Borchen (min. n = 13,650)
  • Municipality of Hövelhof (min. n = 17,000)
  • Town of Delbrück (min. n = 32,700)
    (Observation period: calendar years 2015–2024)

The ICD codes I49 (cardiac arrhythmias, life-threatening) and I50 / I50.1 (heart failure) were evaluated. In Borchen, there was a significant increase in the incidence of newly diagnosed heart failure compared to Delbrück (p < 0.0001), and similarly in Lichtenau (p < 0.0001). On an annual average basis for 2021–2024, the increase was between 21% and 51% in Borchen and between 20% and 68% in Lichtenau. For “life-threatening arrhythmias,” the incidence in the exposed group was also significantly elevated (p < 0.0001).

The figures (in the original poster) show the incidences with the control group as the 100% reference.

Conclusion

The data show, using the example of the Paderborn region, a significantly increased risk of new cardiovascular disease in municipalities with massive expansion of wind energy. Therefore, appropriate measures must be taken immediately to systematically inform the exposed population about the risk of arrhythmias and heart failure so that timely therapeutic measures can be initiated. Research funding should be provided for detailed studies to precisely define the threshold values for infrasound exposure that require public notification.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Prof. Philipp Wild (Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Gutenberg Health Study, Mainz, JGU) for his conceptual support.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for April, 2026: +0.39 deg. C

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April 2026 was +0.39 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which remains statistically unchanged for 4 months now.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

May 7th, 2026 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

This month I’m adding plots for USA48 and Canada, too.

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April 2026 was +0.39 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which remains statistically unchanged for 4 months now.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through April 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 28 months (record highs are in red). Note I’ve added Canada to the table this month, by request (although WordPress won’t allow me to add September 2024 for some reason). The warmest April in Canada was in 2010 (+2.61 deg. C), while the warmest anomaly out of all months was in January 1981 (+3.75 deg. C).

YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.
2024Jan+0.80+1.02+0.57+1.20-0.19+0.40+1.12+0.97
2024Feb+0.88+0.94+0.81+1.16+1.31+0.85+1.16+2.45
2024Mar+0.88+0.96+0.80+1.25+0.22+1.05+1.34+1.12
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.76+1.15+0.86+0.88+0.54+1.39
2024May+0.77+0.77+0.78+1.20+0.04+0.20+0.52+0.67
2024June+0.69+0.78+0.60+0.85+1.36+0.63+0.91+0.19
2024July+0.73+0.86+0.61+0.96+0.44+0.56-0.07+1.15
2024Aug+0.75+0.81+0.69+0.74+0.40+0.88+1.75+1.36
2024Sep+0.81+1.04+0.58+0.82+1.31+1.48+0.98
2024Oct+0.75+0.89+0.60+0.63+1.89+0.81+1.09+0.89
2024Nov+0.64+0.87+0.40+0.53+1.11+0.79+1.00+1.61
2024Dec+0.61+0.75+0.47+0.52+1.41+1.12+1.54+1.65
2025Jan+0.45+0.70+0.21+0.24-1.07+0.74+0.48+1.04
2025Feb+0.50+0.55+0.45+0.26+1.03+2.10+0.87-0.35
2025Mar+0.57+0.73+0.41+0.40+1.24+1.23+1.20+0.80
2025Apr+0.61+0.76+0.46+0.36+0.81+0.85+1.21+0.45
2025May+0.50+0.45+0.55+0.30+0.15+0.75+0.98+0.81
2025June+0.48+0.48+0.47+0.30+0.80+0.05+0.39-0.22
2025July+0.36+0.49+0.23+0.45+0.32+0.40+0.53-0.23
2025Aug+0.39+0.39+0.39+0.16-0.06+0.82+0.11+0.62
2025Sep+0.53+0.56+0.49+0.35+0.38+0.77+0.30+2.44
2025Oct+0.53+0.52+0.55+0.24+1.12+1.42+1.67+2.59
2025Nov+0.43+0.59+0.27+0.24+1.32+0.78+0.36+1.47
2025Dec+0.30+0.45+0.15+0.19+2.10+0.32+0.37-1.86
2026Jan+0.35+0.51+0.19+0.09+0.30+1.40+0.95+1.17
2026Feb+0.39+0.54+0.23+0.03+1.91-0.48+0.73+0.32
2026Mar+0.38+0.33+0.42+0.07+3.74-0.48+1.14-3.17
2026Apr+0.39+0.43+0.34+0.23+1.20+0.30+0.70-0.89
YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.

Time Series Plots for USA48 and Canada

Starting this month I will include time series graphs for USA48 and Canada, in addition to the usual global plot. Note that for the previous month (March) the record warmth in USA48 (+3.74 deg. C) was in stark contrast to the coldest March in Canada in the 48-year satellite record (-3.17 deg. C).

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for April, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere