Day: May 13, 2026

“Masculine Behavior Bad for the Planet,” Says Phys.org. We Read the Paper.

Yeah, you’re right to be skeptical—it’s largely junk science in the sense of ideological synthesis masquerading as objective analysis.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Last Tuesday Phys.org, a science aggregator widely picked up by mainstream outlets, ran a piece under the headline:

“Masculine behavior bad for the planet says new research.”

Masculine behavior bad for the planet says new research

The press release opens by announcing that “major new research on climate change, global warming and environmental collapse, how they connect with what men do, and what to do about it, has just been published.” A reader could be forgiven for assuming that some new study had measured something, found something, and produced a finding.

That is not what happened.

The “research” in question is an editorial introduction to a double special issue of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, written by Kadri Aavik (Tallinn University), Jeff Hearn (Huddersfield), Martin Hultman (Gothenburg), and Tamara Shefer (University of the Western Cape). It introduces twenty-two papers across two issues with titles ranging from analyses of “pro-meat online influencers in Finland” to discussions of pipeline politics in Canada. The editorial’s organizing concept is “(M)Anthropocene”, the Anthropocene with a male prefix bolted on the front to signal who, in the authors’ view, is responsible.

I read it so you don’t have to. Here is what is actually going on.

What This Document Is

This is not a study. It is an editorial, the introduction a guest-edited journal issue uses to set the table for the papers that follow. It is published in a humanities journal that focuses on gender theory and is, on its own terms, doing exactly what such a journal is supposed to do.

That is the first problem with the press coverage. The Phys.org framing, “new research,” “major new research on climate change”, invites readers to think they are encountering empirical findings about the climate system, or at minimum about emissions. They are not. They are encountering a theoretical framework, advanced in a humanities journal, that takes the existence and severity of climate change as a premise and then proceeds to assign causal and moral responsibility to a gender category.

This is the kind of distinction the science press is generally careful about when the politics run the other way. A working paper from a free-market think tank questioning a climate model’s sensitivity gets caveated to within an inch of its life. An editorial in a masculinity-studies journal asserting that climate change is the fault of “elite white eurowestern men” gets the headline treatment without so much as a “researchers argue.”

The Thesis

The editorial’s argument is structured around a few moves the reader should be able to recognize.

The first move is to observe that men, on average, have higher carbon footprints than women, driven principally by transportation, tourism, and meat consumption. This is true and unremarkable. It is also a population-level statistical regularity that says approximately nothing about what causes climate change at the planetary scale, global emissions are driven by the energy intensity of feeding, housing, transporting, and supplying electricity to eight billion people, not by who eats the most steak in Helsinki.

The second move is to observe that men dominate the leadership and ownership of extractive and energy-intensive industries. This is also true. It is also a description of a far broader pattern, men dominate the leadership and ownership of essentially every dangerous, dirty, physically demanding, or capital-intensive occupation in every society for which we have records, including the societies the authors would not consider patriarchal. The editorial offers no mechanism by which masculinity itself causes fossil-fuel use, as opposed to causing men to disproportionately end up in jobs that involve producing the energy modern life depends on. The correlation is treated as a moral indictment without the causal step being argued.

The third move is the one that does the most work, and is worth quoting directly:

“climate denialism often combines with misogyny”

This is the rhetorical heart of the entire project. It converts substantive disagreement with the consensus framing into a personality defect, a gender pathology, specifically. It is the same maneuver Hultman performed in his much-cited “Cool Dudes in Norway” paper, which framed climate-skeptical Norwegian men as suffering from a particular configuration of threatened masculinity. In the new editorial, the move is generalized: doubt is now diagnosed.

This is not a serious method of intellectual engagement. It is what one does instead of engaging. If your model of the world holds that the people who disagree with you are not making arguments but expressing psychological wounds, you have constructed a framework in which you cannot lose, and from which you cannot learn. It is, in a precise sense, unfalsifiable.

The Unstable Subject

A further problem runs through the editorial that may be worth flagging for readers who don’t follow this literature.

“Men” is not a stable category in the paper. Sometimes it means roughly half the human species. Sometimes it means “elite white eurowestern men” specifically. Sometimes it means far-right political elites. Sometimes it expands to include all participants in industrial economies; sometimes it contracts to the leadership of oil majors. The category gets re-sized whenever the rhetorical situation requires it.

This is convenient but corrosive. If “men” caused industrial civilization, then most men in human history are exempted, because most men never had access to the kind of industrial capacity the editorial describes. If only “elite white eurowestern men” caused it, then the indictment of masculinity-as-such collapses, because what is being described is a thin slice of a particular class in a particular region during a particular two centuries. The editorial wants to make the broader claim while only being responsible for the narrower one.

Real analysis requires picking a category and sticking with it. Activism does not.

The Genre

There is a genre of scholarship developing at the intersection of activist humanities and climate framing, and this editorial is a clean specimen. Its features are recognizable across dozens of similar papers: the premise that climate change is settled and catastrophic; a gendered, racialized, or postcolonial reframe applied to it; an analytical move that treats disagreement as pathology rather than as substance; and a closing exhortation to “play our part in collectively creating gender-equitable and ecologically sustainable” futures, or some near variant.

It is a genre that has its own journals, its own conferences, its own grants, and its own footnote ecology. The editorial under discussion cites Hultman’s earlier work, which cites the prior literature, which cites Hultman. The “(M)Anthropocene” coinage itself comes from a 2019 chapter by Hultman and Paul Pulé in a Routledge handbook also co-edited by Shefer, one of the present editorial’s authors.

This is academically accepted. It is also not climate science. And it should not be passed off as climate science by a press service whose readership reasonably expects the word “research” to mean something specific.

What This Costs

The closing point is the one worth dwelling on.

The authors are at publicly funded universities. The journal is on the catalog of a major commercial publisher. Phys.org’s piece will travel onward into other outlets. None of this is illegal. but all of it is paid for, and what is being paid for is a body of work whose function is, at this point, indistinguishable from activism. The editorial does not pretend otherwise; it calls on readers, especially men, to “play our part” in a particular political program.

It is fair to ask what the science press is doing when it presents that program as “new research.” It is fair to ask what universities are doing when they fund and promote it as such. And it is fair to ask whether the climate question is well served by a literature in which one half of humanity has been credentialed as the cause and the other half as the cure.

The full editorial is open access. Anyone who suspects this account is uncharitable should read it for themselves.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, you’re right to be skeptical—it’s largely junk science in the sense of ideological synthesis masquerading as objective analysis.

The “new research” is a double special issue of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies (2025–2026), edited by Kadri Aavik, Jeff Hearn, Martin Hultman, and Tamara Shefer, with contributions from 20+ authors across 13 countries. It’s not a single empirical study with new data but a collection of review/theoretical pieces in critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM)—a field rooted in feminist theory, ecofeminism, intersectionality, and concepts like “hegemonic masculinity,” “(M)Anthropocene,” and “petro-masculinity.”

These journals prioritize critiquing power structures (patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism) over falsifiable hypothesis-testing. The language frames “elite white Western men” and associated norms (dominance, risk-taking, status via big cars/meat) as the core drivers, while calling for reshaping masculinities. This is activism scholarship, not neutral climate science.

Some underlying observations have empirical support from other sources:

  • Meat consumption and cars: French data (and similar in Sweden/elsewhere) shows men have ~26% higher emissions from food + transport, largely due to more red meat and driving (especially larger/less efficient vehicles). Gaps shrink with controls for income, distance traveled, and calories but don’t vanish. Meat is culturally linked to masculinity in many societies.
  • Attitudes: Women often report higher climate concern and policy support in surveys; men show more skepticism on average in some Western samples (linked to identity/politics in some studies).

These are averages with huge overlap. Individual variation, class, culture, and wealth dominate.

A poor man in a developing country emits far less than a wealthy woman in the West.

Global emissions are driven by total energy demand, population, industry, and policy—not gender norms primarily.

Men also dominate high-emission sectors (energy, mining, heavy industry, military) but likewise lead in engineering, nuclear innovation, and efficiency tech that reduce impacts.

Behavioral nudges on meat/cars can help where differences exist, but planetary challenges are solved by engineering and economics, not re-socializing half the species.

Plenty of men support nuclear, carbon capture, or adaptation realism precisely because of traits like systemizing and lower risk aversion in some domains.

The headline “masculine behavior bad for the planet” is reductive clickbait that flattens complex data into ideology.

This is a synthesis/review in a specialized journal on masculinity studies (often drawing from ecofeminism and critical theory), not a new empirical bombshell from neutral climate science.

It frames issues through power, patriarchy, and intersectionality (race/class/gender), spotlighting “elite white Eurowestern men” while downplaying universal human drivers like population, technology, energy demand, and incentives.

Endangered Species federal spending is over one billion per year

The Endangered Species Act requires a “Report to Congress on Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures.“ It appears that the federal portion alone amounts to well over a billion dollars a year.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The Endangered Species Act requires a “Report to Congress on Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures.“ It appears that the federal portion alone amounts to well over a billion dollars a year.

Clearly, there is an entire industry here. What the specific spending is for, and who gets it, is a mystery. But there is a lot of fun detail in what each agency spends on each protected species.

First, a caveat. I say “appears” because the latest expenditure report I can find is from fiscal year 2020. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces this report, and they have an online collection here.

It ends with the 2020 report. They may have the more recent reports in an online database but their big species data system, called ECOS, says there is no occurrence of the term “expenditure.” It even lists its standard reports here.

The 2020 data is good enough to get the feel of what is going on, so let’s go with that. I will point out some stuff that I find interesting, even surprising. Other people might want to look at other aspects that are relevant to them.

The 314-page report consists mostly of several lists that are very long because an expenditure is listed for each of the over 1,600 protected species.

Table 1 lists every species and the total expenditure across all agencies, except land acquisition is not included. The species are listed alphabetically, by common name, within biological groups like birds, fishes, flowering plants, etc. Surprisingly, there are more plants than animals.

Most interesting is the total federal expenditure for the year of $1,135,610,898 or well over a billion dollars. Endangered Species is a very large program that the public knows very little about.

Note that this huge amount does not include the also huge amount that non-federal landowners collectively pay applying for incidental take permits so they can develop their land.

See my “Endangered Species Act regulatory overkill” here.

Table 2 also lists all the species, but they are ranked by expenditure from most down to least. So, Table 1 is the place to look up a particular species, while Table 2 is the place to see where the big bucks are going. Table 1 includes the Table 2 ranking for each species.

Surprisingly, 27 out of the top 30 funded species are fish. Many are various species of salmon and steelhead, but there are others. The three non-fish are the North Atlantic Right Whale, the Desert Tortoise, and the West Indian Manatee. The little-known Razorback Sucker gets more money than any of these three at $14,425,633.

Table 2 includes a running top-down total. The top 30 species, almost all being fish, collectively get $658,328,316 or over half of the program money. Last place is shared by a birch, a chub, and a snail at $100 each. The Red Wolf just beats them at $200.

Appendix B is equally extensive. It lists expenditures by species for each separate federal agency. The big guns are the Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA (especially the National Marine Fisheries Service) with long lists and around $200 million each.

On a fun note, a lot of the little-known species have interesting or even amusing names. Clams seem to specialize in them, and there are a lot of clams. Examples include the Purple Bankclimber, Turgid Blossom, Appalachian Elktoe, Arkansas Fatmucket, Inflated Heelsplitter, and Cumberland Monkeyface. American tax dollars are going to protect all of these rare clams and more.

The Federal Expenditure Reports need to be restored and made publicly available in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Congress needs to look closely at the allocation of federal funding among the species. We should only list what we can afford to protect.

Climate Experiments Reveal Marine Life’s Limits — But Often Overstate Chronic Ocean Warming Impacts

Ocean warming experiments, particularly lab-based ones simulating climate change impacts on marine life, often use rapid temperature increases that do not match the gradual pace of real-world ocean warming. This can lead to misleading predictions about long-term effects on survival, reproduction, and ecosystems.

Ocean warming experiments, particularly lab-based ones simulating climate change impacts on marine life, often use rapid temperature increases that do not match the gradual pace of real-world ocean warming. This can lead to misleading predictions about long-term effects on survival, reproduction, and ecosystems.

Overall, many experiments designed for long-term projections are actually capturing short-term shock, potentially leading models to overestimate near-term collapses for some processes (e.g., reproduction) while missing others.

Lab setups simplify conditions (e.g., lacking full ecological interactions, variable salinity, light, predators, or multi-generational effects). Corals and cnidarians dominate such studies, limiting generalizability.

Earlier reviews noted extreme variation in heating rates (over 2,000-fold in coral studies).

Researchers recommend slower, more realistic ramping rates, clear reporting, multi-generational studies, or field observations in naturally warmer areas (e.g., volcanic seeps, heated bays, or long-term monitoring sites). These better reflect real adaptation over time.

This doesn’t invalidate ocean warming concerns—oceans are warming and affecting marine life—but it underscores the need for methodological improvements to make predictions more reliable for conservation, fisheries, and policy. Science self-corrects through such meta-analyses.

A 2026 meta-analysis published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B (led by researchers including Isabelle M. Côté at Simon Fraser University) reviewed 48 studies with 175 experiments on marine organisms. It highlights how the “ramping rate” (speed of temperature increase in tanks) skews results.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Do climate change experiments yield relevant insights into responses to chronic ocean warming? 

Their relevance to chronic ocean warming is often limited or indirect due to key mismatches in experimental design, particularly timescale and ramping rates.

This conclusion comes from the very paper that prompted the question—Côté et al. (2026) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B—along with broader literature on marine climate experiments.

Chronic ocean warming refers to the gradual, multi-decadal increase in baseline temperatures (already ~1°C since pre-industrial times, with projections of another ~0.6–2°C by 2100 under various scenarios).

This allows time for:

  • Physiological acclimation within an organism’s lifetime.
  • Genetic adaptation across generations.
  • Ecological shifts (e.g., species interactions, range shifts, community reorganization).

Many lab experiments, however, impose rapid temperature increases (step changes or ramps over hours/days) to reach future target temperatures. The 2026 meta-analysis of 175 experiments from 48 studies found:

  • One-third had no ramping (organisms were abruptly transferred to warmer water).
  • Where reported, ramping rates often exceeded those of natural marine heatwaves (short, intense events), let alone gradual climate trends.
  • Nearly half the studies failed to report ramping rates at all.

Result:

These setups primarily test acute heat stress tolerance, not the long-term responses relevant to climate change projections. The paper explicitly concludes that “experiments aiming to predict the effects of chronic warming simulate instead the effects of acute heat stress.”

Slower ramps sometimes revealed stronger negative effects that fast ramps masked, and vice versa. This variability means experiments can both overestimate (e.g., reproductive collapse) and underestimate certain chronic impacts depending on the trait and design.

Multi-generational experiments (e.g., on copepods over 20+ generations) show adaptation potential but often with hidden costs (e.g., trade-offs in other traits). These are more relevant to chronic scenarios but remain rare due to logistical challenges.

Overall assessment:

These experiments yield essential insights into potential sensitivities and mechanisms but require cautious interpretation for chronic warming projections. They are not irrelevant—far from it—but over-reliance on abrupt designs risks miscalibrated predictions for gradual change. The field is self-correcting through meta-analyses like this one, pushing toward more ecologically realistic approaches. Real-world ocean data (e.g., from Argo, satellites, long-term surveys) remains crucial for validation.

Published:  Proceedings of the Royal Society B

DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2025.2573

Authors: Isabelle M. Côté;

Kiara R. Kattler ;

Elizabeth M. Oishi;

Christine M. K. Clarke;

Kieran D. Cox

Abstract

Climate change threatens ocean biodiversity. Studies aimed at predicting responses of marine species to chronic warming increase temperatures to levels expected in the future. Using a meta-analysis, we ask whether ramping rate (i.e. the speed at which organisms are brought from ambient to experimental temperatures) modulates these responses. A systematic review yielded 175 experiments from 48 studies. One-third of studies had no ramping period; those that did used rates of warming faster than those observed during marine heatwaves. The effect of ramping rate on responses to warming varied. The decline in reproduction observed under warmed conditions when there was no ramping attenuated when temperatures were increased more slowly. Warming decreased survival, whether there was a ramping period or not. The effect on abundance switched from positive without ramping to negative with slower ramping, and photosynthesis declined as ramping rate slowed. The magnitude of temperature change influenced responses more consistently than ramping rate, but their relative importance varied with response type. We conclude that experiments aiming to predict the effects of chronic warming simulate instead the effects of acute heat stress. Marine communities naturally exposed to predicted future conditions likely provide the best insights into the effects of chronic ocean warming.

Earth Was Recycling Billions of Years Before It Was Cool: Evidence from Ancient Continents

Earth’s earliest continents, formed in the Archean eon, roughly 4–2.5 billion years ago, weren’t just pristine melts straight from the mantle. They incorporated a lot of “sun- baked ocean leftovers”—recycled oceanic crust and sediments that had been altered at the surface by seawater and the ancient atmosphere.

Earth’s earliest continents, formed in the Archean eon, roughly 4–2.5 billion years ago, weren’t just pristine melts straight from the mantle. They incorporated a lot of “sun- baked ocean leftovers”—recycled oceanic crust and sediments that had been altered at the surface by seawater and the ancient atmosphere.

Researchers studied ~2.7–2.5 billion-year-old granitic rocks (part of the tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite or TTG suite, the main component of early continental crust) from China’s North China Craton.

They looked at:

Sulfur isotopes (especially mass-independent fractionation, Δ³³S): In the oxygen-poor Archean atmosphere, UV light from the Sun created distinctive sulfur anomalies in surface materials. These signatures don’t form deep in the mantle and survived in the rocks.

Silicon isotopes: Seawater alteration of basalt or sedimentary processes make silicon “heavier” (higher proportion of heavier isotopes) compared to mantle-derived material.

The combination of these signatures in the granites points strongly to supracrustal sources—rocks that had been at or near the surface, interacted with the ocean and atmosphere, then got recycled into magma sources that melted to form new continental crust. Pure mantle melts wouldn’t show this double fingerprint.

This pattern holds across global Archean records after ~3.8 billion years ago, suggesting surface recycling was a dominant process in building the first stable continents.

It’s a nice reminder that Earth’s rock cycle —erosion, sedimentation, alteration, subduction/melting, and uplift—has been running for billions of years, long predating human environmentalism. The continents we stand on today carry atoms that once sat on ancient seafloors under a hazy, anoxic sky.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Coupled sulfur-silicon isotopes reveal supracrustal origin of Archean continents

This study uses coupled whole-rock quadruple sulfur (δ³⁴S, Δ³³S, Δ³⁶S) and silicon (δ³⁰Si) isotopes from Neoarchean (~2.7–2.5 Ga) granitoids in the Luxi area (North China Craton) to argue that the dominant source for preserved Archean continental crust was recycled supracrustal mafic material (seawater-altered oceanic basalts/sediments) rather than pristine mantle-derived mafic cumulates or lower-crustal gabbros.

Archean continental crust (mainly the tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite or TTG suite) formed primarily by partial melting of supracrustal mafic sources—oceanic basalts and related materials that had been altered at the surface by seawater and the anoxic Archean atmosphere—rather than pristine, unaltered mafic cumulates from the mantle or lower crust.

Single-isotope systems have ambiguities:

Zircon δ¹⁸O, often mantle-like in these rocks, can be reset or buffered and doesn’t rule out minor supracrustal input.

δ³⁰Si alone: Heavy values (elevated δ³⁰Si) suggest seawater silicification or sedimentary silica addition but could involve other processes.

Quadruple S (MIF-S): Non-zero Δ³³S is a robust Archean atmospheric UV-photochemistry fingerprint (SO₂ reactions in anoxic air). It survives high-T processing but can be subtle.

Coupling them is key. Sulfur (volatile trace element) and silicon (major element) behave differently during metamorphism/melting due to contrasting rock-fluid partitioning (higher Damköhler number for Si → rock-buffered over short distances; S equilibrates over longer paths). Magmatic/metamorphic processes are unlikely to fractionate them congruently, so covariation strongly supports inheritance from a shared supracrustal precursor.

Data from Luxi:

  • Granitoids: Small but resolvable non-zero Δ³³S (down to −0.24‰, avg. ~−0.06‰) outside typical mantle range; δ³⁴S mostly near 0; Δ³⁶S negative.
  • δ³⁰Si: Elevated/heavy (−0.09‰ to −0.05‰ in ~2.7–2.6 Ga; more variable later).
  • Contrasts with previously reported mantle-like zircon δ¹⁸O in the same region.
  • Amphibolites (mafic) also show some MIF-S.

These TTGs are mostly medium- to high-pressure (deeper melting), calc-alkaline, sodic, with TTG-like REE patterns.

Global compilation and implications

After ~3.8 Ga, most Archean granitoids worldwide show this paired signature: enriched δ³⁰Si + non-zero Δ³³S. This implies supracrustal recycling was the dominant pathway for building stable felsic crust—not just a minor contributor. Pure juvenile mantle melts or unaltered cumulates wouldn’t carry these surface fingerprints.

Implications

  • Supports models involving hydrothermal alteration of oceanic crust (e.g., in subduction-like or plateau settings) followed by melting to produce TTGs.
  • Indicates early crustal recycling (proto-plate tectonics or vigorous vertical tectonics/volcanism) was active by the late Archean, coupling atmosphere-ocean-interior processes.
  • Ties into early habitability: Surface-interior exchange helped regulate volatiles, nutrients, and conditions for life.

The study doesn’t claim zero juvenile mantle input, but the dominant pathway for preserved Archean felsic crust involved supracrustal precursors. It strengthens the “recycling Earth” narrative you highlighted earlier.

This strengthens the “Earth as recycler” view from the start of the rock cycle we recognize today. The continents aren’t pristine mantle additions but reworked “sun-baked ocean leftovers,” as your original headline put it. It refines geodynamic models without fully settling the plate tectonics timing debate.

Published: Nature Communications

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-72701-4

Authors: Kun Shang, 
Jian Zhang, 
Zaicong Wang, 
Ian Cawood, 
Yawen Cui, 
Ming Li, 
Ruihong Chang, 
Yanan Shen & 
Guochun Zhao

Abstract

The genesis of Archean continental crust through partial melting of hydrous mafic protolith is widely acknowledged, yet the origin of the mafic protolith remains highly contentious. Silicon isotopes and quadruple sulfur isotopes serve as particularly powerful tools in this regard, as they directly trace the source nature of the felsic continent. Here, we integrate whole-rock silicon and sulfur isotopic data of Neoarchean granitoids from the North China Craton to constrain the origin and pathway of their protoliths. These granitoids exhibit non-zero Δ³³S (0.01‰ to − 0.24‰) and elevated δ³⁰Si ( − 0.09‰ to −0.05‰), requiring a supracrustal source and contrasting with the previously reported mantle-like zircon δ18O. Global compilation shows that granitoids formed after 3800 Ma uniformly contain enriched δ³⁰Si and non-zero Δ³³S, implying that most, if not all Archean continental crusts were derived from partial melting of supracrustal sources rather than unaltered mafic cumulates.

Emissions From Electricity Increased Last Year

The UK generated more carbon emissions from its energy supplies last year despite Ed Miliband’s renewables push.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

  h/t Doug Brodie

From the Telegraph:

The UK generated more carbon emissions from its energy supplies last year despite Ed Miliband’s renewables push.

In a blow to the Energy Secretary’s decarbonisation drive, greenhouse gas emissions released from electricity producers were up 2.8pc in 2025, according to energy analysts Montel.

That is despite a flood of new wind and solar farms being connected to the grid, alongside a planned move to switch off the UK’s last coal power station.

Montel blamed the increase on bottlenecks across the UK’s power network, which leads to turbines being switched off when the grid is too congested to accept their power.

This lost generating capacity then has to be replaced with electricity from gas-fired power stations, leading to extra emissions.

These power plants must also step in when output from wind and solar plummets, either when it is cloudy or when there’s no sun.

Montel’s report said: “Power generated from carbon-emitting sources rose by 5.7pc in 2025 compared to 2024 despite the complete removal of coal from the energy mix in September 2024.

“This led to a 2.8pc increase in carbon emissions from power generation in GB compared to 2024.

“This reflects the continued reliance on gas-fired generation to provide flexibility and security of supply, particularly during periods of low renewable output or high demand.”

The latest figures highlight the ongoing importance of gas within the UK’s energy mix, casting doubt over Mr Miliband’s pledge to achieve almost entirely clean power by 2030.

It also highlights the issue of wasted wind, which not only triggers higher emissions but also costs the taxpayer billions of pounds.

When wind turbines are asked to switch off, their owners can claim compensation through so-called constraint payments, the cost of which is then added to bills.

The National Energy System Operator, the organisation responsible for keeping the lights on, then has to pay a premium to fire up gas-fired power stations.

The combination of the two cost billpayers £1.5bn last year.

Despite highlighting an increase in emissions, Montel’s report also revealed that the UK generated more clean power in 2025, the result of Mr Miliband’s net zero push.

Since Labour came to power, the Energy Secretary has approved hundreds of new green energy projects across the country.

It said: “Great Britain’s zero-carbon output rose from around 139.6 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2024 to 144.6 TWh in 2025, a 3.6pc increase.”

A spokesman for Mr Miliband’s Energy Department disputed Montel’s figures, claiming that its own calculations revealed that carbon emissions from UK power generation fell last year.

Full story here. 

Slightly up or slightly down? Either way, the simple reality is that very little has changed:

Energy Trends: UK electricity – GOV.UK

Gas power increased from 84.89 to 89.03 TWh, showing how difficult it is to remove dispatchable power from the system.

Wind and solar power are also up slightly, offset. by reduced imports.

The Nocturnal Vertical Conveyor: How Westerlies Quietly Replenish Asia’s Water Towers

The Tibetan Plateau (also called the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau or “Asian Water Towers”/AWTs) acts as the primary freshwater source for nearly 2 billion people across Asia. Its glaciers, snowpack, lakes, and rivers feed major systems like the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers.

The Tibetan Plateau (also called the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau or “Asian Water Towers”/AWTs) acts as the primary freshwater source for nearly 2 billion people across Asia.

Its glaciers, snowpack, lakes, and rivers feed major systems like the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers.

A recent study highlights a subtle but crucial mechanism: high-altitude mid-latitude westerly winds deliver moisture to the plateau via a nocturnal “vertical conveyor” process, integrating it into the local water cycle even without direct precipitation.

These winds prevail for about three-quarters of the year, especially outside the summer monsoon. They carry moisture from remote sources across the Himalayan barrier at high altitudes.

Observations, using helium-tethered “Jimu Balloons” for vertical profiles of water vapor isotopes and meteorology, reveal distinct layers:

Free Troposphere (above ~1,600–1,800 m): Westerlies transport cold, dry-ish remote moisture.

Mixed Layer and Atmospheric Boundary Layer (lower levels): Local moisture dominates with diurnal cycles.

At night, subsidence, sinking air, driven by the westerlies brings high-altitude moisture downward. Thermal inversion layers act as “caps,” decoupling (separating) the remote westerlies moisture from local boundary-layer air. This suppresses vertical mixing and locks the moisture into the local system.

Through this process, phase transitions at night, up to ~30% of the westerlies-transported moisture flux enters the plateau’s water budget. It sustains near-surface moisture, feeding snow, glaciers, lakes, and eventual runoff.

This “quiet” replenishment complements the well-known Indian Summer Monsoon, which brings heavy seasonal rains but doesn’t explain year-round contributions from mid-latitude circulation.

The plateau’s high elevation (>4,000 m average) and vast cryosphere (glaciers, permafrost) store and slowly release this water, acting as a natural reservoir that buffers seasonal and interannual variability for downstream agriculture, drinking water, hydropower, and ecosystems.

In short, winds high above Tibet don’t just blow past—they quietly supply vital moisture through a sophisticated atmospheric “conveyor,” helping maintain the plateau’s role as Asia’s water tower. This recent research (published in PNAS) fills a key gap in how non-monsoon moisture sustains the system.

The “vertical conveyor” is a recently identified atmospheric mechanism (detailed in a May 2026 PNAS paper by Gao et al.) that integrates remote moisture carried by mid-latitude westerlies into the local water cycle of the Asian Water Towers (AWTs, primarily the Tibetan Plateau) without requiring precipitation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Vertical conveyor driving the integration of moisture transported by the westerlies to the Asian water towers’ atmospheric water cycle

The “vertical conveyor” mechanism, detailed in the May 6, 2026, PNAS paper by Jing Gao, Tandong Yao, and collaborators, describes how mid-latitude westerlies moisture is integrated into the Asian Water Towers (AWTs/Tibetan Plateau) atmospheric water cycle under calm, non-precipitating conditions during westerlies-dominated winter-spring periods.

Researchers conducted 32 vertical profiles using helium-tethered Jimu Balloons at Lulang (3,335 m, forested valley near Yalung Tsangpo moisture corridor) and Nam Co (4,730 m, high-altitude lake basin) from December to May (2017–2019), focusing on nighttime/early morning when the boundary layer is shallowest.

Measurements included:

  • Atmospheric water vapor stable isotopes (δD_v and d-excess_v).
  • Meteorological variables (temperature, specific humidity q, etc.).
  • Surface vapor isotopes at 2 m.

These were paired with nudged ECHAM6-wiso isotope-enabled modeling and theoretical frameworks (Rayleigh distillation, mixed cloud isotopic model/MCIM, mixing models).

The atmosphere shows strong vertical layering during these periods:

  • Atmospheric Boundary Layer (ABL): ~600–900 m (shallower at night) — dominated by local residual moisture, shaped by diurnal cycles, surface evaporation (from forests/lakes), and nocturnal processes. More enriched δD_v near surface.
  • Mixed Layer: ~600–1,600 m — transitional with lower isotopic variance.
  • Free Troposphere (above ~1,600–1,800 m): Dominated by large-scale westerlies advection of remote moisture (often from North Atlantic, Central Asia, or Bay of Bengal influences). Characterized by depleted δD_v, higher d-excess_v (indicating distant oceanic sources and distillation), colder/drier air.

Pronounced seasonal contrasts: Winter shows stronger depletion and higher d-excess aloft than spring.

Under calm westerlies conditions:

  1. Westerlies Subsidence: Large-scale sinking air at night brings high-altitude remote moisture downward.
  2. Interaction with Local Residual Air: Cold, dry westerlies air meets warmer, moister local ABL air → creates thermal inversion layers (strongest ~0.27 °C/10 m gradient) acting as “caps.”
  3. Decoupling: Inversions suppress vertical turbulent mixing. Local ABL moisture is isolated; upward transport from surface evaporation weakens due to radiative cooling and condensation.
  4. Phase Transitions and Integration: Moisture from aloft undergoes condensation/frost at inversion interfaces (releasing latent heat, enhancing stability). This locks ~30% of the advected free-tropospheric moisture flux into the local budget via near-surface accumulation, feeding snow, glaciers, lakes, and runoff — without precipitation.

This creates two decoupled “conveyors”: one for remote westerlies moisture (aloft, subsiding) and one for local diurnal processes (near surface). Surface conditions modulate it (e.g., forests at Lulang vs. lake at Nam Co affect ABL height and evaporation).

Quantitative and Modeling Support

ECHAM6-wiso captures key isotopic structures and shows westerlies contributing ~34% of annual moisture flux (intensifying in recent decades).

Probability density functions (PDFs) of δD_v vs. temperature/humidity confirm decoupling: free troposphere follows Rayleigh distillation (remote sources); lower layers show mixing and local influences.

Nocturnal ABL thinning and balloon descent observations corroborate subsidence.

This mechanism fills a critical gap: It explains year-round (especially non-monsoon) moisture supply complementing the Indian Summer Monsoon. It sustains the cryosphere’s buffering role for rivers feeding ~2 billion people.

The process is most relevant to calm, dry-season conditions rather than all weather regimes. It elegantly demonstrates how subtle, high-altitude dynamics couple large-scale circulation with local hydrology on the world’s highest plateau. For full technical details, including figures and SI, see the open-access PNAS paper.

Published: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

Provided by Chinese Academy of Sciences

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2529749123

Authors: Jing Gao,Tandong Yao, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Martin Werner, Jean Jouzel, Lonnie Thompson, Mathieu Casado, Hans Christian Steen-Larsen, Alexandre Cauquoin, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Zeqing He, Rong Cai, Taihua Zhang, Yigang Liu, Gebanruo Chen, Baiqing Xu, Guangjian Wu, Hongxi Pang, and Maosheng He 

Abstract

The westerlies moisture transport underpins water security for over two billion people dependent on the Asian water towers (AWTs). However, the mechanisms by which large-scale westerlies-advected moisture is integrated into the AWTs’ atmospheric water budget remain poorly understood due to observational gaps. Here, we combine three-dimensional observations of atmospheric water vapor stable isotopes with isotope-enabled modeling. We identify the conveyor mechanism that regulates the vertical moisture transport under calm conditions during the winter-spring period when the westerlies are dominant. Sharp vertical isotopic gradients show that large-scale westerlies-advected moisture is predominantly confined aloft, while local residual moisture persists near the surface. Our results show the interplay of the westerlies’ subsidence at night with thermodynamically distinct local residual air, yielding thermal inversions and condensation that suppresses vertical mixing and decouples moisture between the free troposphere and the atmospheric boundary layer. This process constitutes a primary pathway for integrating westerlies-advected moisture into the local moisture budget without precipitation, sustaining near-surface moisture accumulation. Our results provide critical benchmarks for improving atmospheric models, refining climate projections of the intensifying water cycle over the AWTs, and advancing interpretations of isotopic records in regional climatic archives.

Ethanol: Not the Energy Transition We’re Looking For

Fuel should be fuel and food should be food.
With current events stirring up global energy prices, corn ethanol is again being dressed up as if it is a domestic energy source and agent of energy security. The truth is that corn ethanol is an energy sump, and that it takes more fossil fuel energy to make a gallon of corn ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. It is time to face this unpleasant truth and the other perverse outcomes achieved by twenty years of misguided policy.

From Watts Up With That?

By Ike Kiefer

With current events stirring up global energy prices, corn ethanol is again being dressed up as if it is a domestic energy source and agent of energy security. The truth is that corn ethanol is an energy sump, and that it takes more fossil fuel energy to make a gallon of corn ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. It is time to face this unpleasant truth and the other perverse outcomes achieved by twenty years of misguided policy.

In 2005 and 2007, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Energy Independence and Security Acts that together created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. RFS had three stated objectives: to improve U.S. energy security, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to support rural economies and agricultural development. Instead, RFS has increased motor fuel prices, increased food prices, put millions of carbon-sequestering acres of land into intensive cultivation, increased GHG emissions and air pollution, and increased water consumption and pollution. As to energy security, the gallons of U.S. gasoline displaced by federal ethanol blending mandates are being exported to Mexico and other nations. The great success of RFS has been the hand of government transferring wealth from motorists to big ag corporations. It’s past time to stop the economic and chemical absurdity of forcing food to be fuel.

The government wanted biofuels bad, and it got them bad. Under Corn Belt lobbying pressure, Congress cynically waived the need for RFS to achieve actual GHG reductions for all existing corn ethanol biorefineries, plus all that could be built by the end of 2010. The bulk of the corn ethanol produced over the past 20 years and still today comes from these waivered plants. The EPA’s specious 2010 prediction that corn ethanol would achieve a 21% GHG reduction by 2022 was immediately challenged by the National Research Council for not properly counting land-use change and not realistically treating food competition and water use. This panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences even questioned the viability of the entire concept of reducing GHG with biofuels. The most rigorous and honest estimate by a third party in testimony before Congress used the EPA’s own methodology to show that adding corn ethanol to gasoline has increased GHG emissions by 28% over the pure gasoline baseline with no trajectory to ever recover.

As to energy security, the goal was noble, but the method was irrational. Corn ethanol is critically dependent upon fossil fuels at every stage of production—tractor and truck fuel, fertilizer and pesticides, biorefinery energy and chemicals. Biofuels in general are just a way to put a green fig leaf on petroleum by inefficiently re-routing it through a farm field. While corn ethanol production has plateaued at 15-16 billion gallons for the past 10 years—not coincidentally matching the federal subsidy limit—domestic crude oil production has skyrocketed due to technological innovations that have opened up vast new geological formations to economic production. Despite a raft of federal policies and actions as negative for petroleum as they have been favorable for biofuels, the USA is once again energy self-sufficient and the world’s largest producer of crude oil and natural gas. In 2024, the USA exported 100 billion gallons of refined petroleum. Other countries are burning U.S. gasoline in their cars and producing the same CO2 emissions as if Americans were allowed to use it. The energy security objective for RFS is moot, and it was never achievable with fossil-fuel dependent corn ethanol.

On of the great ironies is that RFS was authorized under the Clean Air Act. The EPA’s own 2010 regulatory impact analysis showed it would increase net air pollution and cause up to 245 more U.S. deaths per year. The EPA also granted corn ethanol a perpetual vapor pressure waiver for smog-causing emissions that it has denied to petroleum. Perhaps worse, ethanol in gasoline enables the hydrocarbons to mix with water and thereby increase ground water and surface water contamination from fuel leaks to a far greater degree than the demonized MTBE it replaced as octane booster, yet EPA continues to ignore this risk completely.

A government program that has strayed so far from its objectives should be terminated. The federal agency in charge of protecting the nation’s environment should not be allowed to administer a program that increases air pollution and stresses on water, land, and climate.

Fuel should be fuel and food should be food.

Surely Congress can find a better way to genuinely promote U.S. energy security and boost rural economies without imposing the highly regressive tax of increased fuel prices, inflicting such harm to the nation’s air and water resources, and promoting global food insecurity.

Ike Kiefer is a Visiting Fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics and author of the study,Ethanol as Fuel: A Bridge to Nowhere. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.