Day: May 15, 2026

COPE: The Countervailing Obliquity–Precession Effect

Standard Milankovitch discussions often emphasize small changes in globally averaged annual insolation. However, Earth’s semi-major orbital axis is nearly constant, so total annual solar energy input changes very little despite shifts in precession (axial wobble affecting the timing of seasons relative to perihelion/aphelion) and obliquity (axial tilt, currently ~23.4° and slowly decreasing).

From Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. John A. Parmentola

The standard discussion of orbital climate forcing usually focuses on small changes in globally averaged annual insolation. But this perspective may obscure an important physical effect arising from orbital geometry itself.

The first key fact is that the Earth’s globally averaged annual insolation changes very little over epochal timescales. This occurs because the semimajor axis of the Earth’s orbit remains nearly constant — a conserved quantity of the two-body problem. The total annual solar energy entering the Earth system, therefore, remains approximately constant even as precession and obliquity evolve.

The second key fact is that the Arctic zone exhibits a very strong seasonal asymmetry. When the orbital year is divided into two half-year energy channels, the Arctic-zone second-half-year insolation (roughly late summer-autumn–winter) minus the first-half-year insolation (roughly late winter- spring–summer) is persistently large and negative over epochal timescales.

These two facts immediately imply an important physical consequence. If the Earth’s globally averaged annual insolation remains nearly conserved while the Arctic zone develops a large negative seasonal asymmetry, then a compensating positive asymmetry must exist elsewhere in the climate system because the globally averaged annual insolation remains nearly conserved. That compensating asymmetry occurs primarily in the tropical zone — because that is where the heat is.

This effect is what I call the Countervailing Obliquity–Precession Effect (COPE). COPE describes asymmetric orbital half-year insolation and energy channels arising from the coupled effects of precession and obliquity. The tropical and Arctic zones respond very differently because they are fundamentally different material environments.

In the Arctic zone, the climate response is dominated by melt-threshold suppression, snow accumulation, and seasonal refrigeration. In the tropical zone, the response is dominated by long-term energy accumulation over the oceans, evaporation, latent heat storage, and atmospheric moisture transport. Thus, COPE produces countervailing thermodynamic tendencies: – Arctic cooling and melt suppression, – coupled to tropical energy accumulation and latent heat production.

The effect also appears measurable in the current climate system. Using CERES satellite observations analyzed within the same orbital half-year framework, the tropical-zone asymmetry appears measurable in the present climate system. The analysis suggests that, on average annually, approximately 1 W/m² of the asymmetric forcing survived reflection and outgoing longwave radiation and entered the tropical-zone climate system over roughly the past two decades. This retained energy must then be partitioned among ocean heat storage, evaporation, atmospheric transport, clouds, and high-latitude processes.

COPE therefore potentially connects: – orbital geometry, – hydrological transport, – latent heat export, – Arctic cooling, – sea-level evolution, – and glacial–interglacial climate transitions through a persistent orbital-geometric asymmetry that appears measurable today.

The broader implication is that orbital forcing may influence climate far more through structured seasonal and latitudinal energy distribution than through comparatively small changes in globally averaged annual insolation alone.

Two sets of figures illustrate the effect clearly:

The above graph shows the two asymmetrical half-year energy accumulation channels, EH1 and EH2, at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) in the tropical zone (TZ), measured relative to a minimum that occurred about 4,600 years ago. Over most of the current epoch, the second-half channel, EH2, exceeds the first, EH1, producing the observed asymmetry until 1,000 years from now, when it will be zero and then shift to EH1 dominance. The energy deposition per 100 years associated with EH1 will linearly double at the TOA in the TZ over 3,000 years.

The graph above shows the two Arctic-zone (AZ) asymmetric insolation melt suppression channels, C1 and C2. The melt-suppression effect is best characterized by changes in C1 and C2 going forward, indicating a continued decline in C1 (summer-season) insolation and a slight increase in C2 (winter-season) insolation. C1 will decrease by about 5 W/m2 in about 4,000 years.

Together, these graphs reveal a coupled orbital-climate structure that may represent part of the missing thermodynamic linkage between orbital forcing and glacial–interglacial evolution. In this way, COPE could help link orbital geometry to hydrological transport, latent heat export, and sea-level changes while supplementing traditional Milankovitch theoretical explanations.

One unusual aspect of COPE is that it potentially connects orbital-climate phenomena across past, present, and future climate evolution through a persistent orbital-geometric asymmetry that is currently measurable.

Further details of this effect and its potential consequences can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19825774

Acidification of Water by CO2

Fundamental inorganic chemistry, equilibrium constants, buffering, and carbonate system dynamics show that rising atmospheric CO₂ causes only very small, non-harmful changes in the pH of natural waters, especially the ocean. The ocean is strongly buffered and remains highly supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (calcite/aragonite) even at much higher CO₂ levels.

From The CO2 Coalition

W. A. van Wijngaarden
Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

P. Ridd
Physicist, Adjunct Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Malanda, Queensland, Australia

M. Cornell
Industrial Chemist, Lake Jackson, Texas, USA

W. Happer

Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA

Abstract
Fundamental inorganic chemistry shows that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will have no harmful effect on organisms that live in the natural waters of the Earth [1], and may well benefit them. Alkalinity and dissolved CO2 give high buffering capacity to most natural waters and minimize the change of pH from external influences. For example, doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 430 ppm to 860 ppm would reduce the pH of representative sea water at a temperature of 25 C from pH = 8.18 to pH = 7.93. This change is comparable to diurnal pH changes in biologically productive surface waters, due to photosynthetic fixation of dissolved inorganic carbon during the day and respiration at night. The change is also less than the variations of pH with latitude, longitude and depth in the oceans. This paper includes a quantitative review of the carbonate chemistry of seawater and freshwater, the buffering capacity, the Revelle factor, the transport of calcium carbonate in ground water, the formation of flowstone, and the classic use of limewater to detect gaseous CO2. The paper concludes with a brief review of those parts of chemical thermodynamics that are involved in ocean acidification.

Keywords: ocean acidification, pH, alkalinity, buffering, carbonate chemistry, groundwater

1 Introduction

Natural surface waters and rainwater contain dissolved CO2, in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, the increase of the dissolved weak acid, CO2, will lower the pH of the waters. Fig. 1 shows how the pH of representative seawater and rainwater depend on the partial pressure P of CO2 [1].

The lowering of the pH of natural surface waters by more atmospheric CO2 is often called acidification, but this term can be misleading. For example, representative seawater at a temperature T=25 C is quite basic, with a pH = 8.18 at current partial pressures, Pc=430 μb of CO2. Doubling the partial pressure of CO2 to Pd=860 μb would decrease the pH of the ocean to pH = 7.93, a decrease of Δ​pH=−0.25. This would leave the oceans almost as basic as today. At the same temperature, T=25 C, doubling of CO2 would reduce the pH of rainwater, which is slightly acidic because of dissolved CO2 and with no compensating alkalinity, from pH = 5.59 to pH = 5.44, an even smaller decrease of Δ​pH=−0.15. Although contemporary seawater has absorbed about 120 times more CO2 per unit volume than rainwater in equilibrium with the same partial pressure P of CO2, the relatively large alkalinity [A] = 2.4 mM of seawater keeps it basic.

In subsequent sections we will show straightforward ways to calculate the numbers cited here. Lord Kelvin once said [2]:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

As Lord Kelvin urged, much of the discussion below is in terms of numbers, equations and graphs. We have simplified discussions of the complicated chemistry of the oceans and the biochemistry of ocean life to keep the paper understandable to readers who recall some high school mathematics, chemistry and biology. More details can be found in the literature cited.

The oceans will remain non-acidic for any credible scenarios of human emissions of CO2 in the future. This paper gives a quantitative discussion of why increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will not cause harmful acidification of natural waters on Earth, and will have little effect on the biochemistry of aquatic organisms.

Download the full publication using the link: Acidification of Water by CO2

EU RFNBO Mandates Risk Locking Aviation into Costlier, Less Efficient Synthetic Fuels

The EU rules on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) under ReFuelEU Aviation and related directives (e.g., RED III) could contribute to higher costs and energy intensity for fossil-free aviation fuels, while also exerting upward pressure on biomass demand that indirectly risks higher food or agricultural commodity prices.

The EU Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), currently Directive (EU) 2023/1791 (recast), is a cornerstone of EU energy and climate policy.

It establishes a framework to reduce energy consumption, promote efficiency as a priority (“energy efficiency first”), and support the EU’s 2030 climate targets (at least 55% GHG reduction vs. 1990) and 2050 climate neutrality.

The EU rules on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) under ReFuelEU Aviation and related directives (e.g., RED III) could contribute to higher costs and energy intensity for fossil-free aviation fuels, while also exerting upward pressure on biomass demand that indirectly risks higher food or agricultural commodity prices.

SAF is crucial for aviation decarbonization (aviation is hard to electrify for long-haul). Current SAF is 3–10x more expensive than fossil jet fuel, and scaling remains challenging. The EU’s mandates are ambitious, but critics note that prescriptive rules can distort markets and raise costs.

There is a recent study from the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, published in the journal Fuel (February 2026).

This study by researchers Johanna Beiron, Simon Harvey, and Henrik Thunman analyze production pathways for synthetic methanol (a building block for sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF). It highlights how EU regulations under ReFuelEU Aviation and the RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin) framework can favor less efficient methods.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Locked in on RFNBOs – Will EU mandates for drop-in synthetic aviation fuels lead to decreased energy- and cost-efficiency?

This February 2026 paper in Fuel (Beiron, Harvey, Thunman) is a rigorous techno-economic assessment using consistent assumptions: same forest residue biomass input, same methanol output (a key SAF intermediate), and renewable hydrogen.

The study notes this conflicts with EU’s own Energy Efficiency Directive, waste hierarchy, and biomass cascade use principles. It risks lock-in because plants are capital-intensive and long-lived (decades), shaping R&D and infrastructure.

Pure DAC PtL avoids biomass issues entirely and aligns perfectly with RFNBO (very low lifecycle emissions). The rules successfully force progress where market forces alone failed. An early RFNBO review is planned; tweaks (e.g., better efficiency weighting or gasification credit) could help without weakening decarbonization.

Yes, in biomass-involved pathways, the mandates risk decreased efficiency and higher costs due to prescriptive carbon accounting that prioritizes “non-biological” labeling over thermodynamics and system optimization. This is a classic regulatory trade-off: clear, enforceable rules for rapid deployment vs. flexibility for least-cost, high-efficiency solutions. Aviation needs massive SAF scale-up regardless—better policy alignment (e.g., technology-neutral efficiency incentives alongside volume mandates) would reduce waste and improve outcomes. The study provides strong evidence for targeted adjustments.

SAF is crucial for aviation decarbonization (aviation is hard to electrify for long-haul). Current SAF is 3–10x more expensive than fossil jet fuel, and scaling remains challenging. The EU’s mandates are ambitious, but critics (including this study) note that prescriptive rules can distort markets and raise costs. Other analyses highlight feedstock limits, high renewable power needs, and potential competitive disadvantages for EU airlines.

Published: Fuel (2026)

Provided:  Chalmers University of Technology

DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2025.137181

Authors: Johanna Beiron, Simon Harvey, Henrik Thunman

Abstract

Decarbonization of the transportation sector implies that fossil fuels must be substituted with sustainable alternatives. Current EU policies incentivize large-scale deployment of synthetic aviation fuel production that can be classified as Renewable Fuel of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBO). Synthetic aviation fuel can be produced from methanol and this work presents a techno-economic assessment of three pathways (two combustion-based and one gasification-based) to produce synthetic methanol from biomass residues and renewable hydrogen. The results show that the gasification-based pathway can produce methanol at a lower cost (820 €/t methanol) and higher energy efficiency (46 %, for conversion of biomass, electricity and heat inputs to methanol) compared to combustion-based options (1,050–1,500 €/t methanol and ∼37 % efficiency). The gasifier route requires less renewable hydrogen, resulting in a 30 % lower electricity demand. However, only 55 % of the gasification-based methanol is compliant with the RFNBO definition, since the regulation stipulates that biofuel cannot be counted towards the drop-in quotas. Furthermore, the findings indicate that RFNBO policies that favor production using CO2 from combustion processes that supply energy to utility systems (e.g., district heating) risk leading to lock-in in inefficient systems, as electrification of heat supply could be a more efficient option. This work identifies such regulatory inconsistencies that increase risk related to investment decisions.

3.. 2.. 1.. Claim: Climate Change will Cause More Hantavirus

Andes virus (ANDV) is a hantavirus primarily found in South America (especially Argentina and Chile) that causes Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS), also known as hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HCPS). It is notable as the only hantavirus with documented (though limited) person-to-person transmission.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Just one problem – Ushuaia, the source of the MV Hondius cruise ship outbreak, has a comparable climate to Prince Rupert in British Columbia.

How climate change could help hantavirus find more hosts

Experts say extreme weather is boosting the odds that the pathogens carried by rodents will spill over into human populations.

The cruise ship departed Ushuaia, Argentina, in April with plans to ferry 147 passengers and crew members to some of the most remote places on earth, including Antarctica. But the ship, named the MV Hondius, had its voyage cut short by a rare virus that has killed three and infected several others. 

…

The emergency also points to another growing challenge for global public health: Climate change is altering the rainfall, vegetation, and habitat conditions that influence rodent populations — changes that experts say boost the odds that the pathogens these animals carry will spill over into human populations.

…

Prolonged drought sends rats and mice into populated areas in search of food, which can put people at higher risk of contracting the virus. Sudden rainfall following drought causes trees and shrubs to produce a windfall of nuts and seeds, which tend to benefit rodents and boost their numbers — all the while increasing the risk of transmission from animal to human.

…Read more: https://grist.org/health/how-climate-change-could-help-hantavirus-find-more-hosts/

My question – Australia has frequent weather extremes and rodent plagues. So why aren’t we overrun with Hantavirus? Hantavirus antibodies have been detected in Aussie rodents, but significant Hantavirus infection isn’t a thing in Australia.

From the Aussie CSIRO;

…

Do we have hantaviruses in Australia? 

Australia is unique in the global hantavirus picture. It is the only inhabited continent where no confirmed human cases of hantavirus infection have been recorded. 

However, antibodies to hantavirus have been detected in some Australian rodents, suggesting related viruses are likely present at low levels.  

Several explanations for why there hasn’t been any reported cases have been proposed. One possibility is the lack of diagnosis: perhaps Australian hantavirus only causes a mild, feverish illness with kidney involvement that could easily be attributed to other causes. 

However, anyone who is unwell with persistent or serious symptoms such as respiratory issues should consult their GP for advice. This is especially the case for travellers returning from parts of Europe, Asia or the Americas.  

…Read more: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2026/May/Hantavirus-explainer

Maybe a few mild human cases slipped through the net, but my point is given the low prevalence of Hantavirus in Australian rodent populations, despite our extreme cycles of drought and flooding rain, and a much warmer climate than Ushuaia in Argentina, it seems reasonable to conclude a warmer climate and greater climate extremes do not cause more Hantavirus cases. It also seems likely something about our warm climate is killing the Hantavirus which is already present in Aussie rodent populations before it becomes a significant problem.

Maybe the virus just can’t stand warm conditions. A lot of viruses can’t.

Who knows, if we get a bit more global warming, maybe cold climate places like Ushuaia will also benefit from less Hantavirus, just like warm climate Australia.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Andes virus (ANDV) is a hantavirus primarily found in South America (especially Argentina and Chile) that causes Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS), also known as hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HCPS). It is notable as the only hantavirus with documented (though limited) person-to-person transmission.

Transmission

Primary route: Inhalation of aerosolized virus from the urine, droppings, or saliva of infected rodents (e.g., the long-tailed pygmy rice rat). It can also occur via direct contact with rodents or contaminated surfaces, then touching the mouth, nose, or eyes.

Person-to-person: Possible but uncommon and requires prolonged close contact (e.g., household members, intimate partners, or shared enclosed spaces) and exposure to body fluids. This sets Andes virus apart from other hantaviruses, which do not spread between people. Transmission is most likely early in illness when the person is symptomatic. It is not airborne like COVID-19 or measles.

No evidence of spread via casual contact, food (except possibly contaminated), or vectors like insects.

Incubation period: Typically, 4–42 days (up to 6 weeks) after exposure.

The case fatality rate for Andes virus HPS is high, often estimated at ~35–50% (around 38% in some reports), though early supportive care in well-resourced settings can improve outcomes. Older adults and those with comorbidities face higher risk.

Mauna Loa Hits Record 432 ppm CO₂ (0.04% of Atmosphere) as Oceans Continue Major Carbon Uptake – But Show Clear Limits

The famous Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (NOAA data) recorded an April 2026 monthly average of 431.12 ppm CO₂ — a new record for that month (up from 429.64 ppm in April 2025). Daily values in early May 2026 spiked as high as ~433.5 ppm, with some weekly averages near 432.4 ppm. Headlines rounding to “hit 432 ppm last month” are a reasonable popular summary of the peak seasonal period, even if the strict monthly average is 431.12 ppm.

The famous Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (NOAA data) recorded an April 2026 monthly average of 431.12 ppm CO₂ — a new record for that month (up from 429.64 ppm in April 2025). Daily values in early May 2026 spiked as high as ~433.5 ppm, with some weekly averages near 432.4 ppm. Headlines rounding to “hit 432 ppm last month” are a reasonable popular summary of the peak seasonal period, even if the strict monthly average is 431.12 ppm.

This is ~0.043% of the atmosphere (often rounded to 0.04%). For comparison, pre-industrial levels around the late 1700s–early 1800s were ~280 ppm (~0.028%). That baseline sits near the end of the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300–1850), a cooler period driven mainly by lower solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and ocean circulation changes. Ice cores show a modest natural CO₂ dip during the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age due to increased terrestrial carbon storage in cooler soils and vegetation — not the primary cause of the cooling, but small feedback.

Oceans act as a major carbon sink, absorbing roughly 25–30% of human CO₂ emissions through simple chemistry (CO₂ dissolving into seawater to form carbonic acid and bicarbonate) and biological uptake by phytoplankton. As atmospheric CO₂ rises, oceans take up more to try to stay in equilibrium.

However, the NASA piece highlights key limits:

  • Warming surface waters reduce CO₂ solubility (warmer water holds less gas, like soda going flat faster).
  • Increased stratification (layering) from warming limits mixing with deeper, carbonate-rich waters.
  • Natural climate oscillations (e.g., Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation) cause decadal swings in uptake or venting that can temporarily rival or exceed the human signal in certain regions.

Despite these complexities and strong ocean (plus land) sinks, the relentless rise measured at Mauna Loa shows that human emissions (primarily fossil fuels) are still outpacing natural absorption. Levels are now the highest in millions of years, rising ~2–3 ppm per year recently.

CO₂ is a trace gas, but it is an effective greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation (heat) escaping Earth. Raising it by ~55% since pre-industrial times (280 → 431+ ppm) produces measurable radiative forcing — consistent with observed warming of ~1.1–1.2°C so far.

The effect is logarithmic (diminishing per additional molecule), but the absolute increase since the Little Ice Age era is significant. Without the greenhouse effect overall, Earth would be frozen; the enhanced effect from our additions explains most recent warming.

The Mauna Loa record documents an unambiguous, human-driven climb to 431–433+ ppm (0.04%) in 2026, even as oceans continue absorbing a large share per the NASA description. The post-Little Ice Age recovery and natural variability explain some 19th-century warming, but not the rapid post-1950 acceleration or current record levels.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Atmospheric CO2 hits record high as monitoring observatory faces funding cuts

Famous Hawaii observatory shows CO2 hit 432ppm last month the highest yet

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in April, averaging 431 parts per million (ppm), according to data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Energy Live News has the story.

The observatory has been tracking atmospheric CO2 since 1958, when April levels stood at under 320 ppm.

Pre-industrial CO2 levels are estimated to have been at 280 ppm or below, with even warmer interglacial periods historically topping out at around 300 ppm.

The latest reading represents a significant and sustained departure from those baselines.

CO2 levels tend to peak in April each year as decaying plants release greenhouse gases following winter.

Some of that CO2 is reabsorbed by plants as they grow through warmer months. However, NOAA’s long-term data show average monthly CO2 levels rising steadily year on year.

Read the full story here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Ocean’s Carbon Balance

The idea seemed simple enough: the more carbon dioxide that people pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the more the oceans would absorb.

The ocean would continue to soak up more and more carbon dioxide until global warming heated the ocean enough to slow down ocean circulation. The NASA Science has the story

Water trapped at the surface would become saturated, at which point, the ocean would slow its carbon uptake. To oceanographers of 30 years ago, the question was less, how will human emissions change the ocean carbon cycle, and more, is the ocean carbon cycle changing yet?

The question matters because if the ocean starts to take up less carbon because of global warming, more is left in the atmosphere where it can contribute to additional warming.

Scientists wanted to understand how the ocean carbon cycle might change so that they could make more accurate predictions about global warming.

Thus motivated, oceanographers began a series of research cruises, trolling across the Pacific from Japan to California, from Alaska to Hawaii, and through the North Atlantic from Europe to North America. On shore, others developed computer models.

After 30 years of research, the question itself hasn’t changed, but the reasoning behind it couldn’t be more different.

Oceanographers started out wanting to know if the ocean was keeping up with the amount of carbon dioxide people are putting into the atmosphere.

Instead, they found that people aren’t the only players changing the ocean carbon cycle. Over decades, natural cycles in weather and ocean currents alter the rate at which the ocean soaks up and vents carbon dioxide.

What’s more, scientists are beginning to find evidence that human-induced changes in the atmosphere also change the rate at which the ocean takes up carbon. In other words, it turns out that the world is not a simple place.

The group surrounds a circular cluster of instruments and 36 three-foot-tall PVC (plastic) bottles, taking turns extracting sea water from the bottles, assembly-line style.

It is a deliberate, well-ordered procedure. The glass sample bottles set aside for oxygen samples are filled first, followed by the massive syringe meant for chlorofluorocarbon (freon) samples, and so on, until 10 to 15 different samples have come out of each bottle.

Everyone has a task and a place. It’s a social event, a break from the lonely hours each will spend in his or her lab analyzing the samples before the next batch is hauled out of the ocean. It might even be fun.

Except that it’s late winter. In the North Pacific. And they are on the deck of a ship, looking at the same faces that they’ve seen day after day for four weeks or more, and they’ll be repeating this procedure again in another 30 nautical miles.

Read the full story here.

Climate Pseudoscience Debunked: Livestock Methane Fears are Baseless

Policymakers are demanding that farmers scale back meat production, reengineer agricultural systems, and burden consumers with higher grocery bills to prevent a fabricated climate catastrophe. This is fearmongering based on false claims that methane emitted as a byproduct of livestock digestion contributes significantly to allegedly dangerous atmospheric warming.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Gregory Wrightstone

Policymakers are demanding that farmers scale back meat production, reengineer agricultural systems, and burden consumers with higher grocery bills to prevent a fabricated climate catastrophe. This is fearmongering based on false claims that methane emitted as a byproduct of livestock digestion contributes significantly to allegedly dangerous atmospheric warming.

Happily, the pseudoscience of this campaign against ruminants—mainly cattle and sheep—is refuted in a paper published by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. Even if all 1.6 billion of Earth’s cattle were killed, the amount of warming averted would be an immeasurably small 0.04 degrees Celsius, according to the paper. The temperature reduction from killing all 1.3 billion sheep would be 10 times smaller. Even more absurdly, New Zealand’s national goal of reducing cattle and sheep emissions would affect temperature by no more than 0.000008 degrees Celsius. That is eight one-millionths of a degree.

Even these tiny amounts would be made smaller by the emissions of wild ruminants, such as deer and termites, replacing domesticated animals as agricultural lands reverted to forests and grasslands.

“No rational person would invest a single dollar to achieve such insignificant temperature reductions,” says the paper, which was authored by Deborah Alexander, Methane Science, Accord, Clevedon, New Zealand; James D. Ferguson, professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine; Albrecht Glatzle, Rural Association of Paraguay; William Happer, professor emeritus, Department of Physics, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada.

The digestion systems of ruminants convert certain carbohydrates like cellulose into useable energy that other animals, including humans, cannot digest. The “controversy” over ruminant digestion emitting methane through burps overlooks the value of these animals’ transforming otherwise low-value vegetation into highly nutritious meats and milk, in addition to valuable hides and wools. Animal husbandry produces some of the most nutrient-dense foods—packed with protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12—that many plant-based alternatives do not.

Millions of families in developing countries rely on small-scale livestock farming not just for sustenance, but for economic survival. A cow or a small herd of goats represents a family’s financial reserve, their source of daily milk, and their insurance against hard times. When international bodies demand global reductions in livestock, they are calling on the poorest people to surrender their path to upward mobility.

The anti-methane campaign is built on an exaggeration of methane’s small warming effect, turning what ordinarily would be the esoteric interest of atmospheric physics into apocalyptic headlines about climate doom.

As a greenhouse gas, methane is a distant third behind water vapor, whose atmospheric concentration can be as much as 50,000 parts per million (ppm), and carbon dioxide, at 420 ppm. Water, in the form of clouds, has by far the greatest influence on temperature, both cooling by reflecting sunlight back to space and warming by provide insulating cover at night.

Carbon dioxide, the most demonized of the greenhouse gases, has limited ability to warm further at its current concentration. Even doubling CO2 would result in a warming of less than 1 degree Celsius.

With an atmospheric concentration of less than 2 ppm, methane has little influence relative to CO2. Both these gases’ warm through their interaction with the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, much of which is saturated by current gas concentrations. This means that additional molecules of the gases have ever diminishing warming potential.

The exaggeration of warming potency is one misrepresentation of greenhouse gasbags. Another is the characterization of warming as a negative. Along with the plant fertilization of elevated CO2 levels, natural, modest warming since the 19th century closing of the Little Ice Age has had beneficial effects on ecosystems and crop production. Growing seasons are longer, the Earth is greener, and more food is available for an increasing population.

There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology. As experts have outlined in a detailed analysis of cows, methane, and the climate, livestock methane is part of a natural circulation of carbon through a food chain that includes manure fertilization of grasses and browse and photosynthesis.

 Nonetheless, political leaders embracing doomsday propaganda have abandoned basic logic. In Denmark, to meet strict emissions quotas, dairy farmers are mandated to feed cattle chemical additives designed to inhibit methane-producing bacteria. In places like the Netherlands and Ireland, governments have seriously discussed shutting down thousands of farms to meet irrational climate targets.

For global climate policy, agriculture as an ideological football rather than a means to feed people. Meat taxes, public procurement rules, and “sustainable diet” campaigns push the same message: Eat less meat and pay for more expensive food for no benefit in return.

The case for attacking livestock methane is nonexistent, and the cost is enormous. Policymakers must start paying attention to real science and common sense.

Originally published on Washington Examiner on May 14, 2026.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; senior fellow at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.”

Shocked Silence Greets RCP8.5 Demise as ‘Implausibility’ Ruling Leaves Net Zero Fearmongering in Tatters

The fallout from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ruling that computer model high emissions pathway RCP8.5 is “implausible” is only just beginning. Most mainstream media fearmongering stories over the last 15 years need to be moved into the junk file, as do the increasingly shrill sandwich-board pronouncements of King Charles and Sir David Attenborough.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

The fallout from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ruling that computer model high emissions pathway RCP8.5 is “implausible” is only just beginning. Most mainstream media fearmongering stories over the last 15 years need to be moved into the junk file, as do the increasingly shrill sandwich-board pronouncements of King Charles and Sir David Attenborough. But the rot goes much deeper than ill-informed public comment, although that alone has been enormously influential in promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Activist-ridden science bodies such as the UK Met Office have brazenly used RCP8.5 to flam up weather predictions which in turn has led to onerous requirements being placed on British industry and finance. Politicians have been convinced by patently ridiculous claims and Net Zero rules and regulations have cascaded through the economy and society.

All the politicised predictions need to be junked and all the resulting regulations reconsidered with a view to abolition. They are all based on assumptions that many at the time said were ridiculous and have now been officially marked as not wanted on voyage. Those inclined to be uncharitable might suggest it was all a hoax from start to finish.

In 2022, the Met Office published its latest ‘UK Climate Projections Report‘(UKCP18) and claimed it provided users “with the most recent scientific evidence on projected climate change with which to plan”. Many words come to mind describing the output of computer models, none of which include ‘evidence’. In fact, the Met Office made a feature of its deliberate use of RCP8.5, highlighting its findings in bold type and describing them as “plausible”. These plausible projections, a more accurate description might be laughable, suggested summers and winters in the UK by 2070 could be up to 5.1°C and 3.8°C warmer respectively. More bold claims suggested summer rainfall could decrease by up to 45%, with winter precipitation increasing by 39%. Severe droughts and floods would inevitably follow.

The Met Office concludes: “Governments will make use of UKCP18 to inform its adaption and mitigation planning and decision-making.” Unfortunately, they probably did.

The science writer Roger Pielke Jr. was the first to spot the IPCC’s rejection of RCP8.5, calling it “the most significant development in climate research in decades”. He said that the scenario described “impossible futures”, although the results have dominated climate research, headlines and policy for the best part of two decades. Helped also by the reporting in the Daily Sceptic which went viral across social media, the IPCC finding is firmly established in the public domain. But, notes Pielke, remarkably there has not been a peep from major US or international English language mainstream media outlets.

The New York Times is said to be perhaps the most prominent home for promoting news stories based on studies that rely on RCP8.5. It has said nothing, likewise the BBC and the Guardian. Green Blob-funded Climate Brief has covered RCP8.5 more than perhaps any other English language publication, but again silence reigns. Pielke is led to observe: “The outlets most invested in their longstanding promotion of RCP8.5 have the most to lose from a clear-eyed accounting of what its retirement means for science, policy and their own coverage.”

Nevertheless, there have been some rare sightings of mainstream coverage. The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant published a front page story headed ‘UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario’. The writer of the story Maarten Keulemans later posted on X:

Also in Europe, the Berliner Zeitung ran an article suggesting that “extreme climate scenarios played too large a role in public debate for too long”. Another German publication Die Welt also picked up the story, observing: “A lobby made RCP8.5 famous: the most sensationalist of all climate scenarios has determined scientific studies, media and politics – yet it is unrealistic. Now it is actually being phased out”.

Two members of that ‘lobby’ are the main science publications Nature and Science. In recent years it has sometimes been suggested that climate scientists have moved on from RCP8.5 but the evidence suggests the popular climate crackpipe is difficult to put down. Pielke notes that so far in 2026, more than 2,600 studies have been published using the high emission scenarios, and tens of thousands before that. Both Nature and Science have thrived on publishing RCP8.5 drivel – it will be interesting to see how they spin the passing of an attention-seeking, grant-manufacturing old friend.

The implications of RCP8.5’s demise are vast. Science and journalism careers will be affected, trust in another branch of politicised science will be diminished, rules and regulations imposing unnecessary financial climate costs will need to be re-written (don’t hold your breath), while the promoters of Net Zero will lose a vital fearmongering weapon propping up their Great Reset fantasy. Watch this space.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Disaster? NYT Op-Ed on Demoting the Climate Pitch

“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”

The New York Times op-ed, “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore” (May 9, 2026) is yet another marker that the debate is widening over the economic and political feasibility of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. [1] Matthew Huber wrote:

For the past several months, Democratic elites have been debating how much to talk about climate change, if at all — in part because these new candidates have narrowed their focus to energy affordability to win back the working class. It is a striking shift from a few years ago, when many Democratic politicians thought the promise of a Green New Deal would build a coalition based on green jobs and fighting inequality.

So how did the Progressive Left take this (small) dose of reality? New York Times climate opinion editor Eliza Barclay invited comments on social media:

Love to see all of the chatter about Matt Huber’s provocative essay about why Democratic candidates campaigning for the midterms should focus on affordable (and clean) energy rather than the climate crisis.

A hard line was taken by David Fenon:

This headline: Pearl Harbor Bombed. Democrats Shouldn’t Talk About it…. This is a big part of why the public doesn’t make it a top voting issue. This essay is capitulation to catastrophe…. Don’t talk about it, then the public won’t know about it, then you can’t run for office on it and the country won’t act on the emergency. And if a Democrat wins without a public mandate for action, she won’t be able to get legislation passed to deal with the crisis. Suggest you look at Senator Whitehouse’s response. And this kind of essay keeps appearing–urging Democrats to be “moderate” and support fossil fuel production, you know, Moderate Destruction. With respect but now exasperation too.

Scolding (bullying?) Barclay, Jim Bernfield, a communications expert for the alarmist cause, commented:

The author’s historical analysis was at best questionable, his political bona fides weak, and his argument fairly mundane, even for a NYT op-ed. But the clickbait headline — likely your responsibility, Eliza Barclay — was unadulterated garbage. You’re the climate editor, l am going to assume you can do better than this.

Michael Shank was less critical:

A variation on this theme, my piece for POLITICO Europe. Instead of leading with climate, flip the script: Rather than leading with data and promoting health, safety and economic “co-benefits” as bonus add-ons, climate advocates need to flip the script.

I added:

Is a civil war developing on the Left? Also see [here].

These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate editors and writers are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.

——————–

[1] My own op-ed in the Houston Chronicle is a smaller marker of a new era of open debate on the underlying science, economics, and public policy of a once closed mainstream media.