Day: September 10, 2026

Scientists Find Estuarine Heatwaves Carry 150% More Heat Than Thought and Ecosystems Are Paying the Price

Researchers from William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences analyzed long- term temperature records from 20 U.S. estuaries and found that standard definitions of marine heatwaves (MHWs) miss a large amount of cumulative heat exposure from the warmer periods that surround them.

In short, the “hidden source of heat” is the extended warm anomalies surrounding the formally defined heatwaves, which substantially amplify total thermal stress on marine ecosystems.

An illustration showing estuarine heatwaves with temperature gradients in a water body, boats present in the background, and a headline stating 'Scientists Find Estuarine Heatwaves Carry 150% More Heat Than Thought and Ecosystems Are Paying the Price'.
AI generated by Grok

Researchers from William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences analyzed long- term temperature records from 20 U.S. estuaries and found that standard definitions of marine heatwaves (MHWs) miss a large amount of cumulative heat exposure from the warmer periods that surround them.

The study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, examined more than 2,580 MHWs recorded over roughly two decades. MHWs are typically defined by temperature thresholds with clear start and end dates.

The researchers observed that these events are often embedded in longer periods of elevated water temperatures lasting weeks to months. Lead author Ricardo Utzig Nardi noted that the warm- water anomalies on either side mean focusing only on the formal MHW window does not accurately represent real- world conditions experienced by marine life.

Key findings include:

  • Pre- and post- MHW warm phases often contribute as much or more cumulative heat exposure as the heatwave itself.
  • Conventional assessments underestimate total heat exposure by more than 150% on average.
  • About two- thirds of the events were classified as “individual” MHWs embedded within roughly 60 days of elevated temperatures beyond the heatwave window.
  • The remaining one- third were “compound” events associated with prolonged warming of about 90 days before and after the MHW; these generated more than three times the cumulative heat exposure of the MHW phase alone.

This matters because estuaries are critical nursery habitats and support major fisheries and coastal economies. The extra sustained heat can increase physiological stress on organisms (such as seagrasses, shellfish, and fish), alter ecosystems, and raise risks beyond what isolated heatwave metrics suggest. The work provides a framework for treating MHWs as part of broader warming episodes to better assess ecological impacts.

The research builds on earlier VIMS work on estuarine MHWs (including projections that East Coast systems could experience heatwave conditions for a substantial fraction of the year later this century) and uses high- frequency in situ data from networks such as NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Related studies from the same group have also examined co-occurrence of estuarine and coastal MHWs and subsurface (“vertical”) structure of heatwaves in places like Chesapeake Bay.

In short, the “hidden source of heat” is the extended warm anomalies surrounding the formally defined heatwaves, which substantially amplify total thermal stress on marine ecosystems.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Estuarine marine heatwaves (MHWs), prolonged periods of anomalously warm water in coastal embayments, bays, and river mouths, pose significant and often underestimated threats to highly productive but vulnerable ecosystems. Estuaries serve as nurseries for ~75% of U.S. commercial fish and shellfish species and support tens of millions of jobs, making impacts cascading and economically consequential.

The recent VIMS/Batten School study (Nardi et al., 2026 in Communications Earth & Environment) is especially relevant: by analyzing >2,580 MHWs across 20 U.S. estuaries, it showed that pre- and post-event warm anomalies (often lasting weeks to months) boost total cumulative heat exposure by ~153% on average compared with the formal MHW alone. This means organisms experience far more sustained thermal stress than standard metrics capture, amplifying risks.

MHWs drive direct physiological stress, mortality, habitat loss, and cascading community changes. Key effects include:

Foundation species and habitats: Seagrasses (e.g., eelgrass Zostera marina in Chesapeake Bay and other temperate systems) suffer die- offs when temperatures exceed thresholds (often ~25- 30°C or +1- 5°C above normal summer peaks). This leads to habitat compression, reduced carbon storage, sediment destabilization, and loss of nursery functions. Macroalgae and other vegetation can show long-lasting biomass declines. In some cases, heat-tolerant or invasive species expand.

Benthic and shellfish communities: Mass mortalities of oysters, clams, mussels, and other invertebrates occur, especially during low tides coinciding with heat or in shallow areas. Thermal stress reduces growth, reproduction, and survival; combined with low dissolved oxygen (DO), it intensifies effects. Bioturbation and nutrient cycling by benthic organisms can shift.

Fish and mobile species: Fish kills are documented. Habitat compression (warm surface and hypoxic deeper waters) squeezes preferred zones. Blue crab migration and spawning patterns in systems like Chesapeake Bay can be disrupted. Larval stages are particularly vulnerable. Range shifts favor warm-adapted or subtropical species while stressing cold- adapted ones.

Water quality and multi- stressors: Warming reduces oxygen solubility and accelerates microbial respiration, expanding hypoxic/anoxic zones (observed in Chesapeake Bay studies spanning decades of data). This compounds eutrophication common in many estuaries. Harmful algal blooms can intensify; pH may drop. Subsurface warming often persists beyond surface MHWs, especially in stratified seasons.

Food webs and biodiversity: Cascading effects include shifts in plankton communities, altered energy flow, reduced biodiversity, and changes in predator- prey dynamics. Recovery can take years; some systems show persistent regime shifts.

East Coast systems (including Chesapeake Bay, the largest U.S. estuary) show clear increases in MHW frequency and cumulative intensity driven by long- term warming. Projections indicate East Coast estuaries could experience MHW conditions for ~1/3 of the year by 2100 if trends continue, far beyond the current ~6% (≈22 days/year) in places like Chesapeake Bay. West Coast estuaries generally lack strong trends and may act as thermal refugia, partly due to upwelling.

In Chesapeake Bay specifically:

  • MHWs average ~2 events/year lasting ~11 days (intensities ~3°C, peaks higher).
  • Subsurface effects include expanded hypoxia and warming that can lag or persist relative to the surface.
  • Documented links to seagrass losses, fishery species declines, and potential habitat squeeze for crabs and fish.

Global reviews confirm similar patterns: foundation- species mortality (seagrasses, etc.), fisheries disruptions, and ecosystem-service losses occur across temperate and subtropical estuaries and coasts.

Socioeconomic Consequences

Fisheries and aquaculture: Declines or temporary collapses in shellfish and finfish landings; closures; reduced recruitment lasting years. Economic losses from MHWs globally already reach hundreds of millions to billions annually in affected regions.

Ecosystem services: Reduced carbon sequestration, water quality regulation, coastal protection, recreation, and cultural values.

Communities: Threats to food security, livelihoods in coastal areas, and tourism.

Why the “Hidden Heat” Matters

Standard MHW definitions (temperature exceeding a threshold for a set duration) miss the extended warm anomalies. The ~153% higher cumulative intensity means chronic sublethal stress accumulates more than previously quantified.

This can push organisms past physiological tipping points, delay recovery, and worsen multi- stressor interactions (e.g., heat and low DO). The new framework from the 2026 study aims to better quantify total exposure for ecological assessments, lab experiments, and management.

MHWs are projected to intensify with ongoing climate change. East Coast U.S. estuaries face particularly acute risks.

Adaptation strategies include enhanced monitoring (full water- column temperature and DO), early- warning systems, habitat restoration (e.g., seagrass), fisheries management adjustments (timing/closures), and reducing local stressors (nutrients) to build resilience. Large- scale emission reductions remain essential for long- term mitigation.

Related research from the same VIMS group has examined co- occurrence of estuarine vs. coastal MHWs, vertical structure in Chesapeake Bay, and future exposure trends, providing a growing toolkit for understanding and responding to these events.

In summary, estuarine heatwaves threaten the foundation of coastal ecosystems and economies through direct mortality, habitat loss, water- quality degradation, and food- web disruption. Accounting for the full thermal history (including surrounding anomalies) reveals substantially greater risk than previously assessed.

Estuarine marine heatwave (MHW) early warning systems are emerging but remain less mature than open-ocean counterparts. They rely on high- frequency in situ monitoring, regional ocean models, atmospheric forecasts, and (increasingly) machine learning.

The goal is to provide lead times of days to months so managers, fishers, aqua culturists, and conservation groups can take proactive steps, such as adjusting harvests, relocating stock, enhancing monitoring, or protecting sensitive habitats.

Chesapeake Bay is the most advanced example:

  • VIMS Chesapeake Bay Environmental Forecast System (CBEFS): Operational MHW forecasts began in 2025 (surface in March; bottom waters in May). It uses two definitions:
    • Standard MHW: Forecast water temperature exceeds the 90th- percentile climatology for ≥5 consecutive days.
    • Alternate high- temperature alert: Surface temperatures forecast above 82.5°F (≈28°C) for ≥5 days.
  • Forecasts require the affected area to exceed ~1,000 acres to focus on significant events. Maps show current/forecast locations, and time- series plots show the Bay area under MHW conditions.
  • Supporting research includes probabilistic 35-day SST and extreme- temperature forecasts that show value for 1- 2 weeks of lead time, especially when protection costs are low relative to potential losses (e.g., for catch- and- release mortality or Vibrio risks in oysters).
  • NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and partners (including Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee recommendations) are developing a public Marine Heatwave Alert System linked to fisheries impacts, habitat preferences, and other parameters (DO, salinity). This includes analyses of definitions, buoy/satellite data, and communication products.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS): The System- Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) provides high- frequency (15- min) temperature and water- quality data from dozens of stations across ~30 reserves. These long- term records (used in Nardi et al. studies of 20 and estuaries) form the observational backbone for detecting MHWs and validating models. Real- time data are publicly available and support trend analysis and potential forecasting.

Other regional examples include short -term (e.g., 3-day) multi- parameter forecasts in systems like Puget Sound (temperature, oxygen, pH, etc.), which can flag heat- related risks.

The recent VIMS work on underestimation of heat exposure, vertical structure, and East vs. West Coast trends underscores the need for systems that capture full thermal histories and multi- stressor risks.

Expanded monitoring, coupled models, and stakeholder- designed thresholds are priorities for improving these systems.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Persistent warm water anomalies before and after marine heatwaves amplify heat exposure and associated risks

Marine heatwaves (MHWs) threaten marine ecosystems, but standard definitions capture only the core event and miss pre- and post- event warm anomalies. This leads to systematic underestimation of the total heat exposure organisms actually experience.

The study analyzed over 2,580 MHW events from 54 stations across 20 U.S. estuaries. Main findings:

  • Pre- and post- event warm phases are largely independent of the core MHW metrics (intensity, duration, etc.).
  • These surrounding phases often last longer than the formal MHW itself.
  • Although less intense than the core event, when added to the MHW they produce a substantial increase in total heat exposure, approximately 153% higher cumulative intensity (°C·days) compared with the MHW alone.
  • This extra exposure cannot be reliably inferred from standard MHW metrics alone.

The authors present a new framework for quantifying these pre- and post -event anomalies. It is designed to be broadly applicable to both coastal and open- ocean systems and is intended to improve understanding of MHWs, assessment of ecological impacts, design of laboratory experiments, and ecosystem management.

Additional notes from the page

  • Data relied on long- term monitoring from the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS).
  • The article is open access; a PDF is available via the Nature site.
  • This is the peer- reviewed version corresponding to the news coverage about the “hidden source of heat” surrounding ocean/estuarine heatwaves.

Published: Communications Earth & Environment (2026)  Open access (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

DOI: 10.1038/s43247-026-03739-x

Authors: Ricardo U. Nardi, 
Piero L. F. Mazzini, 
Ryan K. Walter & 
Jian Shen 

Abstract

Marine heatwaves are a major threat to marine ecosystems globally, yet standard marine heatwave definitions, despite providing consistent metrics, do not capture pre- and post-event warm anomalies, leading to systematic underestimation of total heat exposure experienced by marine ecosystems. Here, we analyze over 2580 marine heatwave events from 54 stations across 20 US estuaries to provide a comprehensive characterization of pre- and post-marine heatwaves thermal anomalies. We show that pre- and post-event phases are largely independent of core marine heatwave metrics and often persist longer than the marine heatwave itself. Although these phases are less intense than the marine heatwave event, when combined with the marine heatwave, they account for a substantial increase in total heat exposure—resulting in an approximately 153% higher cumulative intensity (°C·days) compared to the marine heatwave alone—that cannot be reliably inferred from standard metrics. We present a new framework to quantify pre- and post-event anomalies that can be broadly applied across coastal and open-ocean systems. This framework is critical for understanding marine heatwaves, assessing ecological impacts, guiding laboratory experiments, and informing ecosystem management.

Aussie Activists Moaning about Massive New “Climate Bomb” Gas Field in the Northern Territory

“… No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. …”

The only “crisis” is a collapse in belief in the fake climate scare.

Who needs unreliable solar when you have reliable gas?

Illustration depicting a protest against gas extraction in the Beetaloo Basin, Northern Territory, Australia. Activists hold signs expressing concerns about climate change, while a smiling worker promotes gas as a clean energy solution. In the background, a gas drilling site and infrastructure can be seen.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. …”

Gas from the Beetaloo Basin will only pour fuel on the climate change fire

Published: September 7, 2026 11.31am AEST
Lily O’Neill
Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

Gas is now flowing from the Beetaloo Basin, a vast fossil fuel project roughly 500 kilometres southeast of Darwin in the Northern Territory.

…

The Beetaloo is producing its first round of gas amid fanfare about the amount of royalties it could bring the NT. Proponents say the basin could generate more than A$17 billion and support 13,000 jobs over the next two decades. Already, there is talk of the economic opportunities that come with cheap energy, including powering energy-hungry data centres with shale gas.

For those who have long hyped the Beetaloo’s economic potential, this is welcome news. For scientists, environmental groups and communities around Australia and the world bearing the brunt of global warming, it represents a “climate bomb”.

…

A ‘stranded asset’

In this context, a “stranded asset” is a fossil fuel project – such as a coal mine or gas pipeline – that quickly loses its value because of the global transition away from fossil fuels. Research suggests demand for liquefied natural gas will decline as early as the mid-2030s. This, combined with dubious employment benefits, means the government is highly unlikely to get a good return on its Beetaloo investments.

…

No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. By turning on the Beetaloo tap, we risk watching the climate crisis worsen before our very eyes.

…Read more: https://theconversation.com/gas-from-the-beetaloo-basin-will-only-pour-fuel-on-the-climate-change-fire-290535

The only “crisis” is a collapse in belief in the fake climate scare. The author claims fossil fuel is on track to become “stranded assets” by the mid 2030s, but the evidence suggests renewables are the real stranded assets. Like the vast solar farm just down the road which has pretty much been abandoned.

Outback residents lose solar farm as Ergon battles push owner to close

By Abbey Halter
ABC North West Qld
Topic:Solar Energy
Posted 

In short: 

The Normanton Solar Farm in the Gulf of Carpentaria can power an area almost twice the size of Tasmania. 

Owner and operator Doug Scouller has turned off the farm after eight years, citing soured contract negotiations with Ergon Energy.

What’s next? 

Ergon Energy says it is willing to speak with Mr Scouller should he contact them.

An outback solar farm has officially switched off its panels after the owner said a failed agreement with Ergon Energy forced his hand to pull the plug.

For eight years, Doug Scouller’s Normanton Solar Farm has kept residential and business lights on across an area almost twice the size of Tasmania.

But his dream of using the region’s abundant sunlight to power his remote Gulf of Carpentaria community has been extinguished.

Mr Scouller said the most recent power purchasing agreement (PPA) offered by Ergon Energy was “completely commercially unviable”.

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-03/normanton-solar-farm-turns-off-after-ergon-energy-negotiations/105843958

Who needs unreliable solar when you have reliable gas?

Demand destruction simply isn’t happening on anything like the scale greens predicted – if anything, the opposite is the case. With AI driving demand through the roof, and renewables failing to even cater for existing demand, in my opinion there is no evidence that new gas field will lose its value by the mid 2030s.

Green Movement’s Selective Outrage Over ESA Reforms

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration had returned the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “to how it was intended to be,” invoking the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s reading of the statute and initiating the crocodile tears of anti-development activists.

A dramatic scene of rusted and broken wind turbines partially submerged in turbulent ocean waters under an overcast sky.

From CO2 Coalition- Substack

By Vijay Jayaraj

A tweet by Donald J. Trump discussing his views on the Endangered Species Act and its impact on resources and infrastructure in the United States.

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration had returned the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “to how it was intended to be,” invoking the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s reading of the statute and initiating the crocodile tears of anti-development activists.

The administration’s view is that regulators committed to regulatory expansion had turned the 1973 law into an automatic impediment to human activity rather than a targeted protection of threatened species. In 2012, Justice Scalia called regulators’ broadening of the statute from guarding against injuring animals to protecting habitat “a terrible interpretation” of congressional intent. He rejected the notion that every form of ecosystem modification should automatically count as prohibited “harm.”

To nobody’s surprise, the reaction of activists has been extreme. The administration action “guts protections for threatened wildlife,” announced the Center for Biological Diversity. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said, “This broad attack on endangered wildlife is un-American.”

But where was this outrage when the Biden administration permitted the killing of bald eagles and whales to erect its politically favored wind turbines? Many of the same voices have spent years promoting large “green” energy projects that inflicted harm on birds, bats, marine mammals, and sensitive habitats.

Permission Slips for Slaughter
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues incidental take permits that authorize operators to injure or kill eagles as a cost of turbine operation. A 2024 rule went further, creating streamlined general permits so that qualifying projects could register for coverage rather than endure case-by-case review.

Biologists have warned that eagle mortality at wind facilities is widespread and badly undercounted. California regulators are now scrambling to protect golden eagles from the very machines the state subsidized into existence.

The press has largely averted its eyes. Legacy outlets grant turbines a free pass on bird kills that would trigger front-page fury if a refinery caused them. The carnage extends well beyond eagles. Studies document how wildlife pays the bill for so-called clean power across three continents. In my own country of India, transmission lines and turbine arrays are pushing the Great Indian Bustard toward oblivion.

Whales nobody mourn

Move offshore and it gets worse. Federal regulators have granted harassment authorizations that permit developers to disturb and even kill whales during seismic surveying and pile driving for offshore wind projects along the Atlantic seaboard.

Research has raised concerns that this acoustic disturbance may be directly related to whale injuries and deaths. When the administration ordered a review of federal leasing and permitting practices for offshore wind, the same activists weeping about the ESA revision called the pause an assault on the planet.

North Atlantic right whales’ numbers have dwindled to the low hundreds. Dead humpbacks washed ashore in New Jersey and New York through the survey years, and the groups that would have filed emergency legal motions over a single oil spill explained why nothing was connected to anything.

You do not have to oppose offshore wind energy to acknowledge that marine wildlife deserves the same level of concern regardless of which energy source is involved. The same biased pattern extends onto land through utility-scale solar as well. Large solar installations require vast tracts of open space. Those projects often proceed with enthusiastic backing because they satisfy political agendas.

Residents across New York are resisting 18 planned solar developments that would carpet protected and agricultural land, kill wildlife and deliver modest electricity in return. These are farmers and hunters who traffic in the habitat themselves. Career environmentalists sided with solar.

The Tell
A movement that meant what it said would have fought hardest where the killing was authorized, measured and ongoing. It would have demanded that every turbine or solar panel face the scrutiny natural gas compressors do. It would have treated a 30-year eagle take permit as the scandal it plainly is.

Instead, the activists chose sides by fuel. Wildlife deaths caused by hydrocarbons were a moral travesty. Identical deaths caused by subsidized wind and solar became an acceptable trade, a transition cost, a footnote to “saving the world.” That is a political program wearing conservation as a costume.

Originally published at American Greatness, August 22nd, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

What’s New!

The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate Debrief Podcast, CO₂ in Perspective, featuring Dr Byron Soepyan Part 3. Watch the full video on YouTube here!

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

Wrong, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nuclear Power Isn’t the Reliability Problem

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists claims in “Climate change is exposing nuclear power’s reliability problem,” that climate change is exposing a fundamental reliability problem with nuclear power because heat waves, droughts, and other weather events have forced temporary reactor shutdowns in Europe. This is highly misleading if not false.

What they never ask is the obvious question: Compared to what?

Cartoon depicting a nuclear power worker stating that nuclear energy prevents blackouts, contrasted with a chaotic energy grid scene showing issues with renewable sources, emphasizing the reliability of nuclear power.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

An article headline and image discussing climate change's impact on nuclear power reliability, featuring a group of individuals near a nuclear power plant.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists claims in “Climate change is exposing nuclear power’s reliability problem,” that climate change is exposing a fundamental reliability problem with nuclear power because heat waves, droughts, and other weather events have forced temporary reactor shutdowns in Europe. This is highly misleading if not false. The best available evidence suggests that while nuclear plants, like all thermal power stations, can occasionally be affected by weather-related cooling constraints, they remain among the most reliable sources of electricity ever developed. More importantly, wind and solar are inherently dependent on the weather every hour of every day, while nuclear plants are only occasionally affected by it.

The article’s central flaw is one of perspective. The authors describe several temporary nuclear shutdowns in Europe during an unusually hot, dry summer and conclude that climate change has exposed a fatal weakness in nuclear power.

What they never ask is the obvious question: Compared to what?

Every source of electricity has vulnerabilities. Natural gas pipelines can freeze. Coal plants can experience fuel delivery interruptions. Hydroelectric dams depend entirely on rainfall and snowpack. Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind is calm or excessively strong, or if they ice up in the winter. Solar panels stop producing electricity every night and produce much less during cloudy weather or winter months.

Only nuclear power routinely delivers electricity around the clock, independent of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

That distinction is the entire discussion the Bulletin leaves out.

The authors point to temporary reductions in nuclear output in Hungary, Romania, and France during periods of drought and elevated river temperatures.

Those events happened, but isolated operational constraints are not the same thing as chronic unreliability. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors operate at capacity factors exceeding 90 percent, meaning they generate electricity almost continuously throughout the year except during planned maintenance or refueling outages. Wind and solar cannot approach those numbers because their output is governed entirely by weather conditions.

That is the irony running throughout the Bulletin’s article.

The authors repeatedly criticize nuclear power for occasionally being affected by weather while praising solar power for helping offset European electricity shortages during the same heat wave.

But solar generation only helped because the weather happened to cooperate. Had thick clouds covered much of Europe during those critical days, solar production would have dropped dramatically. Likewise, had the event occurred after sunset, solar output would have fallen to zero regardless of electricity demand.

The article treats intermittent renewable generation during one favorable weather event as proof of resilience while portraying occasional nuclear deratings as evidence of systemic failure. That comparison is a double standard.

The Bulletin also ignores the fact that cooling water limitations are not unique to nuclear plants.

Coal-fired power stations, natural gas combined-cycle plants, biomass facilities, and many industrial operations also rely on cooling water and can face operational constraints during extreme drought or unusually warm river conditions. Nuclear reactors generally require more cooling because of their design, but the underlying engineering challenge is common to all thermal generation technologies.

The issue is not unique to nuclear power. It is unique to power plants that produce electricity continuously.

By contrast, wind and solar face an even more fundamental limitation. They are not merely influenced by weather, they are beholden to it. No amount of engineering can make a wind turbine generate electricity during calm conditions. No technological breakthrough can make photovoltaic panels produce electricity at midnight.

Every utility operator understands this reality, which is why electric grids require dispatchable generation, whether from nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, or other sources, to stabilize renewable energy whenever weather conditions change.

Ironically, the article begins by quoting claims that nuclear plants can operate “24 hours a day, 7 days a week” regardless of weather, only to spend the rest of the piece arguing that because a handful of reactors occasionally reduced output during exceptional weather events, those claims are invalid.

That is like arguing commercial aviation is unreliable because flights are occasionally delayed by thunderstorms.

Reliability is measured over years of operation, not by selecting exceptional circumstances. The Bulletin further argues that climate change will make these interruptions increasingly common. That may prove true in some locations, but the article offers remarkably little context.

It never compares projected nuclear interruptions with the vastly larger weather-driven variability already inherent in wind and solar generation. Nor does it acknowledge that modern reactor designs increasingly employ cooling towers, closed-loop systems, air cooling, seawater cooling, or siting decisions that reduce dependence on river flows.

Engineering adapts to change, that has always been true.

Perhaps the biggest omission is what reliable electricity actually means. Reliable generation is not simply electricity that works when weather is favorable. Reliable generation is electricity that remains available when demand is highest, hospitals must stay open, factories must continue operating, and homes require heating or air conditioning.

That is precisely why electric grids continue to rely heavily on dispatchable generation.

Good journalism requires comparison, context, and perspective. Instead, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists presents occasional nuclear weather-related outages as though they invalidate decades of exceptional operating performance while giving only passing mention to the fact that its favored alternatives are completely dependent on the weather from the moment they begin generating electricity. That is bogus scaremongering against nuclear technology.

Readers deserve a balanced comparison of all generating technologies, not another attempt to redefine one of the world’s most reliable energy sources as unreliable simply because it, like every other form of power generation, occasionally encounters adverse weather.

Tropical Forest Collapse, Not Volcanoes, Kept Earth in a Super- Greenhouse for 5 Million Years

The Permian- Triassic mass extinction (the “Great Dying”), ~251.9- 252 million years ago, was Earth’s most severe extinction event.

New fossil evidence (macrofossils, palynology, and related indicators), combined with climate- biogeochemical modeling, points to a different primary driver for the persistence: the collapse of terrestrial vegetation, especially tropical forests and peat-bforming ecosystems.

Infographic on the impact of tropical forest collapse on Earth's climate, highlighting that forest loss, not volcanic activity, led to a 'super-greenhouse' effect over 5 million years.
AI generated by Grok

The Permian- Triassic mass extinction (the “Great Dying”), ~251.9- 252 million years ago, was Earth’s most severe extinction event.

It eliminated roughly 81- 96% of marine species and about 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species, with major losses among insects, plants, and other groups as well. Recovery of ecosystems took millions of years.

The dominant driver was prolonged, massive eruptions of the Siberian Traps large igneous province in what is now Siberia. These flood- basalt eruptions released enormous volumes of CO₂, sulfur gases, halocarbons, and other volatiles over a geologically short interval (hundreds of thousands of years, with intense pulses). Contact metamorphism of coal- bearing and organic- rich sediments by the intruding magmas amplified greenhouse- gas and toxic- gas release.

The sudden rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases produced rapid global warming (estimates often cite several degrees Celsius on average, with larger extremes in some regions), intensified the hydrological cycle, and drove ocean warming.

Key secondary impacts included:

  • Ocean acidification from elevated CO₂.
  • Widespread marine anoxia (oxygen- depleted “dead zones”) and euxinia (hydrogen- sulfide- rich conditions).
  • Disruption of the carbon cycle, with evidence from large negative carbon- isotope excursions.
  • Terrestrial effects such as wildfires, soil erosion, and changes in vegetation and weathering patterns.

These stresses acted synergistically, collapsing food webs in the oceans and on land.

The extinction was not a single instantaneous catastrophe but a prolonged crisis with one or more intense pulses coinciding with the main volcanic activity.

The Siberian Traps eruptions acted as a powerful natural catalyst for extreme climate change.

The resulting greenhouse- driven warming, ocean chemistry shifts, and ecosystem collapse is the clearest deep- time analogue for the environmental consequences of a rapid, large- scale injection of greenhouse gases.

Modern anthropogenic CO₂ release is occurring far faster than the volcanic pulses of the end- Permian, but the end-Permian record shows how high greenhouse- gas levels and associated feedback can push the Earth system past tipping points that produce mass extinction.

Other contributing factors sometimes discussed (possible asteroid impact, methane hydrate release, or earlier climatic shifts) are secondary or poorly supported compared with the volcanic– climate cascade.

The event marks the boundary between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras and permanently altered the trajectory of life on Earth.

The Siberian Traps form one of Earth’s largest continental Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs), with estimated original volumes commonly in the range of ~2- 5 × 10⁶ km³ (some estimates higher, up to ~7- 15 × 10⁶ km³ including intrusive and eroded material).

Magmatism spanned the Permian- Triassic boundary (~252 Ma) over roughly 1 million years (or less for the main pulse), with intense phases lasting hundreds of thousands of years.

The prevailing model involves a thermochemical mantle plume (hotter by ~100- 300°C and chemically distinct) rising from the core- mantle boundary, possibly combined with lithospheric delamination.

Plume impingement on the base of the thick Siberian Craton lithosphere triggered extensive melting. Early melts often show deeper (garnet -field) origins with stronger pyroxenite contributions; later melts reflect shallower, more extensive melting of predominantly peridotitic mantle (with recycled components).

Alternative or complementary ideas include:

  • Subduction- related hydration of the mantle transition zone (releasing water that lowers the solidus), consistent with the back- arc tectonic setting and some arc-like geochemical signatures (low Nb, high Pb/Sr/Ba) in low-Ti basalts.
  • Lithospheric delamination or edge-driven convection (less favored for explaining the full volume and extent).
  • Extraterrestrial impact (poorly supported).

Seismic data and geochemical progression (high-Ti early suites to low-Ti tholeiitic main phase, with late alkaline activity) support plume- related melting under thinned or eroded lithosphere, especially beneath the West Siberian Basin and Tunguska region.

Magma ascended through the crust and created a complex sub- volcanic plumbing system of dikes and especially extensive sills.

Sills comprise a large fraction of the total volume (estimates ~37- 50%). They preferentially intruded the thick (several km) sedimentary fill of the Tunguska Basin, which includes Cambrian evaporites (halite, anhydrite), carbonates, marls, siliciclastics, and Permian coal- bearing rocks.

Borehole data show abundant thick sills (>100 m common; averages 115- 130 m in evaporites; maximum recorded ~428 m). Evaporites acted as preferred horizons for melt accumulation due to their thermal and mechanical properties. Some individual sills may have exceeded thousands of km³.

Eruptive styles evolved in stages (based on high- precision U- Pb geochronology):

Early phase (pre- extinction): Widespread explosive pyroclastic and phreatomagmatic activity (interaction with groundwater or surface water), producing thick volcaniclastic breccias (up to ~1 km in places), followed by and interspersed with flood- basalt lava effusion. About two-thirds of the lava/pyroclastic volume erupted over ~300 kyr before and during the extinction onset.

Critical intrusive phase (coinciding with extinction ~251.9 Ma): Shift to dominant sill emplacement into volatile- rich sediments. This initial widespread sill pulse is widely regarded as the “deadly” interval because it maximized contact metamorphism of previously untapped sediments.

Later phases: Continued sill intrusion and renewed extrusive activity (including alkaline rocks) for hundreds of kyr after the main extinction.

Phreatomagmatism was important early on, with distributed vents. Flood basalts formed thick, stepwise (“trap”) plateaus of relatively volatile- poor tholeiitic lavas.

Direct magmatic degassing released CO₂, SO₂, H₂O, and halogens from the melts themselves. However, the dominant environmental driver was interaction with sedimentary host rocks:

Contact metamorphism around sills heated organic- rich sediments (coal, shale), carbonates, and evaporites, generating large volumes of thermogenic gases (CO₂, CH₄, SO₂, and halogenated compounds such as CH₃Cl and CH₃Br). Thermal modeling of sill cooling indicates contact aureoles can produce ~52- 80 tonnes of CO₂ per m² (from both marine and terrestrial carbon sources). Scaling suggests that only a small fraction (~0.7- 1.2%) of the sill- affected area in the Tunguska Basin could generate 1,000 Gt CO₂; basin- scale estimates reach on the order of 100,000 Gt CO₂.

Overpressure from gas generation fractured the rocks, forming degassing structures: hydrothermal vents, diatreme pipes, and magnetite- rich pipes (especially rooted in evaporites). These acted as conduits linking deep aureoles to the atmosphere, enabling rapid, explosive gas release. Crater- lake deposits and pipe structures are documented, particularly in southern parts of the basin.

The combination of high magma flux, sill- dominated intrusion into a volatile- fertile sedimentary basin, and efficient venting produced rapid greenhouse- gas loading, sulfur aerosols (short- term cooling pulses), ocean acidification, and other stresses that drove the end- Permian crisis. Mantle- derived and thermogenic carbon both contributed, with the intrusive- metamorphic component especially critical at the extinction onset.

In summary, the Siberian Traps mechanisms center on plume-driven melting, a shift from early explosive/effusive surface volcanism to extensive shallow sill intrusion into carbon- and sulfur- rich sediments, and efficient release of both magmatic and thermogenic volatiles through a network of pipes and vents.

This architecture distinguishes it from purely extrusive flood- basalt provinces and explains its outsized climatic and biotic impact.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Early Triassic super- greenhouse climate driven by vegetation collapse

For a long time, the prolonged Early Triassic “super- greenhouse” (roughly 5 million years of extreme warmth after the Permian-Triassic mass extinction) was attributed mainly to the lingering effects of Siberian Traps volcanism and associated greenhouse-gas release. Once the main volcanic pulses ended, silicate weathering and organic- carbon burial were expected to draw CO₂ down relatively quickly (on the order of ~100,000 years). The fact that extreme temperatures persisted far longer remained a puzzle.

New fossil evidence (macrofossils, palynology, and related indicators), combined with climate- biogeochemical modeling, points to a different primary driver for the persistence: the collapse of terrestrial vegetation, especially tropical forests and peat-bforming ecosystems.

Nature Communications volume 16, Article number: 5400 (2025). Published 2 July 2025 (with a later author correction).

The Permian- Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME, ~252 Ma) was triggered by intense greenhouse warming from Siberian Traps volcanism (and associated thermogenic gas release). However, extreme “super-greenhouse” conditions persisted for roughly 5 million years into the Early Triassic, long after the main volcanic pulses should have been offset by silicate weathering and organic- carbon burial.

The authors argue that the key reason was the dramatic and prolonged collapse of terrestrial vegetation, especially in the tropics. Loss of plant biomass reduced organic- carbon sequestration and limited chemical weathering, locking the climate- carbon system into a higher- temperature steady state.

Methods and evidence

  • Compiled a large plant fossil database (macrofossils and palynology) spanning the latest Permian to Middle Triassic.
  • Produced stage-level spatio- temporal maps of plant productivity and diversity, normalized for fragmentation and sampling bias.
  • Combined these with lithological climate indicators.
  • Fed the reconstructed vegetation changes into a linked climate- biogeochemical model.

Results show major loss of low- latitude (tropical) plant productivity at the PTME, coinciding with the well-known multimillion- year “coal gap” (near- absence of peat/coal formation). Tropical peat- forming ecosystems, normally important CO₂ sinks, largely disappeared and recovered only slowly.

Implications

Vegetation collapse created positive feedback:

  • Reduced organic- carbon burial.
  • Restricted chemical (silicate) weathering.
  • Sustained high atmospheric CO₂ and global temperatures for ~5 Myr.

The work supports the existence of thresholds in the climate- carbon system: once warming and vegetation loss cross a critical point, the Earth system can stabilize at a much hotter state until plants gradually recover (which began more substantially in the Middle Triassic).

This mechanism helps explain why temperatures did not return to pre- extinction levels within the expected ~100 kyr window after volcanic degassing ended. It complements earlier ideas about changes in weathering rates or reverse weathering but ties the prolonged hothouse more directly to the timing of terrestrial biotic recovery.

As a result, atmospheric CO₂ stayed elevated and the climate locked into a hotter steady state until vegetation gradually recovered in the Middle Triassic. The study frames this as evidence of a threshold in the climate- carbon system: once warming and vegetation collapse cross a critical point, positive feedback can amplify and prolong the greenhouse conditions far beyond the original volcanic trigger.

In short, the Siberian Traps ignited the crisis, but the near- destruction of tropical forests is what kept the planet in a super- greenhouse state for millions of years afterward. This highlights how tightly the biosphere regulates long- term climate and how its collapse can turn a severe but temporary warming event into a prolonged one.

The study reinforces the tight coupling between the biosphere and long- term climate regulation and illustrates how a mass extinction of plants can amplify and extend the climatic effects of large igneous province eruptions.

Published: Nature Communications volume 16, Article number: 5400 (2025)

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-60396-y

Authors: Zhen Xu, 
Jianxin Yu, 
Hongfu Yin, 
Andrew S. Merdith, 
Jason Hilton, 
Bethany J. Allen, 
Khushboo Gurung, 
Paul B. Wignall, 
Alexander M. Dunhill, 
Jun Shen, 
David Schwartzman, 
Yves Goddéris, 
Yannick Donnadieu, 
Yuxuan Wang, 
Yinggang Zhang, 
Simon W. Poulton & 
Benjamin J. W. Mills

Abstract

The Permian–Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME), the most severe crisis of the Phanerozoic, has been attributed to intense global warming triggered by Siberian Traps volcanism. However, it remains unclear why super-greenhouse conditions persisted for around five million years after the volcanic episode, with one possibility being that the slow recovery of plants limited carbon sequestration. Here we use fossil occurrences and lithological indicators of climate to reconstruct spatio-temporal maps of plant productivity changes through the PTME and employ climate-biogeochemical modelling to investigate the Early Triassic super-greenhouse. Our reconstructions show that terrestrial vegetation loss during the PTME, especially in tropical regions, resulted in an Earth system with low levels of organic carbon sequestration and restricted chemical weathering, resulting in prolonged high CO2 levels. These results support the idea that thresholds exist in the climate-carbon system whereby warming can be amplified by vegetation collapse.