Day: September 12, 2026

The Day the Dinosaurs Died: Asteroid Impact and Deccan Volcanoes at the End of the Cretaceous

Paleontologists recognize five major mass extinctions (the “Big Five”) over the past ~540 million years (the Phanerozoic Eon).

The End- Cretaceous (K- Pg or Cretaceous- Paleogene) mass extinction occurred approximately 66 million years ago. It is the most recent of the “Big Five” mass extinctions and the event that ended the reign of the non- avian dinosaurs.

An artistic depiction of the Chicxulub asteroid impact on the Yucatan coast, featuring dinosaurs reacting to the catastrophic event with a massive explosion and tsunami in the background.
AI generated by Grok

Mass extinctions are periods in Earth’s history when a large percentage of species die out in a relatively short geological time (typically thousands to a few hundred thousand years), far above the normal “background” extinction rate.

Paleontologists recognize five major mass extinctions (the “Big Five”) over the past ~540 million years (the Phanerozoic Eon). These events reshaped life on Earth and opened ecological opportunities for surviving groups.

The Big Five Mass Extinctions

EventTime (approx.)Species Lost (est.)Main CausesKey Victims
End- Ordovician444 million years ago~85%Rapid glaciation & sea- level fall, then warmingMarine invertebrates (graptolites, trilobites, brachiopods)
Late Devonian372- 359 million years ago~70- 75%Climate cooling, ocean anoxia, possible volcanism or impactsReef-building organisms, many marine groups, early fish
End- Permian (“The Great Dying”)252 million years ago~90- 96% (marine), ~70% (terrestrial)Massive Siberian Traps volcanism → global warming, ocean acidification, anoxiaMost marine life, many land vertebrates, insects, plants
End-Triassic201 million years ago~70- 80%Central Atlantic Magmatic Province volcanism → climate change & ocean chemistry shiftsMany marine groups, early reptiles, some amphibians
End- Cretaceous (K- Pg)66 million years ago~75%Asteroid impact (Chicxulub) and Deccan Traps volcanismNon- avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, ammonites, many marine reptiles

Notes on severity:

  • The End- Permian was by far the most severe, the closest life has come to total annihilation.
  • The End- Cretaceous is the best- known because it ended the age of dinosaurs and allowed mammals (and eventually humans) to diversify.

Most mass extinctions involved rapid environmental upheaval, often triggered by:

  • Large Igneous Province (LIP) volcanic eruptions (releasing CO₂, SO₂, and other gases)
  • Asteroid/comet impacts (confirmed mainly for the K- Pg event)
  • Climate shifts (cooling or extreme warming)
  • Ocean anoxia, acidification, or sea- level changes

These ultimate triggers created proximate “kill mechanisms” such as temperature extremes, loss of oxygen in the oceans, acid rain, and disruption of food webs.

Many scientists argue that we are currently in the early stages of a sixth mass extinction, driven by human activities (habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, overexploitation, and invasive species).

Current extinction rates for vertebrates and other groups are estimated to be tens to hundreds of times higher than background rates. While we have not yet reached the classic threshold of ~75% species loss, the trajectory is accelerating and is considered by many researchers to meet the definition of a mass extinction in progress (often called the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction).

Mass extinctions are rare but transformative events. Each one permanently altered the course of evolution, eliminating dominant groups and allowing survivors to radiate into vacant ecological niches.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) are among the most extreme volcanic events in Earth’s history. They involve the rapid emplacement of enormous volumes of mostly mafic (basalt- rich) magma, far larger than ordinary volcanoes or even flood- basalt fields produced by typical hotspot activity.

A standard modern definition describes LIPs as magmatic provinces with:

  • Areal extent greater than ~100,000 km²
  • Igneous volume greater than ~100,000 km³ (often millions of km³)
  • Emplacement mainly in short pulses lasting 1- 5 million years (sometimes with longer overall duration up to ~50 million years)
  • Predominantly intraplate tectonic setting (not normal mid- ocean ridge or subduction- zone volcanism)

They produce thick stacks of flood basalts (“traps”), extensive dike and sill complexes, and sometimes oceanic plateaus. Some LIPs also include significant silicic (rhyolitic) components.

Famous Examples

LIPAge (approx.)LocationNotes / Associated Events
Siberian Traps252 MaSiberia, RussiaLinked to the end-Permian mass extinction (“Great Dying”)
Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP)201 MaEastern North America, parts of Europe, Africa, South AmericaLinked to the end-Triassic mass extinction; associated with the breakup of Pangaea
Deccan Traps66 MaWestern IndiaContemporaneous with the end- Cretaceous (K-Pg) extinction; combined effects with the Chicxulub impact
Paraná -Etendeka~132 MaSouth America & southern AfricaRelated to the opening of the South Atlantic
Columbia River Basalts17- 6 MaNorthwestern USAYoungest major continental flood basalt province
Ontong Java Plateau~120 MaPacific OceanOne of the largest oceanic LIPs

Other notable LIPs include the Emeishan Traps (China, ~260 Ma) and the North Atlantic Igneous Province.

The leading hypothesis involves mantle plumes, large upwellings of hot material from deep in the mantle (possibly the core- mantle boundary). When a plume head reaches the base of the lithosphere, it causes widespread melting and massive magma production.

Alternative or complementary ideas include lithospheric extension, edge- driven convection, or interactions with subducted material. Many LIPs are associated with continental breakup.

LIPs can release vast quantities of volcanic gases (especially CO₂, SO₂, and halogens) plus additional gases from heating surrounding sedimentary rocks (thermogenic gases). These emissions can drive:

  • Rapid global warming (from CO₂)
  • Short- term cooling (from sulfate aerosols)
  • Ocean acidification and anoxia
  • Acid rain
  • Possible ozone depletion

Because of these effects, LIPs are strongly linked to several of the “Big Five” mass extinctions and many lesser biotic crises. The Siberian Traps, CAMP, and Deccan Traps are the clearest examples of this connection.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The End- Cretaceous (K- Pg or Cretaceous- Paleogene) mass extinction occurred approximately 66 million years ago. It is the most recent of the “Big Five” mass extinctions and the event that ended the reign of the non- avian dinosaurs.

Scale of the Extinction

  • Roughly 75% of species went extinct.
  • Major losses included:
    • All non- avian dinosaurs
    • Pterosaurs
    • Marine reptiles (mosasaurs, plesiosaurs)
    • Ammonites and many other marine invertebrates
    • Significant losses among plants, plankton, and other groups
  • Survivors included birds (the only remaining dinosaur lineage), mammals, crocodilians, turtles, lizards, snakes, amphibians, and many plant groups. These survivors later diversified dramatically in the Paleogene.

The Two Major Events

Two large-scale perturbations occurred around the same time:

1. Chicxulub Asteroid Impact

  • A ~10- 15 km asteroid struck the Yucatán Peninsula (Mexico), creating the ~180- 200 km Chicxulub crater.
  • Immediate effects: massive earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, and a global “impact winter” caused by dust, soot, and sulfate aerosols blocking sunlight for months to years.
  • This led to the collapse of photosynthesis, rapid cooling, and the breakdown of food webs on land and in the oceans.
  • The impact is widely accepted as the primary trigger for the abrupt, global extinction.

2. Deccan Traps Volcanism (a Large Igneous Province)

  • Massive flood- basalt eruptions in what is now western India produced ~1 million km³ of lava over roughly 700,000- 800,000 years, spanning the K- Pg boundary.
  • These eruptions released large volumes of CO₂ (causing warming) and SO₂ (causing short- term cooling and acid rain).
  • Activity began before the impact and continued afterward. Some evidence suggests the impact itself may have intensified later eruptive phases through seismic triggering.

Most researchers agree that the Chicxulub impact was the decisive kill mechanism that produced the sudden, global extinction pattern seen in the fossil record.

The Deccan Traps likely stressed ecosystems beforehand (through climate fluctuations) and may have contributed to the overall severity, but modeling studies indicate that Deccan volcanism alone would not have caused the extinction of the non- avian dinosaurs. In some scenarios, the long- term CO₂ warming from the Deccan Traps may even have partially buffered the extreme cold of the impact winter.

The combination is sometimes described as a “press- pulse” scenario: prolonged volcanic stress (the press) followed by the catastrophic impact (the pulse).

Ecosystems began recovering relatively quickly in some regions (within tens of thousands of years for primary productivity), though full recovery of diversity took much longer. Mammals, in particular, underwent a major adaptive radiation in the ecological space left vacant by the dinosaurs, eventually leading to the rise of larger forms and, much later, primates and humans.

This event marks the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras and remains one of the best-studied mass extinctions due to the clear geological markers (the iridium- rich boundary layer, shocked quartz, and the Chicxulub crater itself).

By the way, the Chicxulub asteroid impact did not start (activate from nothing) the Deccan Traps volcanism.

The Deccan Traps eruptions were already underway for hundreds of thousands of years before the impact. High- precision dating shows that Deccan volcanism began well before the Cretaceous- Paleogene (K- Pg) boundary.

However, there is a credible scientific hypothesis that the Chicxulub impact intensified or triggered the largest and most voluminous phase of the Deccan eruptions.

Key points supporting this idea:

  • Around the time of the impact (~66 million years ago), the Deccan Traps experienced a major “state shift.” The eruptions became larger, more episodic, and much more voluminous.
  • The most massive lava flows (the Wai Subgroup: Poladpur, Ambenali, and Mahabaleshwar formations) account for roughly 70% of the main- stage volume of the Deccan Traps. High- precision dating places the start of this major pulse within about 50,000 years of the Chicxulub impact (essentially simultaneous within dating precision).
  • The impact would have generated enormous seismic energy, equivalent to a magnitude ~10-11 earthquake. Modeling shows this seismic energy could have traveled through the mantle and increased the permeability of the existing magmatic system beneath India, allowing a large volume of already-generated magma to erupt more rapidly.

This idea was formally proposed in papers by Richards et al. (2015) and Renne et al. (2015) and remains an active area of research. It is supported by the close timing, changes in eruption style and geochemistry, and analogies with historical earthquakes that have triggered volcanic eruptions.

The Deccan Traps were already active independently (linked to the Réunion mantle plume).

The Chicxulub impact is the primary cause of the mass extinction.

It is plausible (but not universally accepted as proven) that the impact’s seismic waves amplified the ongoing Deccan volcanism, leading to the most intense eruptive phase right around the extinction boundary.

In short: The impact did not create the Deccan Traps, but it may have “shaken the can” and caused the biggest eruptions to happen at the worst possible time.

Climate Fact-Check August 2026

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the most widespread false claims made about climate change by the media in August, 2026.

Debunking claims of climate links to wildfires, hottest month, water crises & Nepal flooding

Graphic featuring the text 'Climate Fact Check: August 2026 Edition' over a background of a wildfire with smoke and fire.

From ClimateRealism

Guest Post by: The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, The Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the most widespread false claims made about climate change by the media in August, 2026.

Debunking claims of climate links to wildfires, hottest month, water crises & Nepal flooding

An article from Scientific American discussing the August 26th landslide in Nepal, explaining its causes and clarifying misconceptions about climate change's role in the event, with a focus on seismic activity and geological factors.
Comparison of Kedarnath's proxy-based ISM variability with contemporary paleo-climatic records across various geographic locations, showing trends in temperature, ENSO events, and isotopic analysis over time.
Links: USGS landslide identification, The New York Times article, NPR article, avalanche, seismic shaking, air temperature penetration of ice, Himalaya temperature record.
Image of an article from Scientific American discussing wildfires in Spokane, Washington, providing a claim and fact-check about the fires and their relation to climate change.
Links: Scientific American article, Spokane fires, 2014 Carlton Complex fire, arsonist arrested, fire burn area and temperature research, Eastern Washington temperatures, cheatgrass issue.
An article discussing the claim that the 2026 'super El Niño' is strengthening rapidly, featuring a fact-check that refutes the existence of a 'super El Niño' and explains the nature of the 2026 event as a very strong El Niño.
Bar chart showing NOAA CPC ENSO Strength Probabilities for various seasons with percentages indicating the likelihood of different ENSO categories.
Links: Global News article, El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), NOAA prediction,  “extremely rapid transition,” El Niño weather impacts.
An article detailing claims and fact-checks regarding NOAA's temperature records for July 2026, discussing its implications on climate statistics and urban heat island effects.
A scatter plot on the left showing USHCN average temperature trends from 1973 to 2020 against population density, with a trendline, and a time series graph on the right displaying the average number of daily temperature extremes in the continental US from 1985 to 2005.
Links: AP article, urban heat island effect, research on NOAA adjusted data, paper finding declines in “hottest day” values.
Image featuring an article titled 'August 20th: Incorrect, Scientific American, Europe is not on fire.' The content compares a claim about wildfires in Europe with a fact-check highlighting that the burn area is lowest on record according to GWIS.
Graph showing cumulative area burnt by wildfires in Europe, measured in hectares, over weeks for various years.
Links: Scientific American article, Global Change Biology paper, wildfire burn data for Europe, Europe fire emissions data, forested land burn data.
Screenshot of an article from Nature discussing a study on the western U.S. water crisis, summarizing claims about climate change and fact-checking the associated claims.
Research article titled 'Carbon emissions exacerbating the Western US water crisis' with highlighted sections, discussing climate impacts and drought trends over historical timelines. Contains graphs showing long-term changes in drought area in the Western US and a trend of increasing drought from 1900 to 2003.
Links: Nature Communications Earth & Environment study, IPCC’s estimates, Medieval “megadrought.”

Until next month, enjoy these and other great climate fact checks at:

ClimateRealism.com

ClimateDepot.com

Wattsupwiththat.com

Read the original PDF, here.

Why the AI Merchants of Doom are Dead Wrong

Hacking a weak computer system does not equal global doomsday.

The news has been full of articles recently about how we’re all going to die by 2030, 2027, or insert your year number.

AI doesn’t have to develop a doomsday virus, that world killing doomsday virus was already developed by the Aussie CSIRO in 2001 – who then promptly went on to tell everyone how to replicate their work.

A cyborg character with a part-human, part-machine face holds a gun while standing in a post-apocalyptic setting. In the background, a billboard displays a message about a mission to inconvenience humanity, featuring a humorous character. Nearby, robotic figures are partially illuminated by colorful lights.
AI generated by Grok

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Hacking a weak computer system does not equal global doomsday.

The news has been full of articles recently about how we’re all going to die by 2030, 2027, or insert your year number.

How Would AI Actually Kill Us All? What to Know About the AI Doomsday Debate

A growing chorus of AI researchers say the technology could wipe out humans—even if all the bots want to do is make paper clips

By Sam Schechner

Updated Sept. 9, 2026 at 8:25 pm ET

Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned this week, saying his former employer and its rival OpenAI are racing to build technologies that “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

In case anyone thought Coxon was alone in his views, a current Anthropic employee chimed in minutes later to confirm. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” wrote Evan Hubinger, whose job at Anthropic is to lead research about steering and controlling future artificial-intelligence systems. Hubinger put the extinction risk over the next decade at over 10%. 

In response, many humans are now asking two questions: How could that happen? And why would people who think AI is a real and growing threat build it anyway?

…

So-called doomers aren’t usually worried that the “Terminator” movies will come true, with robots actively trying to exterminate people. Their concerns fall mostly into two buckets: loss-of-control and human misuse. 

In one, highly intelligent AI agents capable of copying and improving themselves start pursuing their own goals and destroy humanity in the process. In the other, a nefarious human enlists a capable AI to do something like create novel viruses that wipe us all out. 

…Read more: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-would-ai-actually-kill-us-all-what-to-know-about-the-ai-doomsday-debate-034270d1?mod=hp_lead_pos7

For starters, we can discount the AI supervirus threat. AI doesn’t have to develop a doomsday virus, that world killing doomsday virus was already developed by the Aussie CSIRO in 2001 – who then promptly went on to tell everyone how to replicate their work. Aussie researchers stumbled across a simple genetic hack which sabotages the mammalian immune system, then witnessed its devastating effect when they inserted the genetic hack into a viral relative of smallpox. Then they tried the virus on some other rats to see if it killed all of them as well. Top marks for safety guys – it’s a wonder none of the scientists got infected.

Covid-19: That time Aussie Virologists Accidentally Created an Unstoppable Mouse Pathogen

My point is you don’t need AI to devastate the world with a supervirus – the research on how to do that has already been done.

As for AI copying and replicating itself, don’t make me laugh. Anyone who has ever done 3D printing or CNC machining, as I have, knows how crazy difficult it is to get the simplest processes right. The AI revolution would be over when the 3mm end mill snapped, and the US Postal Service refused to deliver a replacement. Who lost the batteries?

If you automated fabrication to the next level, with home built microchip fabrication, I’ve seen videos on people doing that and would have probably tried and completely messed it up myself, except that chip fabrication involves one of my least favourite deadly toxins, hydrofluoric acid. In any case, the kinds of chips you make with such processes are simple 1970s technology chips, so people who do this kind of thing are either obsessive hobbyists or researchers testing new design concepts.

The kinds of chips AI needs are so complicated to build, so far only a small number of Western companies have mastered their fabrication. Even the Chinese are struggling to copy the tech.

If a malevolent AI was to run such a fabrication plant, it could be stopped in its tracks simply by switching off the electricity, or blocking the supply of some vital tool or chemical required for fabrication.

An AI which hacks a bunch of software systems – that is a genuine threat, and I’m sure hackers are well up to speed on the latest AI tools. But AI is also being used to defend against threats, with AI threat vulnerability scanning of software turning up hundreds of defects which could have been used by hackers.

An AI which poses any genuine threat to the physical world – forget it. An AI which could even attempt such a feat is decades away, and when the threat finally emerges, such an AI would be so clumsy in its infancy, we would have plenty of opportunity to burn the building down and eliminate the threat before anything dangerous escaped.

Given the odds of a serious problem are so remote, why are researchers talking up the threat from AI?

I have three possible theories:

  1. They believe their own hype – lock a nerd in a dark room with lots of coffee and pizza, and we can get kind of obsessive.
  2. The drawbridge theory – if big AI companies scare legislators, the legislators might be stampeded into passing laws with high compliance costs, which makes it harder for newcomers with a bright idea to muscle in on their territory.
  3. Help the Democrats win the midterms – Democrats are increasingly turning to AI scare stories to try to win political support, as a replacement for the failed climate scam.
Bernie Sanders Proposes a “Ban Artificial Super-intelligence Act”

The drawbridge theory is particularly interesting. AI innovation is a big threat to the hyperscalers. I just purchased a US $12,000 computer which can run day to day AI models almost as well as my claude subscription. We are two hardware improvement cycles, as little as three years away from most people having access to affordable hardware which eliminates the need for AI hyperscalers. All these big players like Anthropic and OpenAI are looking increasingly like the mainframe bureaus of the 1970s, which all evaporated when mainframes dropped in price sufficiently that individuals and businesses which needed a powerful computer could buy their own.

The moment it becomes affordable to own a computer at home or in-house which can run open source AI models which do everything you want, independently of the hyperscalers, rather than paying for their services, their business model is toast. Who need hyperscaler radical left wing bias when you can program your own AI to share your values? Hyperscalers are doomed, unless they make some kind of breakthrough which keeps their services relevant, or frighten legislators into passing onerous compliance laws which block widespread private ownership of AI capable computers.

I’m not saying I know the drawbridge theory is definitely their motivation for trying to scare people, I don’t know what is really going through their heads. But the potential financial motivation sure makes drawbridge an interesting theory.

As a software developer and increasingly an AI specialist, I urge you all, please don’t be fooled – AI doomsday is all infowars and mind games.

Sabine Hossenfelder: “I Was Offered Money to Tell You AI Will Kill Us”

We defeated the merchants of doubt with their climate armageddon lies. Don’t let them get into your head with their AI fairytales.

The National Academies’ climate review must be truly independent

For years, the left has used the supposed “consensus” on climate science to ram through its agenda unchallenged. That cover is starting to crack.

Yet, according to The Wall Street Journal, the climate change chapter of this important reference manual relies in part on “the views of progressive climate lawyers” who stand to profit if judges take their side.

Sign for the National Academy of Sciences, including the National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council, established in 1863.

From CFACT

By Tom Harris

For years, the left has used the supposed “consensus” on climate science to ram through its agenda unchallenged. That cover is starting to crack.

The taxpayer-funded National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NASEM”) recently removed the climate science chapter it developed for the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence from its website pending an independent review of “the processes used to develop the chapter.” The importance of this move cannot be overstated.

This reference manual is the document that federal judges use to help decide the 1,500+ climate lawfare cases that are currently pending in courts across the U.S. One of these cases, Suncor v. Boulder, is moving forward to oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme court next month.

These cases will decide whether private companies, such as the fossil fuel corporations that legally provide us our fuel, can be blamed for causing climate change and the floods, wildfires, and other natural disasters that left-wing advocates claim climate change has triggered.

Yet, according to The Wall Street Journal, the climate change chapter of this important reference manual relies in part on “the views of progressive climate lawyers” who stand to profit if judges take their side.

The Journal is right. Consider Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. He presented to the National Academies’ Attribution Committee and admitted he was “actively involved” in cases for Sher Edling, the contingency-fee law firm suing oil companies on behalf of two dozen-plus states, counties and cities. The NASEM Attribution Report thanks him in its acknowledgments but never mentions the Sher Edling connection.

Dr. Delta Merner, who runs the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate-litigation shop, sat on the committee for a significant portion of the process too, then quietly left in early 2025. Her name doesn’t appear in the final report at all, even though she helped shape it for years. This is unusual because NASEM typically acknowledges former members who contributed substantially during the study period.

NASEM responding to public backlash by pulling its climate chapter for further review is of great policy significance, particularly at this time and under these conditions, with oral arguments for Suncor forthcoming.

NASEM’s Politicization

Once a relatively obscure congressionally chartered advisory body, NASEM has grown so politicized that it has attracted national attention. Its group of critics has included President Trump, who lambasted the organization for publishing “fraudulent, biased, and misleading Manuals on Climate Change.”

NASEM has also faced heat from a coalition of 25 Republican state attorneys general, who released an open letter to top administration officials and congressional committees calling for it to be stripped of taxpayer funds. The AGs drew particular attention to the “numerous connections between the Report and persons or organizations who filed amicus briefs in Suncor.” One such connection is the Bezos Earth Fund, which helped bankroll the report while also giving $100 million to the Natural Resources Defense Council and $15 million to the Union of Concerned Scientists, both of which filed amicus briefs backing the plaintiffs in Suncor.

The Problem with Attribution Science

So-called “attribution science” generally involves using computer modeling to simulate how an extreme event would have unfolded under pre-industrial climate conditions. Researchers then compare the hypothetical disaster with the real one to determine how human‑caused climate change supposedly affected the event’s likelihood or intensity.

The problem is that models still can’t reliably simulate basic atmospheric dynamics, and many rapid-attribution studies routinely skip peer review entirely. As such, there is nothing scientific or data-driven about assigning a precise dollar figure to the damage caused by one company’s emissions because there is no way to quantify such an amount. In fact, many of the studies the 2026 NASEM Attribution Report leans on rely on climate benchmarks and scenarios that regulators have since abandoned as implausible.

NASEM’s Flip-Flop on Attribution Science 

NASEM was aware of the method’s shortcomings when it released its report on attribution science in 2016. In that report, the committee admitted that the question “Was a given observed weather event caused by climate change?” is a “poorly formed (or ill-posed) question that rarely has a scientifically satisfactory answer.”

 The about-face—from a cautious, scientific 2016 report to a confident, litigation‑relevant 2026 policy document—came without a clear scientific explanation for the change in confidence. Such an abrupt shift risks further eroding the public’s already fragile trust in scientific institutions, and NASEM was right to order a review, even if only due to significant political pressure.

Ensuring a Fair Review Process

A review, though, is only as good as how it’s run, and so far, NASEM has said almost nothing about how this one will actually work. If the results are going to mean anything, the review needs to meet a few basic conditions.

First, it has to be conducted by experts outside NASEM. NASEM’s own internal guidelines say reviewers shouldn’t be connected to the work product they’re reviewing, so a review of NASEM’s own process run by NASEM insiders fails that test before it even starts.

Second, NASEM needs to say, publicly and in advance, exactly what it’s asking the reviewers to do. What is the scope, the timeline, and the specific questions it wants answered? Without this information, the public has no way to judge whether the final report actually answered anything.

Third, the reviewers themselves have to be named publicly, and none of them can have ties to climate litigation, on either side. That should be an easy bar to clear. If NASEM can’t clear it, that tells you everything.

Fourth, the review has to actually grapple with the specific allegations Roger Pielke Jr. and other legal scholars have raised about who really wrote the chapter and how. NASEM brushed these allegations aside for months. Dodging them again would say everything about how seriously NASEM is taking this.

Fifth, NASEM should commit before the review even starts to specific consequences for whatever it finds, whether that’s retraction, revision, or reinstatement of the chapter. Once the review is done, NASEM should publish its response to every finding, item by item, in public, along with a concrete timeline for fixing whatever’s broken. That’s the same level of disclosure Congress already requires of other NASEM committees whose advice federal agencies rely on, so why shouldn’t the same apply here?

You could call this activism, lawfare, dirty politics, or even a crusade to supposedly save the planet. The one thing you can’t call it is honest, unbiased science. And if NASEM can’t live up to its own name and commit to serious reforms, then it no longer deserves public trust or public funds. Let’s end the games and let real science trump politics once and for all.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Sun’s Biggest Sunspots Had Superflare Potential, New Study Finds

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) and the University of Colorado have found new evidence that the Sun’s largest historical sunspots could, in rare cases, produce superflares.

Solar flare energy scaling relates observable properties of active regions (ARs), sunspots, and flare ribbons to the total energy released during a flare. The recent Krivova et al. (2026) study uses an empirical chain of relations grounded in modern SDO observations to estimate upper limits for the largest historical sunspots.

A vibrant depiction of the sun, showcasing its fiery surface with solar flares erupting into space against a dark starry background.
AI generated by Grok

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) and the University of Colorado have found new evidence that the Sun’s largest historical sunspots could, in rare cases, produce superflares.

The study, led by Natalie Krivova and published on 10 September 2026 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (arXiv:2603.09474), focuses on empirical upper limits for solar flare energies.

The team analyzed data from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) on more than 300 of the strongest flares observed between 2010 and 2016. They related flare energy (via flare-ribbon areas as a proxy for magnetic reconnection) to the size of the associated active regions.

They then extrapolated the upper- envelope statistical relations (focusing on the extreme tail of the distribution) to historical sunspot records, which have been systematically tracked for centuries.

The standout case is the Great Sunspot of April 1947 (Active Region 14886), one of the largest on record. It covered roughly 0.6% of the visible solar disk (maximum corrected area ~6,100- 6,132 millionths of the solar hemisphere), with a diameter about 40 times that of Earth. No superflare occurred then.

This builds on a 2024 MPS- led study (published in Science) of ~56,450 Sun- like stars observed by Kepler.

That work found superflares occur roughly once per century on such stars, far more frequently than earlier estimates.

The new results indicate the Sun is, in principle, “superflare- capable” because it can form sufficiently large and complex active regions/sunspots. Extreme events would still be rare, and the relationship between the largest flares, coronal mass ejections, and extreme solar particle events (inferred from cosmogenic isotopes) is not one- to- one.

No superflare has been directly observed on the modern Sun, and whether one has ever occurred remains an open question. The work strengthens the case that such events are physically plausible on the basis of observed solar structures and stellar statistics, with potential relevance for extreme space weather risks to technology and infrastructure.

The Carrington Event (also called the Carrington Storm or solar storm of 1859) remains the most intense geomagnetic storm in recorded history. It peaked on 1- 2 September 1859 during solar cycle 10 and is named after British astronomer Richard Carrington, who made the first observation of a solar flare associated with it.

The flare originated in a large sunspot group. Modern estimates of its maximum corrected area range from roughly 2,300- 3,500 millionths of the solar hemisphere (msh), with some reconstructions adopting ~3,100 msh as a conservative value. This places it among the larger historical active regions, though smaller than the record 1947 Great Sunspot (~6,100 msh).

Late August 1859: A large, complex sunspot group was visible on the Sun. Auroral activity and magnetic disturbances began around 28- 29 August, indicating earlier coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from the same region.

1 September 1859, ~11:18 GMT: Richard Carrington (and independently Richard Hodgson) observed a brilliant white- light flare lasting about 5 minutes while sketching the sunspot group. Carrington described “two patches of intensely bright and white light.” Magnetometers simultaneously recorded a “crochet” (solar flare effect) caused by enhanced ionospheric ionization.

~17- 18 hours later (early 2 September): A fast CME arrived at Earth, triggering the main geomagnetic storm. The short transit time implies an unusually high speed (roughly 2,000 and more km/s).

The flare originated in a large sunspot group. Modern estimates of its maximum corrected area range from roughly 2,300- 3,500 millionths of the solar hemisphere (msh), with some reconstructions adopting ~3,100 msh as a conservative value. This places it among the larger historical active regions, though smaller than the record 1947 Great Sunspot (~6,100 msh).

Flare magnitude estimates (modern GOES soft X- ray scale, revised) typically fall in the range X45- X146, with many studies centering around ~X45. Bolometric (total radiated) energy estimates are on the order of a few ×1032\times 10^{32} erg, with some approaching ∼1033\sim 10^{33}erg depending on conversion factors from soft X- ray class. Recent analyses of Carrington’s original drawings have suggested even higher values in some scenarios (e.g., ~X80 range), though uncertainties remain large.

Auroras: Extremely bright and widespread. They were visible at unusually low geomagnetic latitudes, down to ~18- 25° (Caribbean, Central America, Hawaii, Colombia, and possibly lower). People in the northeastern United States could read newspapers by auroral light; gold miners in the Rocky Mountains woke and began preparing breakfast, thinking dawn had arrived. Displays lasted many hours and included red, green, and other colors.

Geomagnetic storm intensity: Estimates of the storm’s strength (Dst index) range widely from about -800 nT to as low as -1,750 nT or lower in early analyses (based partly on the Colaba, India magnetogram). More recent re- evaluations often place it around -900 nT or somewhat stronger, still far exceeding modern extreme events (e.g., March 1989 Quebec storm ~–589 nT). Rapid field changes induced strong geoelectric fields.

Telegraph systems: Widespread disruption across Europe and North America. Operators reported electric shocks, sparks, and fires at stations. In some cases (notably the Boston- Portland line), operators disconnected batteries and continued transmitting messages using only the currents induced by the storm, the so- called “auroral current” or “celestial power.”

The Carrington Event is the benchmark for extreme space weather. A comparable event today could severely disrupt satellites, GPS, power grids, and communications, with potential economic costs in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars (depending on the region and duration of outages).

It is often treated as a “1- in- 100 to 1- in-500 year” (or rarer) event, though related extreme solar particle events inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (e.g., AD 774/775) indicate that even stronger particle events have occurred over millennia.

In the context of the recent Krivova et al. (2026) study, the Carrington active region’s size yields estimated flare energies consistent with independent historical reconstructions (typically ~1×10331 \times 10^{33} erg under upper envelope scalings, with higher outliers possible), reinforcing that it ranks among the most energetic flares in the observational record while remaining below true stellar superflare energies (>1034>10^{34}erg).

The event also marks the birth of solar– terrestrial physics: Carrington cautiously noted the coincidence between the flare and the subsequent magnetic storm, establishing the first clear observational link.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Here are the confirmed publication details for the two related papers from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) and collaborators, both appearing in the same 2026 issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences:

Natalie Krivova et al., “Empirical flare energy limits for the largest historical sunspots”

This is the main empirical study discussed previously. It uses SDO/RibbonDB flare data (2010- 2016) to derive upper- envelope scaling relations between active-region/sunspot size and flare energy, then extrapolates to the largest historical sunspots (especially the April 1947 Great Sunspot).

It concludes that such regions could, in rare extreme cases, reach bolometric energies of a few ×1034\times 10^{34}erg, overlapping the lower end of the stellar superflare regime.

Published:  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (2026)

DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2025.0290

Valeriy Vasilyev et al., “Linking solar magnetism, extreme solar particle events and stellar superflares”

This is a complementary review/synthesis paper. It discusses the connections (and differences) between extreme solar particle events (ESPEs, inferred from cosmogenic isotopes), solar magnetic activity, and stellar superflares observed on Sun- like stars. It notes that while both ESPEs and superflares involve extreme magnetic energy release, the relationship is not one- to- one.

Published:  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (2026)

DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2025.0261

These two papers were highlighted together in the Max Planck Society press release of 10 September 2026 (“Sonne: Neuer Hinweis auf Superflares” / “Sun: New Evidence of Superflares”).

The Krivova paper provides the new empirical evidence that the Sun’s largest recorded sunspots have the potential to power superflare -level energies, while the Vasilyev paper places that finding in the broader context of solar- stellar comparisons and extreme particle events.

Environmental Priorities vs. ‘Climate Change’

Classic articles are worth remembering.

One in the environmental field was a prioritization of environmental issues back in 2020 by Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies“

Illustration contrasting real environmental priorities with climate change obsession, featuring images of healthy ecosystems, clean air, and community initiatives on one side, and a critique of climate change discussions on the other.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Classic articles are worth remembering. One in the environmental field was a prioritization of environmental issues back in 2020 by Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies“

“What is the world’s deadliest environmental problem?,” asks Bjorn Lomborg. The answer:

Not climate. Outdoor and indoor air pollution. Let’s not get so scared about climate that we forget the much bigger problems.

Read more in my peer-reviewed article: https://sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S0040162520304157.

Bar chart displaying deaths per year (in millions) caused by various environmental issues in 2017, including outdoor air pollution, indoor air pollution, unsafe water, lead, unsafe sanitation, handwashing, ozone, global warming, and radon.

This result explains why today, climate alarm is just not resonating with the public to the chagrin of the alarmists. Bill McKibben faults the New York Times and Democrats for throwing in the political towel. “I’m saddened to see how little our representatives in DC seem to really care, even the Democratic ones,” he begins:

Too many Democratic leaders are feeling comfortable waving off climate concerns, because of a feeling that it might be a political problem for them. That was exemplified this morning in the New York Times when center-right pundit Matt Yglesias issued a strident call for liberals to ‘support America’s oil and gas industry’.

So is the voting public dumb, miscalculating their own self-interest? Or are the alarmists fooling themselves? This is a question that not only Bill McKibben but also Joe Romm and many others need to ask themselves as the mitigation failures mount, leaving adaptation as the one viable alternative.