Day: September 14, 2026

Sun’s Hidden Fingerprint: Did Our Star Swallow a Super- Earth Billions of Years Ago?

A new study suggests the young Sun may have engulfed a super- Earth (roughly 5- 10 times Earth’s mass) early in its history, potentially leaving lasting chemical and structural “fingerprints” deep inside that could still be detectable today.

The research, by Professor Mutlu Yildiz of Ege University in Türkiye and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Illustration of a star showcasing its convection zone, heavy element residues, and a compositional anomaly, with labeled temperature and composition details.
AI generated by Grok

A new study suggests the young Sun may have engulfed a super- Earth (roughly 5- 10 times Earth’s mass) early in its history, potentially leaving lasting chemical and structural “fingerprints” deep inside that could still be detectable today.

The research, by Professor Mutlu Yildiz of Ege University in Türkiye and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stag1527), uses stellar- evolution modeling (with the MESA code) to explore whether planetary engulfment could resolve long-standing mismatches between standard solar models and observations.

Key points from the work and related coverage:

Standard solar models struggle to simultaneously match helioseismic data (especially the sound- speed structure just below the convection zone and the convection zone’s depth) and the Sun’s strongly depleted surface lithium abundance.

The models that best fit multiple independent constraints involve the young Sun accreting a dense, rocky super- Earth. Preferred masses cluster around 5- 10 Earth masses (one standout model near ~5.6 Earth masses). The planet’s material, rich in heavy elements relative to the surrounding disk gas, could create a localized compositional gradient that alters opacity, temperature, density, and sound speeds.

Such a planet could largely survive passage through the outer layers while losing little mass, allowing its material to settle deeper and leave a lasting imprint.

This scenario also helps address why the Solar System lacks the super- Earths that are common around many other stars. Earlier theoretical work (Martin & Livio, 2016) had already suggested super- Earths could have formed inside Mercury’s orbit and migrated inward; the new study focuses on whether observable traces of engulfment could remain inside the Sun.

Yildiz notes that the calculations unexpectedly converged on a specific mass range and that the engulfment idea improves agreement with several observables at once. However, the study does not claim definitive proof, only that the scenario is physically plausible and that independent detection of the predicted structural/chemical signatures (via improved helioseismology or other methods) would provide strong supporting evidence.

The idea remains a hypothesis grounded in modeling rather than direct observation of residual planetary material.

Super- Earths are planets with masses between roughly 1 and 10 Earth masses (and radii typically ~1- 2 Earth radii). They are the most common type of planet detected around other stars (especially in close- in orbits), yet the Solar System has none. Their formation remains an active area of research, with several competing but complementary mechanisms.

Planet formation begins in a protoplanetary disk of gas and dust around a young star. Dust grains grow into pebbles, then planetesimals (~1- 100 km), and eventually planetary embryos. Super- Earth cores form primarily via core accretion:

  • Solids accrete onto a rocky/icy core.
  • Once the core reaches a few Earth masses, it can begin accreting a gaseous envelope (H/He) from the disk.
  • Growth is limited by the local solid surface density (isolation mass) unless material is continuously supplied by radial drift or migration.

Many observed super- Earths are predominantly rocky (with thin or residual H/He atmospheres), though some may retain substantial water or gas envelopes (often called mini- Neptunes when radii are larger).

Main Formation Pathways

1. In Situ Formation (Close to the Star)
Planets grow near their final orbits (typically <1 AU) from a local reservoir of solids.

  • Challenges: Standard minimum- mass solar nebula (MMSN) models lack enough solid material inside ~1 AU to build multiple super- Earths.
  • Solutions: Enhanced solid surface densities (e.g., via pebble drift or a “dead zone” of low turbulence that allows material to pile up), or late assembly during disk dispersal when gas dynamical friction weakens, allowing embryos to collide and merge.
  • Advantage: Explains compact, multi- planet systems with similar sizes within a system. Variations in the total solid mass available can produce the observed diversity across systems.

2. Formation Farther Out and Migration
Cores form beyond the snow line (where water ice is stable, typically several AU), grow more massive due to higher solid abundance, then migrate inward via Type- I disk torques.

  • Embryos often pile up at the disk’s inner edge or in resonant chains.
  • After the gas disk dissipates, dynamical instabilities can break the resonances, producing the non-resonant compact systems commonly observed.
  • This pathway naturally produces a range of compositions (rocky if growth occurs mostly inside the snow line; water- rich if outside).

3. Ring/Planetesimal Concentration Models (Recent Emphasis)
Solids concentrate in narrow rings at sublimation lines (e.g., the silicate sublimation line near ~1 AU).

  • Planetesimals form rapidly in these rings.
  • Pairwise collisions grow planets until isolation or migration removes them from the ring.
  • High- mass rings produce systems of similar- sized super- Earths; low- mass rings produce Solar-System- like terrestrial planets. This helps explain both the abundance of super- Earths and the intra-system similarity in sizes.

4. Pebble Accretion
Pebbles (cm- to- meter sized) drift inward and are efficiently accreted by embryos. Combined with migration, this can rapidly build multiple super- Earth- mass planets that end up near the star after resonant chains form and later destabilize.

Why No Super- Earths in the Solar System?

Several ideas address the Solar System’s uniqueness:

  • Jupiter’s early formation may have acted as a barrier, blocking inward migration of outer material or preventing close- in super- Earth growth.
  • Super- Earths could have formed inside Mercury’s orbit (especially in a low turbulence “dead zone” disk) and later migrated into the Sun, clearing the region of solids. This is the scenario explored by Martin & Livio (2016) and linked to the recent Yıldız (2026) solar- model work suggesting the young Sun may have engulfed a ~5- 10 Earth- mass body.
  • Disk properties (turbulence level, solid mass, lifetime) simply differed from those of typical exoplanet-hosting disks.

Atmospheric Evolution

Even rocky- looking super- Earths often formed with primordial H/He envelopes. These can later be lost via:

  • Photoevaporation (stellar XUV radiation)
  • Core- powered mass loss
  • Giant impacts

This produces the observed radius “valley” separating rocky super- Earths from gas- rich mini- Neptunes.

No single pathway explains everything. The leading picture combines elements of solid concentration (rings or pebble drift), core growth, limited gas accretion, and Type- I migration, followed by late dynamical sculpting. Key remaining puzzles include the exact fraction of water- rich vs. dry worlds, the role of disk turbulence/dead zones, and why the Solar System appears atypical.

Observations from Kepler, TESS, JWST atmospheric characterization, and future missions (e.g., PLATO, ARIEL) continue to refine these models by providing bulk densities, atmospheric compositions, and system architectures.

Planetary engulfment as a solution to solar-model discrepancies and its implications for planetary systems 

This is the full scientific paper behind the news coverage: “Planetary engulfment as a solution to solar-model discrepancies and its implications for planetary systems” by Mutlu Yıldız (Ege University, Türkiye).

Thousands of close-in exoplanets suggest planetary engulfment may be common. The author investigates whether early accretion of planetary material can resolve long- standing discrepancies between standard solar models and observations, specifically:

  • Helioseismic sound-speed anomalies
  • Convection-zone depth
  • Surface abundances (including lithium)

Using the MESA stellar- evolution code, the models include pre- main- sequence accretion of metal- rich material (representing planetary engulfment) followed by metal-poor disc accretion (associated with planet formation).

Best- fitting model (DD1020) combines planetary engulfment with turbulent mixing and provides the strongest agreement with helioseismic constraints. It favors a super-Earth of mass ~5.6 Earth masses (≈0.33 Neptune masses), informally named “Dev Dilek.” Related best- fitting models prefer ~5- 10 Earth masses.

The dissolved planetary material settles below the convection zone (at mass coordinates m ≈ 0.96- 0.973 M⊙), creating a localized heavy- element enhancement (“Z-bump”). This modifies opacity and the internal stratification, improving the sound- speed profile.

Optimized control models that include variable mixing- length parameters and turbulent mixing without engulfment improve agreement only partially. Bayesian Information Criterion analysis indicates the improvement is not simply due to extra model flexibility.

Solar lithium depletion can be reproduced if the accreted material is lithium- poor and the planet mass is in the range 4.6- 5.8 Earth masses.

The paper also assesses physical feasibility via Roche- lobe stability, pressure- dependent planetary structure models, and classical aerodynamic drag/ablation. A compact rocky planet can traverse the solar convective envelope with negligible mass loss, supporting the scenario.

Main findings and conclusions

  • Standard solar models systematically underpredict sound speed just below the convection zone and overpredict the convection- zone base radius. Surface metallicity and helium abundances are also difficult to match simultaneously.
  • Planetary engulfment offers a unified physical mechanism that simultaneously improves multiple independent constraints.
  • The heavy- element enhancement lies in a narrow layer beneath the convection zone (roughly r ≈ 0.67–0.7 R⊙ in the best models).
  • Engulfment plus limited additional mixing beneath the convection zone can also account for the observed lithium depletion.
  • The results strengthen the physical plausibility of early planetary engulfment in the Solar System and suggest it should be considered more broadly in models of planet- hosting stars, especially when precise asteroseismic data are available.

The paper does not claim definitive proof that the Sun swallowed a planet, only that the scenario is consistent with current data and provides a better match than standard models or alternative mixing prescriptions alone. Future independent detection of the predicted structural/chemical signature (via improved helioseismology or other probes) would strengthen the case.

This is the primary source that the RAS press release and subsequent popular- science articles (including the MSN piece) were based on. The full text is available via Oxford Academic (subscription or institutional access may be required for the complete PDF).

Published: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 551, Issue 4, October 2026,

DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stag1527

Author: Mutlu Yıldız

ABSTRACT

Thousands of close-in exoplanets suggest that planetary engulfment may be common during stellar evolution. We investigate whether early accretion of planetary material can resolve discrepancies between standard solar models and observations, including helioseismic sound-speed anomalies, the convection-zone depth, and surface abundances. Using mesa, we model pre-main-sequence accretion of metal-rich material representing planetary engulfment, followed by metal-poor disc accretion associated with planet formation. Model DD1020, combining planetary engulfment and turbulent mixing, provides the best agreement with helioseismic constraints. It favours a super-Earth of mass   (0.33 ⁠) (Dev Dilek), while related best-fitting models favour –10 ⁠. The dissolved planetary material settles below the convection zone (⁠–0.973 ⁠), producing a localized heavy-element enhancement that modifies opacity and internal stratification. Optimized control models with variable mixing-length parameters and turbulent mixing but without engulfment improve the agreement only partially. Bayesian Information Criterion analysis shows that the improvement cannot be explained solely by increased model flexibility. The observed solar lithium depletion can be reproduced if the accreted material is lithium-poor and the engulfed planet has a mass of 4.6–5.8 ⁠. We also assess the physical feasibility of engulfment using Roche lobe stability, pressure-dependent planetary structure models, and classical aerodynamic drag and ablation. A compact rocky planet can traverse the solar convective envelope with negligible mass-loss, providing independent support for the proposed scenario.

Wrong, USA Today, “Hottest Summer Ever” Claim Ignores the Most Important Temperature Record

In a recent USA Today story “Hottest summer ever? US breaks longstanding record,” the writer claims that the United States just experienced its hottest summer ever based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) latest temperature analysis. That claim is misleading, based on an incomplete causal analysis.

Cartoon illustrating climate change debate, featuring two characters: a smiling news anchor promoting headlines about record temperatures and a concerned scientist emphasizing the importance of long-term climate records. The background includes a thermometer, graphs showing historical climate changes, and text warning against short-term headlines misleading public perception.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

In a recent USA Today story “Hottest summer ever? US breaks longstanding record,” the writer claims that the United States just experienced its hottest summer ever based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) latest temperature analysis. That claim is misleading, based on an incomplete causal analysis. The best available evidence suggests that much of the reported “record” depends on adjusted temperature datasets and weather stations increasingly affected by urban development, while the nation’s highest-quality climate network tells a very different story.

USA Today accurately repeated NOAA’s announcement that the average temperature for June through August 2026 was the warmest in the 132-year record for the contiguous United States, edging out 1936 and 2021 by just 0.4°F.

That sounds straightforward enough, but unfortunately, it isn’t.

The first problem is terminology. USA Today repeatedly calls this the “hottest summer ever.” NOAA itself does not. NOAA consistently describes 2026 as the “warmest summer on record” based on average temperatures. The word “hottest” never appears in NOAA’s announcement. That distinction matters because “warmest average” and “hottest” are not the same thing.

Meteorologist Chris Martz carefully examined NOAA’s data and found that the reported record was driven largely by higher than normal overnight minimum temperatures rather than record daytime highs. Using average daytime maximum temperatures, 2026 ranks behind several earlier summers, including the legendary Dust Bowl summer of 1936.

That fact is hardly a trivial. Most Americans experience summer heat primarily during the daytime, not as an average of daytime highs and nighttime lows. Martz also points out something almost entirely absent from the media coverage. Although the national average narrowly set a record, very few parts of the country actually experienced their hottest summer.

Using NOAA’s own data, he found that only seven of 344 climate districts, barely two percent, recorded their warmest summer on record in 2026. Those districts were concentrated almost entirely in the Desert Southwest, see in Figure 1 below. By contrast, during the infamous summer of 1936, fifty-one climate districts set all-time summer records.

Map showing mean temperature percentiles in the United States for June to August 2026, indicating temperature ranges from coldest to warmest.
Figure 1. June–August 2026 U.S. mean temperature percentiles map. Source: NOAA NCEI.

That paints a much different picture than headlines suggesting the entire nation experienced unprecedented heat, when it did not.

Then there is an even larger issue that deserves far more attention.

NOAA’s long-term temperature record is not based solely on raw observations. It relies on a “homogenized” dataset in which station records are adjusted to account for changes in observation times, instrumentation, station moves, and other factors. NOAA openly acknowledges using these adjusted datasets for its national rankings.

Whether those adjustments perfectly capture reality is a legitimate scientific question; Martz argues they may not.

He notes that some adjustments are larger than the tiny 0.4°F margin separating 2026 from 1936, raising reasonable questions about whether the new record is as certain as headlines suggest. He also discusses concerns that NOAA’s pairwise homogenization algorithm may not adequately remove gradual urban heat island effects and could unintentionally blend urban warming into nearby rural stations. Whether one ultimately agrees with every aspect of that critique, these are serious methodological issues worthy of discussion, but the USA Today never opens that discussion.

There is another dataset that deserves attention.

The United States Climate Reference Network, or USCRN, is widely regarded as America’s gold standard surface temperature network. Unlike many older Cooperative Observer stations, USCRN sites were specifically designed to avoid contamination from expanding cities, parking lots, buildings, and other artificial heat sources.

The USCRN Figure 2 graph below tells an interesting story.

Line graph depicting average temperature departure from January 2005 to March 2026, with fluctuations ranging from -6°F to +8°F. The USCRN value is labeled at 7.69°F.
Figure 2. USCRN Average Temperature departure for the United States from January 2005 to the present.

The USCRN network data shows one extraordinary warm month during March 2026, with a national temperature anomaly reaching nearly 7.7°F above average. But June, July, and August do not stand out nearly as dramatically. Instead, they fall within the normal range of variability seen across the roughly twenty-year USCRN record.

If America truly experienced an unprecedented hot summer across its highest-quality climate observing network, one might expect the USCRN record to show an equally extraordinary signal. It doesn’t, and that discrepancy deserves investigation, not dismissal.

One plausible explanation is the urban heat island effect (UHI).

Many of NOAA’s legacy stations are located at airports or sites that have experienced decades of surrounding development. Asphalt, concrete, buildings, jet traffic, air conditioning exhaust, and expanding urbanization all contribute to elevated nighttime temperatures. Those are precisely the temperatures that drove much of NOAA’s reported national record. A perfect example of such a situation is the weather station is Reno, NV where an investigation revealed large warm biases in official temperature measurements. A similar problem has been identified by Roy Spencer, Ph.D. with temperatures recorded in and reported for Phoenix.

That possibility becomes even more significant in light of extensive station surveys documenting widespread siting problems throughout the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. The issue is not whether cities are warmer. Everyone agrees they are.

Then there is the problem of “ghost stations,” with NOAA reporting temperature data from stations that no longer exist. NOAA simply makes up temperature measurements for a huge number of closed stations based on averaging from surrounding stations, to maintain record continuity – but made up or assumed temperatures are not actual data.

The issue is whether artificial heat island biases are being fully removed and assumed “data” from ghost stations not counted, before national climate conclusions are announced. Reasonable scientists can debate that question, journalists should at least acknowledge it, but they don’t

Instead, USA Today presented NOAA’s adjusted temperature ranking as settled fact while ignoring both the methodological caveats and the existence of higher-quality observational data that display no record setting warmth. The result is another headline that generates maximum attention while minimizing  scientific complexity and compromising accuracy.

Good climate journalism should do the opposite. It should explain uncertainty, distinguish between adjusted datasets and pristine observations, and recognize that a record based on a few tenths of a degree deserves careful examination rather than unquestioning repetition.

Readers deserve more than headlines declaring “hottest ever.” They deserve the whole complicated story, with all the ifs, ands, buts, and “we just don’t know or can’t be sure,” included.

Trillion tree initiative is so 2020

In 1989, the U.S. Forest Service published a 13-page booklet (Program Aid No. 1442) titled “Trees are the answer… to America’s growing environmental concerns.”

The Society of American Foresters turned it into a bumper sticker, and by the end of the 1990s, cars across the country proclaimed, “Trees are the answer.”

A large tree trunk in a forest, featuring a carved design of the American flag, surrounded by lush green foliage.
American flag on a tree in the forest. Conceptual image.

From CFACT

By Greg Walcher

In 1989, the U.S. Forest Service published a 13-page booklet (Program Aid No. 1442) titled “Trees are the answer… to America’s growing environmental concerns.” The Society of American Foresters turned it into a bumper sticker, and by the end of the 1990s, cars across the country proclaimed, “Trees are the answer.”

During that same period, the global warming movement escalated, heightening worldwide concern about CO2, so the link between the two was inevitable. Human activity moves CO2 into the atmosphere – trees absorb it. A 9-year-old German student named Felix Finkbeiner started Plant-for-the-Planet, proposing that he and other kids plant a million trees in their own countries. He came to the UN, which had proposed a “billion trees program,” and Finkbeiner’s group turned it into the “Trillion Trees Initiative.” The group now has 30 employees, affiliated groups in eight countries, and has planted 100 million trees. An affiliated program on the Yucatan Peninsula has planted 17 billion.

The Trillion Trees Initiative caught the attention of world leaders, and President Trump, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2020, committed the U.S. to participation. His State of the Union message promoted the idea to Congress, touting the effort by both government and the private sector in planting trees across the U.S. and around the world.

Congress’s only forester, Rep Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), introduced the Trillion Trees Act to finance tree planting and provide tax credits for sustainable wood products. He cited an American Academy for the Advancement of Science report suggesting that a trillion trees could capture 205 giga-tons of carbon, two-thirds of all manmade carbon in a century. Sixty-seven congressmen of both parties cosponsored the bill before a heavily publicized committee hearing.

Trump held a White House tree-planting ceremony on Earth Day, calling the tree the first of the trillion, “a very big deal.” Two days later, his Arbor Day message again cited the Trillion Trees Initiative. That fall, an executive order created the One Trillion Trees Interagency Council to coordinate federal participation through 2030. It never convened.

The 2020 election intervened, and the initiative was scarcely ever mentioned again. President Biden refocused the entire conservation agenda, mostly on climate change. Planting trees around the world was never part of his program. Nor has the idea been mentioned again since Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. No new speeches, executive actions, or press releases mentioning the Trillion Trees Initiative.

The issue also lost momentum on Capitol Hill. The 2020 hearing was the only one ever held on Westerman’s bill, though he is now the powerful chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. He has demonstrated the capacity to move substantial forestry legislation. The committee has held hearings and markups and reported numerous measures dealing with forest management, wildfire prevention, reforestation, and the federal forestry workforce. Yet Westerman has not even reintroduced his signature Trillion Trees Act.

What happened to an initiative so universally lauded just five years ago? It’s simple – groups determined to stop the use of fossil fuels figured out that the tree initiative could become a strong antidote to their CO2 alarmism, so they needed to shut it down. First, some scientists challenged the math on how much CO2 a trillion trees could absorb. They said planting that many trees would destroy grasslands that are ecologically valuable precisely because they aren’t forests. The environmental industry said promoting new seedlings would detract from saving old growth. They said Westerman just wanted to promote logging, and Trump just wanted to protect polluters. They called the idea “greenwashing,” a “fig-leaf solution” that allowed policymakers to sidestep the “fossil-fuel problem.”

That’s all politics – nothing to do with trees. Experts may differ on how much CO2 a trillion trees might absorb, but does it matter? The U.S. Geological Survey says 91 million metric tons of carbon are naturally stored every year, mostly by trees.

A trillion new trees is not an outlandish goal. The earth already has roughly 3 trillion trees, 300 billion in the U.S., 11 billion in Colorado alone. Americans already plant 2.5 billion new trees annually, and if we doubled that, the U.S. would meet its share of the global goal within 30 years. U.S. wildfires have burned perhaps 100 billion trees in the last 20 years, so imagine the benefit of simply replacing those.

All the environmental regulations, conferences, summits, and studies have failed to convince people to stop using energy to enhance their lives. Imagine all that time and money spent planting trees. Trees are the answer.

Sinabung Awakens: Indonesia’s Volcano Erupts After 5 Years of Quiet, Raising Alert to Level 3

Mount Sinabung’s return to activity after roughly five years of relative quiet fits a pattern the volcano has shown before, where periods of dormancy are followed by eruptive phases that can stretch on for months or longer rather than resolving in a single event. That assessment aligns well with Mount Sinabung’s documented recent history.

Mount Sinabung’s magma dynamics involve a multi- level crustal plumbing system that feeds viscous andesitic magma, often with evidence of recharge and mingling, leading to prolonged dome growth, collapses, and intermittent explosions.

Volcano Sinabung erupts dramatically with ash and smoke billowing into the sky, against a colorful sunset backdrop.
AI generated by Grok

Mount Sinabung (North Sumatra, Indonesia) erupted on August 31, 2026, prompting authorities to raise its alert level to Level III (Siaga/Alert, the second highest on Indonesia’s four- level scale) and expand the exclusion zone.

Key details from reports:

The eruption began around 10:17 a.m. local time. It produced a thick black ash column rising approximately 3,500 meters above the summit (about 5,960 meters above sea level), drifting east and southeast. Seismic readings showed a maximum amplitude of 120 mm and duration of over an hour.

This marked the volcano’s first significant eruption in about five years (previous notable activity ended around 2021). It had been at Level II (Waspada/Advisory) since May 2023.

Indonesia’s Geological Agency (Badan Geologi / PVMBG) raised the status to Level III effective 12:30 p.m. local time the same day, citing increased seismic activity beforehand (dozens of volcanic earthquakes, gusts, and tremors) and visual signs of unrest. Officials noted it as an initial eruption with potential for larger follow- up activity.

Exclusion/safe zone: Residents, visitors, and tourists were advised to stay outside a 3 km radius of the summit, with the restricted sector in the south-southeast expanded to about 5- 6 km (accounts vary slightly by source and update). People near rivers originating from the volcano were also warned about possible lahars (volcanic mudflows), especially with rain.

Impacts included evacuations (reports of hundreds of residents, such as ~615 from Kuta Tengah or higher figures in some updates, moved to shelters) and flight disruptions/cancellations at Kualanamu International Airport near Medan due to ash.

Authorities (including BNPB, the national disaster agency) urged calm, compliance with exclusion zones, and monitoring of official updates rather than rumors. Activity has continued under Level III monitoring in subsequent days, with ongoing seismic and visual surveillance.

Mount Sinabung is a stratovolcano on the Pacific Ring of Fire and has a history of intermittent eruptive periods.

Mount Sinabung’s return to activity after roughly five years of relative quiet fits a pattern the volcano has shown before, where periods of dormancy are followed by eruptive phases that can stretch on for months or longer rather than resolving in a single event. That assessment aligns well with Mount Sinabung’s documented recent history.

After roughly 1,200 years of dormancy, Sinabung reactivated with a relatively short eruptive episode in August- September 2010 (phreatic explosions and ash plumes). It then quieted again for a few years before entering a much longer, multi- year eruptive phase beginning in September 2013. That period featured repeated dome growth and collapses, pyroclastic density currents (PDCs), lava flows, vulcanian explosions, and ash emissions that continued intermittently through 2018- 2021 (with notable activity documented into September 2021).

Activity then declined substantially, and the volcano remained at a lower alert level (Level II) for years, until the August 31, 2026, eruption that sent an ash column ~3,500 m above the summit and prompted the raise to Level III (Siaga/Alert). Indonesian authorities explicitly described that event as an “initial eruption” with the possibility of further or larger activity.

As of early- to- mid September 2026 updates, the eruption was still ongoing at a lower intensity (gas and vapor plumes), the Level III alert remained in place, and exclusion zones (3 km radial, extended in the south- southeast sector) continued to be enforced, consistent with the expectation of a potentially prolonged phase rather than an isolated event.

This pattern, long quiescence interrupted by reactivation that settles into sustained or intermittent eruptive behavior lasting months to years, is characteristic of Sinabung’s post- 2010 behavior and similar to some other andesitic stratovolcanoes that produce viscous lava domes prone to repeated instability. Monitoring continues closely for any escalation.

Mount Sinabung’s magma dynamics involve a multi- level crustal plumbing system that feeds viscous andesitic magma, often with evidence of recharge and mingling, leading to prolonged dome growth, collapses, and intermittent explosions.

The dominant erupted material since the 2013 reactivation is andesite (typically 57- 65 wt% SiO₂), ranging from basaltic andesite to more evolved compositions. Lavas are porphyritic with phenocrysts of plagioclase, pyroxenes (clino- and orthopyroxene), amphibole, and minor olivine.

Black, porphyritic basaltic andesite enclaves (around 57 wt% SiO₂) are common in the host andesite.

These indicate incomplete mingling of a hotter, more mafic magma with a cooler, more evolved andesitic reservoir.

Petrological studies of 2013- 2016 products show overlapping mineral chemistries, zoned plagioclase, and crystallization conditions spanning a range of temperatures (~825-1100 °C) and pressures, consistent with multi- stage storage and interaction rather than simple single- chamber evolution. Composition slightly evolved toward more silicic values over successive eruptive phases.

Geophysical and petrological data point to a multi- level system:

Shallow reservoir: A key storage zone lies at approximately 1- 3.5 km below the summit (or ~0.9- 3 km below sea level in some GPS models). Seismic tomography images a low-Vp (low seismic velocity), low-seismicity zone interpreted as a shallow magma chamber with an estimated volume on the order of ~2 km³ during the 2014- 2017 period. InSAR and GPS studies of west Sunda volcanoes, including Sinabung, commonly detect inflation sources in this shallow range (~1- 3 km).

Deeper sources: Pressure sources and crystallization depths extend to ~8- 15 km (or deeper, with some barometry indicating ~24- 32 km regions). GPS modeling of 2013 deformation showed migration from deeper (~12- 15 km) to shallower levels prior to dome emergence. Deeper high- frequency volcano- tectonic earthquakes often precede or accompany ascent.

Magma rises through a conduit system that can partially seal, leading to pressurization. Hybrid and low-frequency earthquakes commonly signal magma movement or pressurization in the upper conduit and shallow reservoir.

During the long 2013- 2021 eruptive period (and likely relevant to the 2026 reactivation):

  • Magma ascent produces ground inflation detectable by continuous GPS and InSAR. Volume changes in modeled sources can reach tens of millions of cubic meters during inflation/deflation stages.
  • Once at the surface, viscous andesite forms lava domes and flows. Early extrusion rates were high (>7 m³/s, sometimes estimated higher), allowing a dome to transition into a flow extending up to ~3 km. Rates then declined exponentially (to ≪1 m³/s in later stages), matching observed ground deflation.
  • Dome instability drives many hazards: partial or complete collapses generate pyroclastic density currents (PDCs/block- and- ash flows) that travel several kilometers, mainly southeast and south. Cyclic vulcanian explosions arise from limited degassing in the upper conduit, gas pressurization beneath a crystalline, relatively impermeable dome, or unloading after collapses.
  • Degassing evolves with the eruption. SO₂ emission rates peak during intense phases (averages of hundreds to >1,000 t/d, with peaks near 3,800 t/d) and generally decline as supply wanes. Ash leachate chemistry (S/Cl ratios) tracks the transition from hydrothermal/accidental material in early phreatic/phreatomagmatic stages to more juvenile magmatic signatures.

Total erupted volume in the main 2013- 2018 phase reached roughly 0.16 km³ dense-rock equivalent by late 2015, with continued activity into 2021.

The August 31, 2026, eruption (ash column ~3,500 m) and subsequent Level III status fit the established pattern of renewed unrest after relative quiet. Pre- eruption increases in deep volcanic earthquakes, hybrid events, and denser emissions, along with later hotspot detections and ongoing gas/vapor plumes, are consistent with renewed magmatic involvement or pressurization of residual shallow magma.

Some early commentary suggested a possible phreatic component (heating of groundwater without direct magma arrival at the surface), but the overall history and monitoring indicators point to a system capable of transitioning into sustained magmatic extrusion or further explosive activity, as seen previously.

In summary, Sinabung’s dynamics are characterized by open-system behavior in a multi- level plumbing system: deeper recharge supplies a shallow andesitic reservoir, leading to slow, viscous effusion of domes that repeatedly destabilize.

This produces long- lived eruptive episodes punctuated by collapses and explosions rather than simple, short-lived events.

Continuous seismic, deformation, gas, and visual monitoring remains essential for tracking changes in this system.

Indonesia has approximately 127 active volcanoes, according to Badan Geologi / PVMBG (Pusat Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi). Of these, about 69 are closely monitored in real time.

Current Elevated Alert Levels (as of early– mid September 2026)

Level III (Siaga / Alert), Highest current alert (second- highest overall on the 4- level scale):

  • Anak Krakatau (Sunda Strait / Lampung- Banten)
  • Lewotobi Laki- laki (East Nusa Tenggara / Flores)
  • Merapi (Central Java / Yogyakarta)
  • Semeru (East Java)
  • Sinabung (North Sumatra)

Level II (Waspada / Advisory), Elevated activity (roughly 20- 22 volcanoes). Notable ones include:

  • Ibu (Halmahera, North Maluku), extremely frequent eruptions
  • Ili Lewotolok (Lembata, NTT), very high eruption count
  • Dukono (Halmahera)
  • Marapi (West Sumatra)
  • Karangetang (Siau Island, North Sulawesi)
  • Others frequently listed: Dempo, Rinjani, Tambora, Sangeangapi, Bromo, Raung, Slamet, Tangkuban Parahu, Kerinci, Gamalama, Lokon, Soputan, and several more across Sumatra, Java, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, and Maluku.

The remaining monitored volcanoes are mostly at Level I (Normal).

No volcanoes are currently at Level IV (Awas / Warning), the highest level.

Indonesia sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire, so multiple volcanoes erupting or showing elevated activity at the same time is common.

In 2026 so far, at least 11 volcanoes have recorded eruptions, with Semeru, Ibu, Ili Lewotolok, Lewotobi Laki- laki and Anak Krakatau among the most active by eruption frequency.

Alert levels and recommendations (exclusion zones) can change quickly.

For the most up- to- date status, check the official MAGMA Indonesia platform (magma.esdm.go.id) or PVMBG reports.

Climate Alarmists Are Making False Claims to Derail Approval of Jackdaw and Rosebank

Both the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields have had a chequered history. Both were discovered in the mid-2000s and were initially approved for development in 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Previous Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has described the decision to issue a development licence to Rosebank as “climate vandalism.” But now new Prime Minister Andy Burnham and new Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh have vowed to take a more “pragmatic” approach to the North Sea.

An illustrated graphic comparing climate change propaganda and reality, featuring exaggerated claims of £483 billion climate damage, polar bears, and a critique of coal plants. It includes humorous depictions of people reacting in shock, social media references, and symbols of fossil fuel industry impact.
AI generated by Grok

From The Daily Sceptic

By David Turver

A large oil rig in the background with a stack of coins in the foreground indicating £29bn in UK benefits, £483bn in claimed climate damage, and £62 trillion if applied to all fossil CO2.

Both the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields have had a chequered history. Both were discovered in the mid-2000s and were initially approved for development in 2023 and 2022, respectively. But the approvals were overturned in 2025 because the Government had not taken into account the Scope 3 emissions arising from burning the hydrocarbons once they had been extracted.

Previous Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has described the decision to issue a development licence to Rosebank as “climate vandalism.” But now new Prime Minister Andy Burnham and new Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh have vowed to take a more “pragmatic” approach to the North Sea. The decision to approve both fields has allegedly been pushed back to this month because of the “optics” of approving new oil and gas licences during a heatwave. Stop press: the decision might now be postponed beyond the Holborn and St Pancras by-election because of pressure from the Greens.

Sensing weakness in the Government, the green industrial complex has ramped up the rhetoric with the Guardian claiming a new analysis calculated that £119 billion to £336 billion of economic damage would be caused by burning the hydrocarbons produced by Rosebank and Jackdaw, or £170–483 billion under a high production scenario. This article looks at the source of those claims and tests their veracity.

Source of Jackdaw and Rosebank damage claims

The Guardian made reference to a research article produced by Luke Hatton under the auspices of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. The reason the alleged damages are so high is they use a social cost of carbon of $754/t to $1,538/t or £572/t to £1,167/t at a GBP: USD exchange rate of 1.381. These are simply astronomical numbers and compare to the current UK carbon price of about £60/t. To make the damage numbers even bigger, they then escalate the cost of carbon by 2% for each year of the life of the field.

The research article claims that the total emissions from burning the production of both fields may reach almost 300 million tonnes under a high production scenario and the maximum damages reach £483 billion. This equates to £1,610/t, or almost 27 times the current cost of carbon. These alleged damages are compared to the estimated economic benefits of the projects of £28.7 billion. The article claims the damages from Jackdaw and Rosebank are up to 16.8 times higher than the economic benefits.

The paper concludes by contrasting Miliband’s “climate vandalism” quote and the latest “pragmatic” noises from Burnham and Fahnbulleh. Hatton says his article aims to inform the policy choice by quantifying the economic trade-offs and climate damages.

Flaws in the Jackdaw and Rosebank article

There are several problems with Hatton’s Jackdaw and Rosebank article. First, it assumes that extracting and burning oil and gas from Jackdaw and Rosebank will create an additional pulse of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – in effect, greater supply will lead to greater demand. It is more likely that Jackdaw and Rosebank will displace supply that is marginally more expensive and make no difference to global demand. Moreover, the gas from Jackdaw will likely displace expensive LNG with higher emissions than using domestically produced gas. Strike one against the article.

Second, Hatton compares the alleged global climate damages with UK-only benefits, which is not a like-for-like test. The relevant comparison would be to compare the global costs to the global benefits. There is global value in the energy those hydrocarbons provide such as heat, transport and feedstock. Hatton misses out these benefits and uses only the receipts booked in Aberdeen and Whitehall. On any such basis the £28.7 billion is a lower bound on benefits, not the full credit side. Strike two against the article.

Third, Hatton writes that holding damages fixed in 2025 pounds “does not account for the non-linear relationship between emissions and warming,” and therefore raises the social cost of carbon by 2% a year. However, the relationship between temperature changes and increased carbon dioxide concentration is logarithmic in nature:

Mathematical expression showing the relationship for temperature change, represented as ΔT equals λ times alpha times the natural logarithm of the ratio of c to c0.

This means that each extra molecule has less impact on temperature. The non-linearity that would justify a rising cost of carbon is not in the physics of forcing. However, the alleged damage function that does have a non-linear relationship in the way Hatton means – in the Burke paper he references – is a hypothesis, not a hard physical relationship. Readers should also note how fragile these damage functions are, since the Kotz paper was withdrawn late last year, calling into question the damage functions used by a consortium of central banks worldwide. Strike three against Hatton’s article.

Fourth, the scale of the claimed “damages” is nothing short of extraordinary. If these claims are scaled up to the global level, the figures frankly look ridiculous. According to Our World in Data, in 2024 the world emitted 38.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from burning hydrocarbons. If the average £1,610/t social cost of carbon used in the Hatton article is applied to these emissions, we get a value for the alleged climate damage from these emissions of £62.1 trillion (or $85.8 trillion at a 1.381 exchange rate). According to the World Bank, global GDP in 2024 was $111.67 trillion. This means the alleged climate damages from fossil fuels, using Hatton’s sky-high carbon costs, amount to about 76.8% of global GDP – clearly a risible conclusion. Strike four.

Finally, the implication of Hatton’s research article is that the damages from Jackdaw and Rosebank must be avoided by refusing to grant development licences. We have seen the claimed damages from using an astronomical cost of carbon are absurd. But we should also consider the counterfactual of the economic harm if we applied the same logic of such high carbon costs globally and stopped burning coal, oil and gas to avoid the alleged climate damages. According to Our World in Data, the world consumed 175,605TWh of primary energy with coal, oil and gas providing 142,532TWh or 81.2% of the total, see Figure 1.

Graph showing global primary energy use by source from 1800 to 2025, measured in terawatt-hours. The chart indicates contributions from various sources including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and other renewables.
Figure 1 – Global Primary Energy by Source (TWh)

What would happen if we stopped using this coal, oil and gas (the Just Stop Oil mantra)? It is not only hydrocarbon energy sources that would suffer. Coal is used to make steel and oil is used as a lubricant, so no more wind turbines or solar arrays could be built and no more nuclear or hydro power plants either. It is clear the impact on global energy is likely higher than the raw figures would suggest, but we can ignore that for now.

Our World in Data also shows us that in 2024 the world consumed 20,154kWh per person and GDP was $21,393 per capita. It is important to note there are no rich countries with low energy use, as shown in Figure 2:

A scatter plot showing energy use per person against GDP per capita for various countries in 2024. The y-axis measures energy consumption in kilowatt-hours, while the x-axis represents GDP per capita in international dollars. Key countries highlighted include the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, with additional data points for countries in Africa and South America.
Figure 2 – Energy Use per Person vs GDP per Capita

Removing 81.2% of this energy would bring per capita energy consumption down to about 3,789kWh per person. This is around the level of countries like Congo (3,858kWh/person), Mauritania (3,807) and Nicaragua (3,823). The GDP per capita of these countries in 2024 was $6,153, $6,483 and $7,661 respectively – much lower than the world average and far below that of developed countries.

If we scale up Hatton’s article to a global level and consider the impact on the global economy of removing hydrocarbons to avoid the alleged $85.8 trillion of climate damages, then the global economy would collapse. Is Hatton really suggesting Britain and the rest of the world should stop burning hydrocarbons so they regress to poverty-stricken agrarian economies? This level of economic and social damage is far higher than his risible “social cost of carbon.” Hydrocarbons bring untold social and economic benefits. In addition, about half the world’s population is dependent for food on nitrogen fertiliser made from natural gas. Stopping this would lead to half the world going hungry and starving to death. Is this really a better outcome than burning coal, oil and gas? Is Hatton really suggesting that Britain’s “climate leadership” will persuade China and the United States to give up coal, oil and gas? Strike five.

Conclusion

This “research article” is clearly propaganda designed to derail the approval of Jackdaw and Rosebank. Hatton uses astronomical estimates of the social cost of carbon that do not hold up to even cursory scrutiny. The flaws in the report have not stopped the Guardian drawing attention to it. The green industrial complex is clearly rattled that the fields may be approved and thus to some extent break the Net Zero spell, so it has resorted to disinformation to pressure the Government. It would be a travesty if Burnham and Fahnbulleh use this flimsy report as a pretext to refuse approval of these oil and gas fields.

David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.

Watch: Morano on Fox on Massachusetts ‘green energy’ mandate for data centers

Massachusetts Gov Healey demands data centers use clean energy.

It’s a way of saying we’re banning data centers, but we’re not actually saying we’re banning data centers.

But we already have Larry Fink of BlackRock announce that solar and wind cannot possibly power AI data centers; you need fossil fuels.

A television host smiles while discussing a news segment about data centers and clean energy. The background features a graphic with the text 'MA GOV DEMANDS DATA CENTERS USE CLEAN ENERGY' and live broadcast details.

From CFACT

By CFACT Ed

WATCH NOW

Massachusetts Gov Healey demands data centers use clean energy – ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey’s demand that data centers use clean energy and opposition to artificial intelligence data centers on ‘The Bottom Line.’

Partial Transcript: 

Morano on Massachusetts green energy mandates for data centers:

It’s a way of saying we’re banning data centers, but we’re not actually saying we’re banning data centers. What they’re doing is the same scam we’ve seen for decades now, originating with Al Gore. They’re setting up, essentially, this fund, which you could safely call a climate slush fund, demanding that all AI data centers being built in the state of Massachusetts adhere to green energy.

But we already have Larry Fink of BlackRock announce that solar and wind cannot possibly power AI data centers; you need fossil fuels.

You have Bill Gates, you have Mark Zuckerberg, you have Jeff Bezos, all investing in fossil fuels and in nuclear energy. The last thing they’re doing right now is saying, ‘Oh, solar and wind will power our new AI data centers.”

The math isn’t mathing. The physics aren’t physicing, and the state’s reality is not reality.

It’s a way to fill the state coffers. I don’t think the state will get any money in this climate slush fund because there’s no AI data center that’s going to adhere to their ridiculous proposal.

But in Massachusetts, let’s be clear if this goes forward, they’ve essentially banned AI data centers. And that’s what we should call it, a ban. It’s not, ‘if they meet this green energy provision, they can build’ — because that’s nonsensical, and it’s a non-starter. Every AI advocate will tell you — anyone who studies AI will tell you — that ‘green energy’ can’t possibly power it.

…

Fox Anchor: A sports editor at the Los Angeles Times has a new target for climate doom, college football writing on X quote, at some point schools and TV networks are going to have to adapt to climate change. And stop expecting fans to tolerate extreme heat as a badge of honor supporting their teams. What is this individual? I couldn’t ascertain if that was a the gender of that person wouldn’t, the hell is this person talking about?

Morano: This is a senior sports editor over there and it’s the same Los Angeles Times that said that the World Cup back in June would cause a climate catastrophe and warned of the games being too hot. Remember we had the whole thing with the World Cup where the media was touting that we could have fans that were overly drunk due to the climate and you’d have extra slow players from climate change.

The Los Angeles Times has also said they want to get rid of individual air conditioners in homes and have cooling centers around the city, so people could go congregate in central locations.

See: LA Times: Instead of air conditioning running in your home during heatwaves, the LA Times interviews experts suggesting “investing in a wider network of cooling centers, with transportation to help people get there.” 

This is utter nonsense. If you look at EPA data, it was much hotter in the 1930s, heat waves in the United States than anything we’re experiencing now. The EPA’s Heat Wave Index was significantly higher during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Imagine if these games were back then? Meteorologist debunks ‘belief’ that ‘climate change is making heatwaves worse: Heatwaves in USA were more frequent from 1901-1960 & ‘Number of days reaching 100°F & 105°F have also declined since 1895’

I don’t understand how an allegedly intelligent person with the Los Angeles Times can come out and say essentially: ‘We can’t do sporting events during the day because of climate change.’ If it’s an extra hot day, maybe move the game to later in the day when it’s cooler. But that’s not climate change. That’s just smart sports practices. But the LA Times just cannot help themselves.

And they keep pushing this nonsense over and over. They did it with the World Cup; they’re doing it with football. By the way, the La Clippers basketball team are involved in a carbon scheme fraud scandal. So the whole City of Los Angeles and California just can’t get away from it.

Fox Anchor: There’s always got to be some dumb politics getting in the middle of sports. Marc Morano, you bring all the smart analysis and energy. Thank you very much; we appreciate it.