Day: September 15, 2026

Scientists Resurrect 1960s Magnetic Data to Reveal How Continents Break Apart

Scientists, including Keele University’s Emeritus Professor Peter Styles, have digitized and reanalyzed forgotten high- resolution aeromagnetic survey data from the late 1960s over the Afar region of Ethiopia, integrating it with other “vintage” magnetic data from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

Infographic illustrating scientists' research on 1960s magnetic data to understand continental breakup, featuring the Nubian and Arabian plates, the Afar Triangle, and the Gulf of Aden. Includes data visualizations and descriptions of magnetic anomalies.
AI generated by Grok

Scientists, including Keele University’s Emeritus Professor Peter Styles, have digitized and reanalyzed forgotten high- resolution aeromagnetic survey data from the late 1960s (around 1968/69) over the Afar region of Ethiopia (and what is now Eritrea), integrating it with other “vintage” magnetic data from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

The original survey, flown by Hunting Geology and Geophysics Ltd under the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in one of Earth’s most inhospitable climates, produced data that was largely overlooked after the 1970s.

The team (P.G. Purcell, R. De Ritis, and P. Styles) processed it with modern methods to create Total Magnetic Intensity and First Vertical Derivative maps.

The Afar region is a classic site for studying the early stages of continental breakup (rifting), where the African, Arabian, and Somali plates meet in a triple junction near the East African Rift, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden. As basaltic rocks form and cool during seafloor spreading, they record Earth’s magnetic field polarity reversals as linear “stripes” (like barcodes or tree rings). A standard triple- junction model would predict a triangular pattern of these magnetic lineations radiating from the Afar Depression.

Instead, the reanalyzed data show magnetic anomalies trending roughly east-west in southern Afar (continuing the Gulf of Aden trend into the continent and nearly perpendicular to the younger NNE-trending Wonji Fault Belt of the Ethiopian Rift). North of the Tendaho- Goba’Ad discontinuity, anomalies trend approximately NW/SE (deviating ~30° from the Red Sea axis). There are little or no clear signature matching expectations for simultaneous, equal-rate rifting along all three arms of the East African Rift.

The researchers interpret the dominant magnetic signature as evidence of earlier (possibly Miocene) continental rifting as Africa and Arabia separated along a primary fracture following the Gulf of Aden- Red Sea path, later overprinted by younger magmatism and faulting. Cross- rift magnetic anomalies also appear in the East African Rift and Red Sea, though their origins remain unclear.

Professor Styles noted: “These findings give a unique perspective on how our planet is constantly changing and shifting right beneath our feet. It’s also a great example of the benefits of looking at all of the available data, even historical data, when testing new models and theories. Models come and go, but well- measured data lasts forever.”

The paper concludes that the 1968 Afar Survey data has been “resurrected from an undeserved obscurity” and can now contribute to studies of this complex region.

This work highlights the value of revisiting historical geophysical datasets with modern tools to refine models of how continents stretch, thin, and eventually form new ocean basins, processes ongoing today in East Africa and the Red Sea region.

Geological map showing tectonic plates in the Middle East and East Africa, including the Arabian, Nubian, and Somalian plates, with arrows indicating the movement of these plates.
The old data from the Afar region has been digitised and integrated it with additional “vintage” magnetic data from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden regions.  Credit: Keele University

Miocene rifting mechanisms in the Afar- Red Sea- Gulf of Aden region (roughly 23- 5 Ma) represent a critical phase in the transition from continental extension to seafloor spreading as Arabia separated from Africa. This period followed the Oligocene impingement of the Afar mantle plume (~30- 31 Ma) and the associated Ethiopian-Yemen flood basalt province. It is highly relevant to the 1968 Afar magnetic survey reinterpretation, which suggests that the prominent east- west magnetic anomalies in southern Afar may record earlier Miocene magmatic rifting aligned with the Gulf of Aden trend (later overprinted by younger structures).

Timing overview

Gulf of Aden: Rifting began in the early- mid Oligocene (~35- 30 Ma) in the east/central parts; climax of continental rifting ~20- 18 Ma; seafloor spreading initiated ~21- 17 Ma in the east and propagated westward.

Red Sea: Continental rifting initiated ~27- 23 Ma (late Oligocene- early Miocene) along much of its length, often linked to a major dike event ~24- 22 Ma. Significant Miocene extension occurred with limited early volcanism in places; seafloor spreading began later (~13 Ma or younger in the central/southern parts).

Afar and northern Main Ethiopian Rift (MER): Extension in Afar started ~29- 25 Ma shortly after the traps. A major reorganization occurred ~13- 8 Ma, with northward propagation of Afar rifting, rotation of the Danakil Block, and development of the triple junction configuration. The northern MER formed around ~11 Ma.

Geological events were strongly diachronous across the region.

Rifting mechanisms are debated and often involve a combination of processes rather than pure end-members. Common frameworks include:

  1. Active vs. passive rifting
    • Active (plume-driven): The Afar plume causes uplift, lithospheric thinning, and decompression melting, driving extension. Evidence includes the spatial association with flood basalts and long-lived dynamic topography. However, pure active models struggle to explain the diachronous onset of rifting arms (Gulf of Aden earlier than Red Sea/MER) and the fact that oceanic spreading often initiated far from the plume center.
    • Passive (far-field driven): Extension results from plate- boundary forces, primarily slab pull from Neotethys subduction beneath Eurasia to the north, or changes in plate motion after collision locking in the Mediterranean region ~25 Ma. This better explains the relatively low volume of rift- related volcanism during the main Miocene phase in parts of the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez.
    • Hybrid models: Many researchers favor combinations. One recent proposal is plume- induced plate rotation: the Afar plume head generates horizontal asthenospheric flow and a “push” force that promotes rotation of the Arabian plate around a nearby pole, facilitating rifting along the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This integrates active and passive elements and accounts for progressive development of the system.
  2. Modes of lithospheric extension
    • Pure shear (symmetric stretching): Uniform thinning of the lithosphere (classic McKenzie model). Common in earlier or less magmatic stages and parts of the southern MER.
    • Simple shear (asymmetric, detachment faults): Large- scale low- angle faults lead to asymmetric margins. Suggested for some Western Afar Margin structures and possibly parts of central Afar during later stages.
    • Magma- assisted/magma- controlled rifting: Magma intrusion and underplating accommodate much of the extension, weaken the lithosphere, and allow strain localization into narrow magmatic segments. This is dominant in magma- rich settings like central Afar and the modern northern MER. During the Miocene in the southern Red Sea/Afar, extension and volcanism migrated inland from border faults into narrow zones of intrusion, similar to present-day axial magmatic segments. Magma-compensated thinning can maintain relatively thick crust despite significant extension. flore.unifi.it
  3. Strain localization and propagation
    Early Miocene extension was often distributed (“wide rift” style in central Afar during the Mio-Pliocene). Over time, strain localized into narrower zones. Rifts propagated (e.g., Gulf of Aden westward toward Afar; Afar northward as a relay with the Red Sea). Pre- existing structures (Precambrian fabrics, earlier faults) strongly influenced geometry. The Danakil Block began independent rotation in the mid- to- late Miocene, contributing to the complex triple- junction
  4. Role of magmatism
    Miocene magmatism in Afar included dykes, plutons, and volcanic series (e.g., Mabla, Dahla). In southern Afar, linear magnetic anomalies (high- amplitude, E- W trending) may reflect intrusive bodies or early oceanic/transitional crust formed during this phase of Gulf of Aden, aligned rifting. Magmatism helped accommodate extension early, with a later shift toward more mechanical stretching or focused extrusive activity in some models. Cross- rift magnetic anomalies elsewhere in the system remain enigmatic.

The 1968 survey data show E- W magnetic lineations in southern Afar that continue the Gulf of Aden trend and sit nearly perpendicular to younger NNE- trending Ethiopian Rift faults (e.g., Wonji Fault Belt).

This supports the interpretation of an earlier Miocene magmatic rifting episode aligned with the Gulf of Aden, subsequently obscured by Plio-Pleistocene faulting and volcanism. Good correlation between magnetic anomalies and structures near the Gulf of Tadjura (Djibouti) contrasts with the mismatch farther west, highlighting the complex, multiphase history.

Miocene processes in this region illustrate how continental breakup can involve sequential phases of distributed then localized extension, strong magmatic influence in plume-affected areas, and reorganization driven by plate rotations and propagating rifts.

Analog and numerical models emphasize the roles of rotational extension, pre- existing weaknesses, and varying degrees of magmatism in producing the observed geometries. The system ultimately transitioned toward focused seafloor spreading, providing a natural laboratory for the early stages of ocean basin formation.

Ongoing research continues to refine these models using geophysics, geochronology, and structural data. The “resurrected” magnetic datasets add valuable constraints on the subsurface architecture of these early rifting phases.

A review of the 1968 Afar Magnetic Survey data and integration with vintage Red Sea and Gulf of Aden data

Miocene rifting mechanisms in the Afar- Red Sea- Gulf of Aden region (roughly 23- 5 Ma) represent a critical phase in the transition from continental extension to seafloor spreading as Arabia separated from Africa.

This period followed the Oligocene impingement of the Afar mantle plume (~30- 31 Ma) and the associated Ethiopian-Yemen flood basalt province. It is highly relevant to the 1968 Afar magnetic survey reinterpretation, which suggests that the prominent east–west magnetic anomalies in southern Afar may record earlier Miocene magmatic rifting aligned with the Gulf of Aden trend (later overprinted by younger structures).

Highlights

  • Vintage magnetic data in Afar show variable correlations with rift structure.
  • Integrated regional magnetic data provide insight into tectonic framework.
  • Magnetic anomalies align with some rift structures near the Gulf of Tadjura.
  • Magnetic anomalies in southern Afar are perpendicular to rift faulting.
  • Southern Afar magnetic anomalies might relate to Miocene rifting.

An extensive aeromagnetic survey of the Afar region of Ethiopia (and present- day Eritrea) was flown in 1968 to study this key site of embryonic continental breakup. The data received little attention after the 1970s.

The authors digitized and processed it, then integrated it with vintage magnetic data from the adjacent Red Sea and western Gulf of Aden. They produced Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) and First Vertical Derivative (FVD) maps.

Key observations:

  • In southern Afar, magnetic anomalies trend roughly east- west, nearly perpendicular to the NNE-trending Plio- Pleistocene Wonji Fault Belt of the Ethiopian Rift and continue the Gulf of Aden trend into the African continent.
  • This contrasts with the fair- to-good correlation between magnetic anomalies and rift structures in the hinterland of the Gulf of Tadjura (Djibouti area).
  • North of the Tendaho- Goba’Ad discontinuity, anomalies trend approximately NW- SE, offset by ~30° from the Red Sea axial spreading trend (as seen onshore in the Erta Ale magmatic complex).

The authors suggest the enigmatic east- west magnetic trends in southern Afar may record earlier (Miocene) magmatic rifting aligned with the Gulf of Aden, later obscured by younger magmatism and faulting. Cross- rift magnetic anomalies also occur in the East African Rift and Red Sea; their origin remains unclear.

They conclude that the 1968 Afar Survey data has been “resurrected from an undeserved obscurity” and can again contribute to understanding this complex region.

The Afar Triangle, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden form a classic plate-tectonic triple- junction setting. Early models treated much of Afar as oceanic or “pseudo- oceanic” crust.

The 1968 survey (flown by Hunting Geology and Geophysics Ltd under the University of Newcastle upon Tyne as part of the Upper Mantle Project) revealed long (often >100 km), high-amplitude (up to ~1000 nT) linear magnetic anomalies trending roughly east- west in southern and central Afar, similar to those in the western Gulf of Aden.

Contemporary workers (e.g., Girdler, Barberi & Varet) interpreted these as evidence of oceanic spreading or mini- spreading centres. Later analysis by Mohr (1976) highlighted the lack of consistent alignment between magnetic anomalies and surface rift structures, especially the near- perpendicular relationship in southern Afar, and suggested a possible earlier rifting episode.

The present study:

  • Digitized the original 1:500,000- scale TMI contour maps.
  • Compared the Afar data with overlapping modern/higher- resolution surveys (Djibouti and Adigala) to validate navigation accuracy and anomaly trends (good correspondence was found).
  • Upward- continued and merged selected public- domain vintage marine data from the Gulf of Aden (Whitmarsh, 1969) and Red Sea (Hall & Andreasen, 1977) to the Afar survey elevation (~1830 m).
  • Incorporated higher-level Yemen data for regional context but did not fully merge it.

The primary aims were to evaluate the quality and reliability of the 1968 data, compare the magnetic patterns with surface tectonic features, and briefly consider implications for regional tectonic history.

The work demonstrates the enduring value of carefully collected historical geophysical datasets. When reprocessed with modern techniques and integrated with neighbouring data, the 1968 Afar survey provides new constraints on the timing, geometry, and evolution of continental rifting and the transition toward seafloor spreading in one of Earth’s best natural laboratories for these processes.

Title: A review of the 1968 Afar Magnetic Survey data and integration with vintage Red Sea and Gulf of Aden data

Published: Journal of African Earth Sciences, Volume 233, January 2026, Article 105881

DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2025.105881

Provided: Keele University 

Authors: P.G. Purcell, R. De Ritis, P. Styles

Abstract

An extensive aeromagnetic survey of the Afar region of Ethiopia and (now) Eritrea was conducted in 1968 to investigate this complex tectonic province, long seen as a site of embryonic continental break-up. This vintage magnetic data, which has received little attention since the 1970s, has been digitized, processed, and integrated with vintage data from the adjacent Red Sea and western Gulf of Aden to produce Total Magnetic Intensity and First Vertical Derivative maps for the region. In southern Afar, the magnetic anomalies trend approximately east/west, almost perpendicular to the NNE-trending Plio-Pleistocene Wonji Fault Belt of the Ethiopia Rift segment, continuing the Gulf of Aden trend into the African continent. This is sharp contract with the fair to good correlation of magnetic anomaly and rift structures in the hinterland of the Gulf of Tadjura. North of the Tendaho-Goba’Ad discontinuity, the magnetic anomalies trend approximately NW/SE, deviating approximately 30o from the Red Sea axial spreading trend, as manifest onshore in the Erta Ale magmatic complex. The enigmatic near east-west trend of the magnetic anomalies in southern Afar may be related to Miocene magmatic rifting aligned with the Gulf of Aden but now obscured by younger magmatism and rifting. Cross-rift trending magnetic anomalies are also present in the East African Rift and the Red Sea, but their origin is not clear. With this publication, the magnetic data from the 1968 Afar Survey has been resurrected from an undeserved obscurity and can now begin to contribute anew to the study of this complex and fascinating region.

Antarctica’s Record 695-Billion-Ton Ice Gain: Temporary Tropical Surprise, Not a Climate Reversal

A peer- reviewed paper published in Nature on 19 August 2026 reports that the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained approximately 695 billion tonnes (Gt) of mass over a roughly 22-month period spanning 2021- 2023.

This was the largest mass gain of comparable length in the GRACE/GRACE-FO satellite gravimetry record, which began in 2002/2003.

A panoramic view of Antarctica showcasing its ice-covered landscape with a focus on ice mass gain, accompanied by text discussing a record 695-billion-ton ice gain and its implications.
AI generated by Grok

A peer- reviewed paper published in Nature on 19 August 2026 (led by researchers including Yunhe Wang from the Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, with international collaborators) reports that the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained approximately 695 billion tonnes (Gt) of mass over a roughly 22-month period spanning 2021- 2023. This was the largest mass gain of comparable length in the GRACE/GRACE-FO satellite gravimetry record, which began in 2002/2003.

The gain was concentrated in East Antarctica, especially Queen Mary Land and Wilkes Land (roughly 470 Gt, or ~68% of the total). It resulted from exceptionally heavy snowfall, driven by anomalous moisture transport (including atmospheric rivers) from the mid- latitude Indian Ocean.

Sustained warming of about 0.5°C in the tropical warm pool (western Pacific and eastern Indian Oceans) altered atmospheric circulation via Rossby wave trains. This created pressure patterns that funneled more moisture southward. The event was largely natural variability (anthropogenic climate change explained only ~9% of the snowfall anomaly).

Between 2003 and 2024, Antarctica lost ice at an average rate of ~140.5 Gt per year.

West Antarctica continued losing mass during the gain period (due to ocean- driven melting of ice shelves and accelerated glacier flow). The 2021- 2023 episode temporarily offset losses and even produced a near-zero or slightly positive overall balance for parts of 2021- 2024 in some analyses, but it does not reverse the multi- decade decline.

Earlier related work had already noted strong mass gains in 2021- 2022 (on the order of ~130 Gt/year) from anomalous precipitation; the 2026 study extended and attributed the larger multi- year signal.

Subsequent data (into 2024- 2025) indicate the anomalous accumulation period has largely ended, with mass balance turning negative again in more recent years.

In short, the headline figure is correct and reflects a real, well- documented temporary anomaly driven by tropical– polar teleconnections and heavy snowfall, not a reversal of Antarctica’s overall ice- loss trend under ongoing climate warming.

GRACE and GRACE- FO are a pair of NASA/German satellite missions that measure changes in Earth’s gravity field to track how mass (especially water and ice) moves around the planet.

Quick Overview

MissionFull NameOperational PeriodKey Feature
GRACEGravity Recovery and Climate ExperimentMarch 2002- October 2017First mission of its kind
GRACE- FOGRACE Follow- OnMay 2018- presentContinues the record and laser instrument

Two identical satellites fly in the same polar orbit, about 220 km (137 miles) apart, one behind the other, at roughly 490 km altitude.

  • Areas of higher mass (more ice, water, rock, etc.) pull the lead satellite slightly ahead.
  • The trailing satellite is pulled forward a few moments later.
  • Extremely precise ranging instruments measure these tiny changes in distance (down to a few micrometers with microwaves, and even nanometers with the laser on GRACE- FO).

By combining these distance measurements with GPS positioning and accelerometer data (to remove non-gravitational forces), scientists produce monthly maps of Earth’s gravity field. Changes in gravity are then converted into mass changes.

These are the primary tools used to measure ice- sheet mass balance.

In the 2026 Nature study we’ve been discussing, GRACE/GRACE- FO data showed:

  • Long- term Antarctic mass loss of ~140.5 Gt per year (2003- 2024)
  • The record 695 Gt gain between July 2021 and April 2023

They “weigh” the entire ice sheet from space without needing to land on it, capturing both snowfall gains and dynamic ice losses.

Bottom line: GRACE and GRACE- FO act like a planetary scale that continuously tracks where mass is being gained or lost on Earth, especially critical for understanding ice sheets and sea- level rise.

Multiyear tropical warm pool warming drives slowdown in Antarctic mass loss

Between 2021 and 2023 the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained ~695 billion tons of mass, the largest such gain recorded by the GRACE satellites.

The long- term trend (2003- 2024) remains a loss of ~140.5 billion tons per year.

The temporary gain was concentrated in East Antarctica (especially Queen Mary Land- Wilkes Land) and was caused by unusually heavy snowfall.

The driver was sustained warming in the tropical warm pool (western Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean). This triggered a Rossby- wave train that created a north- south pressure dipole (low south of Australia, high over East Antarctica), which steered extra moisture from the mid- latitude Indian Ocean onto the continent via atmospheric rivers.

Anthropogenic global- warming effects accounted for only ~9 % of the extra snowfall; the event was mainly natural variability.

Similar multiyear tropical- warm- pool warmings occur roughly once per decade.

The gain did not reverse the overall long- term ice loss, and West Antarctica continued to lose mass.

The authors demonstrate that the gain was driven by a recurrent atmospheric teleconnection from unusually persistent warming in the tropical warm pool (western Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean) during 2021- 2023.

This warming excited a poleward-propagating Rossby- wave train that produced a high-pressure anomaly over East Antarctica. The resulting circulation enhanced moisture transport (primarily from the mid-latitude Indian Ocean) and atmospheric- river activity onto Queen Mary Land and Wilkes Land, producing the extreme snowfall.

Model experiments and observations show that anthropogenic global- warming effects (poleward storm-track shift and Clausius- Clapeyron moistening) accounted for only ~9 % of the observed precipitation anomaly. Similar multiyear tropical- warm- pool warming events recur roughly once per decade and are distinct from the forced response to greenhouse- gas warming.

Conclusion of the paper: The 2021- 2023 mass gain is therefore probably temporary and does not yet represent a sustained, global- warming- driven moistening of Antarctica. West Antarctic losses continued throughout the period.

The article is a clear, faithful distillation of the scientific paper’s main conclusions and includes a direct quote from first author Yunhe Wang. It does not over- claim that the ice gain signals a reversal of climate-driven ice loss. It was a real, record- breaking but temporary snowfall- driven mass gain linked to tropical ocean conditions.

Title: “Antarctica Gained a Record 695 Billion Tons of Ice in Just Two Years”

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10912-x

Published: Nature volume 656, pages 897- 904, on 19 August 2026 (open access).

Provided: Chinese Academy of Sciences

Authors: Yunhe Wang,
Qinghua Ding,
Xiaofeng Li,
Thomas J. Ballinger,
Yoshihiro Nakayama,
Dániel Topál &
Eric J. Steig 

Abstract

Antarctic mass loss has been a major contributor to global sea-level rise for most of the last few decades, mainly driven by West Antarctica1. During 2021–2023, however, a sharp increase in surface mass balance over Queen Mary Land and Wilkes Land in East Antarctica offset West Antarctic loss and slowed the rate of total ice mass loss2,3. Although this slowdown is consistent with the expected long-term precipitation response to global warming through poleward-shifted storm tracks and Antarctic moistening4, our results point to a different mechanism. Here we show that the recent ice mass gain was linked to a recurrent atmospheric teleconnection driven by sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical warm pool, which experienced unusually persistent warming from 2021 to 2023 relative to the previous two decades. On the basis of observations and model experiments, we find that tropical warm pool warming excites a poleward-propagating Rossby-wave train that induces a high-pressure anomaly over East Antarctica, enhancing Queen Mary Land and Wilkes Land precipitation and driving the observed mass gain, with moisture primarily sourced from the mid-latitude Indian Ocean. Similar multiyear warming in the tropical warm pool recurs about once per decade in observations and historical simulations, and its influence on precipitation is distinct from the effects of global warming. Therefore, the recent Antarctic Ice Sheet mass gain is probably temporary and does not yet reflect a sustained, global-warming-driven moistening of Antarctica.

Energy Reality Forces Tech to Ditch Climate Virtue Signaling

In Pecos County, Texas, crews are clearing scrubland for a power plant that will burn natural gas and answer to no one but Amazon.

Microsoft has signed a 20-year deal for power from a Chevron gas plant in neighboring Reeves County.

In 2021, Facebook’s parent company Meta declared climate change one of the most pressing challenges facing the world and positioned itself among the largest corporate buyers of clean electricity. Then came its Hyperion data center in Louisiana.

A cartoon-style illustration titled 'Energy Reality' showing a man wearing a green 'Climate' mask, standing amidst energy infrastructure like wind turbines and natural gas plants in Pecos County, Texas. The image displays humorous commentary on energy, technology, and climate, with text elements emphasizing reliable power and critiques of 'virtue signaling.'

From The CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

In Pecos County, Texas, crews are clearing scrubland for a power plant that will burn natural gas and answer to no one but Amazon. With 35 turbines and a generating capacity of more than 7 gigawatts, the plant will be able to produce more electricity than the Grand Coulee Dam. A state permit allows the facility to emit 33 million tons of greenhouse gases a year, roughly double what comes from an Alabama coal-fired generator that has topped America’s emissions tables for years.

Now recall who founded the company building the gas behemoth. That would be Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, who just 5 years ago told delegates at a U.N. climate summit that a rocket ride had shown him a planet that was finite and fragile, prompting a pledge of $2 billion to “restore” nature. The applause was warm. The carbon-intensive private jet that carried Bezos to the Scotland meeting was noted by critics and forgotten by everyone else.

Now, his company is financing what may become the largest point source of carbon dioxide in the United States, whose contribution to the greening of ecosystems should be welcome.

You are watching a conversion, and it deserves your attention because of what forced it.

The template, not the exception
Amazon did not stumble into natural gas. It joined a queue. Enverus Intelligence Research projects that user-owned turbines will account for about 40% of new data center capacity through 2030. Microsoft has signed a 20-year deal for power from a Chevron gas plant in neighboring Reeves County. Interconnection subscriptions are full, transformers are back-ordered, and the only metric that matters is the time it takes to get a power plant in operation.

In 2021, Facebook’s parent company Meta declared climate change one of the most pressing challenges facing the world and positioned itself among the largest corporate buyers of clean electricity. Then came its Hyperion data center in Louisiana. Regulators approved three combined-cycle gas plants for it in August 2025. In March 2026 Meta tripled the order, funding seven more and making the totals 10 gas plants and nearly $11 billion of investment. Meta will underwrite 15 years of revenue, while the turbines will run for 30 – a mismatch that has a dissenting member of the Public Service Commission warning that households may inherit the balance.

Elon Musk built an empire on the premise that combustion belongs to the past. In 2024, he said that a carbon tax was the only action needed to solve climate change. More recently, addressing G20 ministers, he warned of a significant power shortfall next year and defended data center construction against negative public sentiment. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, in the same meeting, asked governments for more electricians and more electricity. Neither man requested more wind and solar installations.

Energy Physics Forces a Hard Reset
Big Tech’s turn toward dedicated gas power does not settle the climate debate, but it exposes the distance between a political narrative and a power grid capable of supporting industries. When servers must run, physics gets a vote and realities are acknowledged.

For example, at the start of 2026, every grid-scale battery in the United States combined could meet national demand for only 15 minutes. Modeling the PJM regional power system through 2045, Jonathan Lesser and Mitchell Rolling found that a grid of wind, solar, and batteries would need 10 times the generating capacity of gas and nuclear power. It would also cost about seven times as much, and cover a land area larger than the PJM service area, which comprises most of the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest.

Yet, despite these facts, pseudo-scientists, grifters, and demagogues lectured for 20 years that coal is immoral, natural gas is a bridge to nowhere, and so-called green technologies are the planet’s salvation. Banks denied financing for hydrocarbon projects in developing countries where surgeons operate under lights powered by unreliable generators and where hundreds of millions cook with sooty wood and dung.

The lesson is the same for data centers and households: Prosperity requires electricity that is available when needed. Dependable systems of conventional energy sources will continue to power the tech revolution and human progress for decades.

Originally published at American Thinker, September 13th, 2026.

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

The Green Climate Fund is greenwashing normal foreign aid

This is just what the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) is doing. They solicit funds by claiming to finance adaptation when in fact they are funding responses to immediate needs. These needs would clearly still exist if climate change never happened.

Here are three examples, out of many so-called adaptation projects listed in the database of GCF projects.
“ALBAdapt – Climate Services for a Resilient Albania
“Resilience to hurricanes in the building sector in Antigua and Barbuda
“Multi-country Project Advancing Early Warnings for All (EW4All)

A satirical illustration titled 'Greenwashing Foreign Aid' showing a conveyor belt delivering stacks of money labeled as foreign aid being rebranded to green labels like 'Green Climate Fund' and 'Climate Finance.' Various characters, including a smiling man in glasses and a bowtie, discuss the rebranding with enthusiasm, while others express excitement about the change. The background features wind turbines and greenery, emphasizing environmental themes.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

If I buy an air conditioner because summers are hot that is not adaptation to climate change. I am meeting an immediate need that has nothing to do with climate change. Even if climate change made it warmer from time to time my purchase is not based on that possibility.

Suppose I have a fundraiser to pay for my air conditioner, and I claim it is to adapt to climate change as a way to get donations. That would be fraud, a form of what is called greenwashing.

This is just what the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) is doing. They solicit funds by claiming to finance adaptation when in fact they are funding responses to immediate needs. These needs would clearly still exist if climate change never happened.

Here are three examples, out of many so-called adaptation projects listed in the database of GCF projects.

For simplicity these occur at the beginning of the listing.

1. “ALBAdapt – Climate Services for a Resilient Albania

….develop a fully functional and well-resourced National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (NMHS) that complies with World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standards. The project also includes the implementation of a people-centered Multi-Hazard Early Warning System (MHEWS) and the foundation for ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation (EbA) and disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR).”

$40 million

So basically weather forecasts and early warning of disasters. This is good stuff but as they say in the project description, Albania is already subject to bad weather and floods, etc. It meets immediate needs.

2. “Resilience to hurricanes in the building sector in Antigua and Barbuda

This project addresses the resilience of building construction in the country, in addition to climate information systems and post-disaster responses. It will climate proof critical public service and community buildings to improve resilience to, and recovery from, extreme climate events.”

$46 million

These folks are already battered by hurricanes and calling them “extreme climate events” does not change that, in fact it is a marketing hoax. Resilience to hurricanes is a great idea but it is an immediate need that does not arise from climate change.

3. “Multi-country Project Advancing Early Warnings for All (EW4All)

This project aims to strengthen the resilience of communities in seven countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Chad, Cambodia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, and Somalia) by improving the production, dissemination and effective use of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems (MHEWS).”

$115 million

Another early warning system which is a good idea but it is an immediate need that has nothing to do with climate change adaptation.

When you think about it climate change adaptation would be weird stuff. You would be building for a need that does not yet exist. For example irrigation or water supply systems where none is presently needed. Or flood defenses where floods have never occurred.

How do you prepare for getting a few more hurricanes, droughts or floods than you already get? Of for some to be bigger than they otherwise would be? Is anybody doing that, if so how?

It is possible that the concept of climate change adaptation makes no sense, but people are certainly raising and making a lot of money using it.

The Green Climate Fund says that 60% of their billions in project funding is directed toward adaptation. They are really just meeting immediate needs which makes this greenwashing on a grand scale.

If the countries donating to the GCF think they are contributing to climate change adaptation they should think again. It is just ordinary foreign aid which they would be better off

doing themselves.

How the 2024 Solar Superstorm Drained Earth’s Outer Radiation Belt

In May 2024, Earth experienced its most intense geomagnetic superstorm since the 2003 Halloween storms (often called the Gannon or Mother’s Day storm). This caused a sudden, dramatic loss (“dropout” or draining) of highly energetic electrons from the outer Van Allen radiation belt.

Satellite observations (particularly from JAXA’s Arase satellite) showed this extreme depletion of MeV electrons during the main phase of the storm. Researchers (Lyu et al.) provided the first comprehensive analysis of the rapid electron transport, published in AGU Advances, and summarized by Sarah Stanley for Eos (American Geophysical Union) on 14 September 2026.

Infographic depicting a solar superstorm event in 2024, illustrating coronal mass ejection (CME) with labeled features including solar wind, compressed magnetopause, and Van Allen radiation belts impacting Earth.
AI generated by Grok

In May 2024, Earth experienced its most intense geomagnetic superstorm since the 2003 Halloween storms (often called the Gannon or Mother’s Day storm). This caused a sudden, dramatic loss (“dropout” or draining) of highly energetic electrons from the outer Van Allen radiation belt.

The Van Allen belts are doughnut- shaped regions of energetic electrons and protons (mostly from the solar wind) trapped by Earth’s magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can reconfigure the magnetosphere and rapidly change electron dynamics in the outer belt, creating hazards for satellites.

Satellite observations (particularly from JAXA’s Arase satellite) showed this extreme depletion of MeV electrons during the main phase of the storm. Researchers (Lyu et al.) provided the first comprehensive analysis of the rapid electron transport, published in AGU Advances, and summarized by Sarah Stanley for Eos (American Geophysical Union) on 14 September 2026.

They used the Versatile Electron Radiation Belt (VERB) model to simulate the event and identify the drivers. Two main processes caused the electron loss:

Magnetopause shadowing: This transported electrons outward, releasing them into interplanetary space. It was tied to intense compression of Earth’s magnetosphere (the magnetopause was pushed inward significantly, with estimates around L ~ 3.7 in related work).

Local wave scattering (e.g., by plasmaspheric hiss and other waves): This scattered electrons so their pitch angles changed, allowing them to precipitate into Earth’s upper atmosphere.

The relative importance of each process varied by region of the magnetic field. Critically, accurate reproduction of the extreme dropout required that the sudden outward transport from magnetopause shadowing occur nearly simultaneously with the strong magnetospheric compression, followed by the wave scattering.

Standard empirical models of electron transport (often parameterized by the Kp index and used in space weather forecasting) do not capture this tightly coupled timing of superstorm dynamics.

The findings highlight the need for improved models that better account for the interplay of magnetopause compression, radial diffusion/transport, and local scattering during extreme events. This could improve forecasting and risk assessment for satellites and other infrastructure during future superstorms.

Note that the same storm also injected particles and temporarily created new radiation belt structures in other regions, which persisted for months in some cases before later storms depleted them; the “draining” specifically refers to the rapid outer- belt electron dropout analyzed here.

Magnetopause shadowing is a key non- adiabatic loss process for energetic particles (especially relativistic electrons) in Earth’s outer Van Allen radiation belt. It occurs when the magnetopause, the boundary separating Earth’s magnetosphere from the solar wind, moves inward during periods of elevated solar wind dynamic pressure (e.g., during geomagnetic storms or interplanetary shocks), allowing previously trapped particles to escape into interplanetary space.

Charged particles in the radiation belts spiral along magnetic field lines while bouncing between the northern and southern magnetic mirror points and slowly drifting azimuthally around Earth (due to gradient and curvature drifts). Under quiet conditions, their drift paths are closed within the magnetosphere, so the particles remain trapped for long periods.

The magnetopause typically sits around 10 Earth radii (RER_E) on the dayside. Strong solar wind pressure compresses the dayside magnetosphere, pushing the magnetopause inward (sometimes to RER_E) on the dayside.

Strong solar wind pressure compresses the dayside magnetosphere, pushing the magnetopause inward (sometimes to L∗≈4L^* \approx 4 -6 or closer during extreme events).

There are two related forms:

Direct magnetopause shadowing
The compressed magnetopause intersects the particles’ previously closed drift shells. Particles whose drift orbits now cross the magnetopause are lost directly into the solar wind as they drift into the boundary. This can happen rapidly (on timescales of a particle’s drift period, often hours or less) when the magnetopause moves inward suddenly.

Indirect magnetopause shadowing (often coupled with outward radial diffusion)
Even if the magnetopause does not immediately intersect a given drift shell, the sudden loss of particles at higher L∗L^*creates a steep negative radial gradient in phase space density (PSD). Ultra- low- frequency (ULF) waves then drive outward radial diffusion, transporting particles from lower L∗L^*toward the last closed drift shell (LCDS, the outermost closed drift path). Once they reach the LCDS or the magnetopause itself, they escape.

The last closed drift shell (LCDS) is a useful concept for modeling: any particle whose L∗L^* exceeds the LCDS is considered lost.

Key Features and Consequences

Location preference: Most effective at higher L∗L^*(outer parts of the outer belt, typically L∗≳4L^* \gtrsim 4 -5). Losses often start at high (L) and propagate inward.

Energy and pitch- angle dependence: Affects a broad range of energies (keV to multi- MeV). It can produce characteristic “butterfly” pitch- angle distributions (flux minima near 90° equatorial pitch angle) because of drift- shell splitting and preferential loss of certain pitch angles.

Speed: Can cause rapid, deep “dropouts” of electron flux (orders- of- magnitude decreases in hours) during the main phase of storms.

Additional factors: The detailed structure of the magnetopause (magnetic field gradients along the boundary, presence of a normal magnetic-field component, or induced electric fields during rapid compression) influences how easily particles cross the boundary. A normal field component facilitates escape along field lines; induced electric fields can sometimes inhibit or modify escape for lower- energy particles.

Role in Storms (Including the 2024 Superstorm)

During intense geomagnetic storms, magnetopause shadowing is frequently a dominant contributor to the sudden draining of the outer radiation belt electrons, often acting together with local wave- particle scattering (which precipitates particles into the atmosphere). Accurate modeling requires event- specific magnetopause location (or LCDS) and realistic radial diffusion rates; standard empirical models often underperform if they do not capture the tight timing between magnetospheric compression and particle transport.

In short, magnetopause shadowing is the process by which a compressed magnetopause “cuts off” or “shadows” the outer drift paths of trapped radiation- belt particles, allowing them to stream away into space, directly or after being transported outward by waves.

Extreme Radiation Belt Dropout During the May 2024 Superstorm

This is the scientific study summarized in the Eos article by Sarah Stanley. Direct full- text retrieval from the Wiley platform was unsuccessful (likely due to access restrictions), but the content is consistent with the open EGU abstract, the associated Zenodo dataset (initial submission materials), and the Eos research spotlight.

Key Points from the Paper

Observations

  • Data from the JAXA Arase (ERG) satellite showed that MeV electron fluxes in the outer radiation belt dropped by several orders of magnitude during the main phase of the May 2024 superstorm (the strongest geomagnetic storm in ~20 years).
  • This extreme dropout coincided with intense magnetopause compression (minimum standoff distance ~ L≈3.7L \approx 3.7, estimated via the Space Weather Modeling Framework) and enhanced ULF Pc5 wave activity (from SuperMAG ground magnetometers).

Modeling Approach

  • The team used the Versatile Electron Radiation Belt (VERB) model to simulate the event.
  • They tested different drivers for radial diffusion and loss processes.

Main Findings

  • Standard empirical radial diffusion models (parameterized by the Kp index) failed to reproduce the observed electron flux profiles.
  • Accurate reproduction of the extreme dropout required enhanced radial diffusion that is properly timed relative to the magnetopause compression and storm- time wave activity.
  • Magnetopause shadowing (outward transport and loss to the compressed magnetopause) was a primary driver, especially at higher L∗L^*.
  • Stronger plasmaspheric hiss scattering was also needed to account for losses at lower L∗L^*.
  • Overall, the extreme electron loss was controlled by the coupled timing of three processes:
    1. Magnetopause compression (enabling shadowing),
    2. Radial diffusion (outward transport of particles), and
    3. Local wave-particle scattering (primarily hiss- driven precipitation into the atmosphere).

Implications

The results emphasize that physically timed (event- specific) representations of transport and loss are essential for modeling extreme storms. Commonly used empirical parameterizations are insufficient for such intense events. Improved models incorporating these timed couplings could enhance space- weather forecasting and satellite risk assessment.

Supporting materials (Arase processed data, ULF wave measurements, VERB simulation outputs under different driving scenarios, magnetopause positions, etc.) are available on Zenodo as part of the initial submission.

This paper provides the detailed quantitative analysis behind the “draining” of the outer radiation belt electrons during the 2024 superstorm via the mechanisms we previously discussed (especially magnetopause shadowing combined with radial diffusion and local scattering).

Published:  AGU Advances

DOI: 10.1029/2026av002476

Provided: American Geophysical Union

Authors: Xingzhi Lyu, Dedong Wang, Bernhard Haas, Miroslav Hanzelka, Yixin Sun, Zikang Xie, Alwin Roy, Yoshizumi Miyoshi, Yihua Zheng, Christos Katsavrias, Sigiava Aminalragia-Giamini, Nana Higashio, Takefumi Mitani, Takeshi Takashima, Iku Shinohara, Yoshiya Kasahara, Shoya Matsuda, Atsuki Shinbori, Fuminori Tsuchiya, Atsushi Kumamoto, Ayako Matsuoka, Mariko Teramoto, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Yuri Y. Shprits

Abstract

The geomagnetic superstorm in May 2024 represents the most extreme space weather event over the past two decades, offering a unique opportunity to investigate radiation belt electron dynamics under exceptionally strong solar wind driving conditions. Observations from the Arase satellite show that relativistic electron fluxes dropped by several orders of magnitude during the storm main phase. Although magnetopause shadowing and wave-driven losses are established mechanisms, the response of radiation belt electrons to superstorm-level solar wind driving remains poorly constrained. Using the Versatile Electron Radiation Belt model, we present the first physics-based simulation of the May 2024 electron dropout. Utilizing multi-satellite and ground-based observations, we show that the decades-long, widely adopted Kp-driven radial diffusion parameterization fails to represent radial transport under superstorm conditions, substantially misrepresenting both the timing and magnitude of enhanced diffusion relative to observed ultra-low-frequency wave activity. Accurate modeling of the observed extreme dropout requires precise specification of the onset of enhanced radial diffusion, which should coincide with the nearly simultaneous storm-time magnetopause compression. These coupled processes drive the dramatic depletion, followed by scattering from whistler-mode plasma waves.