A recent article from Smithsonian Magazine (SM) titled “Climate Change Might Increase Satellite Collisions, Limiting How Many Can Safely Orbit Earth, Study Finds” claims that human-induced climate change is causing the upper atmosphere to contract, reducing drag on satellites and space debris, which could lead to more collisions. This is misleading if not outright false. Multiple studies show the dominant factor influencing the density and temperature of the upper atmosphere—where some satellites orbit—is solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions. Data from decades of space research confirm that variations in solar radiation, particularly changes in ultraviolet (UV) output and solar wind, have far greater impacts on atmospheric density than any CO₂-driven effects.

The study, referenced by the SM article, is summarized as: “The thermosphere, which begins around 50 miles (80 kilometers) above Earth’s surface, is contracting. This is because as greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane accumulate in the lower atmosphere, they radiate heat into space and cause the upper atmosphere to cool and shrink.” This claim exaggerates the role of human greenhouse gas emissions while ignoring the well-documented influence of solar variability.

The thermosphere, seen in the graphic from The Canadian Space Agency below, is primarily heated by the Sun’s intense ultraviolet radiation, and its temperature and density fluctuate significantly in response to the 11-year solar cycle. When solar activity is high, the thermosphere expands, increasing drag on satellites and space debris. Conversely, during solar minima, the thermosphere contracts. These natural solar-driven variations completely overshadow any potential effect from anthropogenic CO₂.

A study in the Journal of Space Research confirms that thermospheric temperature fluctuations are overwhelmingly linked to solar output, not greenhouse gases. Similarly, research in Space Weather Science demonstrates that solar activity is the primary driver of upper atmospheric density changes, affecting satellite drag far more than any CO₂-related cooling. In addition, a report in EOS shows that during a weaker-than-normal solar cycle, the thermosphere cooled and contracted more than expected. This aligns with long-term observations that solar variability dictates thermospheric behavior. NASA also credits the sun as driving the changes in the thermosphere.

While many satellites orbit Earth in the thermosphere, most Earth-orbiting satellites reside in the exosphere, such as geostationary satellites with orbits at 22,500 miles even higher than the exosphere, the outermost layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, where the atmosphere thins out and merges with outer space. So, the concerns about the thermosphere in the SM article are mostly moot, especially since many satellites that orbit in the thermosphere can boost with thrusters to a higher orbit if needed. Engineers plan for this.

The SM  article also fails to consider historical data. If CO₂ were truly the primary driver of thermospheric contraction, we would expect to see a steady, predictable decline in atmospheric density as CO₂ emissions have increased. Instead, we observe clear cyclical patterns that correspond with the 11 year solar cycle, not industrial CO₂ emissions. During past solar minima, such as the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) and the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), similar thermospheric contractions occurred—long before human activity significantly increased CO₂ levels.

By pushing a climate change-driven explanation while ignoring the Sun’s dominant role, and ignoring where most satellites orbit Earth, Smithsonian Magazine is misrepresenting what science tells us about the atmosphere and what drives change in it. Space debris is a real issue that requires attention, but CO₂ neither creates space debris nor is making collision with such debris more likely. Blaming CO₂ emissions for upper-atmospheric changes is a false narrative and distracts attention from the real problem of how to handle space debris

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

By Vijay Jayaraj

For many across the world, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to exit the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) is a sign that central banks can refocus on their primary mandates: stabilizing economies, controlling inflation and fostering growth.

Developing nations that need financial backing for the development of fossil fuel projects to advance economic development hopefully can look forward to a reversal of the vacuous injection of a climate change agenda into monetary policy. This corruption of the financial system has burdened the impoverished of the Third World with “green” mandates that impede the eradication of poverty and the ills that accompany it.

Currently, NGFS membership includes central banks and financial institutions from 22 countries in Africa, 32 in Asia-Pacific and 20 in the Americas, which may now be emboldened to reevaluate – and abandon – whatever priority they have assigned to climate initiatives.

Banks and asset managers often look to central banks for guidance on regulatory priorities. The Fed’s departure may prompt others to scale back useless climate commitments, putting an end to the unnecessary diversion of resources from immediate socioeconomic challenges.

Time for Global Central Banks to Begin the Exodus

For instance, Canada’s federal government has implemented a plethora of climate policies, leading to higher carbon taxes, more volatility in the energy sector, lower export income and an overall disastrous state of the economy. Aspiring to drive Canada towards more climate idiocy is Mark Carney, recently elected Canada’s prime minister by the ruling Liberal Party.

However, other Canadians have different thoughts. “Major banks across North America are leaving Mark Carney’s international net-zero banking scheme, but some Canadian banks remain members, says Rebecca Schulz, Alberta Minister of Environment and Protected Areas. “The remaining Canadian banks must abandon Carney’s net-zero banking alliance and invest in safe, affordable, reliable Canadian energy again.”

Global South has No Time to Waste

Even global entities that act as a financial bridge for development projects – like the World Bank, African Development Bank and Asian Development Bank – are deeply entrenched in the climate politics that deny billions of people potential access to affordable fossil fuels.
NGFS membership comes with expectations to adopt costly climate-related financial regulations. In the Global South, where millions still lack access to electricity or clean water, such priorities are utterly disconnected from reality.

More than 40% of the African populations – 600 million people – lack access to electricity. That translates to 20% of households with extreme food shortages and 30% of children suffering from acute malnutrition. Every day, 2 in 10,000 succumb to famine.

Nearly 4 million across the world – roughly the population of Los Angeles – die prematurely each year due to a lack of clean cooking fuels like natural gas. Many could be saved if financial institutions removed the red tape smothering investments in production of fossil fuels.

Hyperinflation, currency instability and unemployment are immediate threats that demand urgent attention in developing nations. Redirecting resources toward these issues would go much further in improving living standards than the obsession with wind turbines and solar panels to prevent a fabricated climate crisis.

When even the Federal Reserve of the U.S. – the biggest funder of the United Nations and World Bank – is opting out of a woke climate cabal, then the central banks of poorer countries have no business participating in NGFS’s wasting of time and money.

The developing world must seize this opportunity to advocate for their financial autonomy. Central banks in poorer nations should choose to prioritize the well-being of their populations and ensure that global financial governance reflects economic realities that demand an end to coercive climate policies.

This commentary was first published at RealClearMarkets on March 12, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, 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.

By Jo Nova

Isn’t it time we talk about The attempted Coup (and the media)?

In the two weeks since Elon Musk spoke to Joe Rogan for three hours, the media has ignored it,  trivialized it, or reduced it to “Elon tries to explain his Nazi salute”.  Here was the richest man in the world, best friends with the most powerful man on Earth and he’s talking without an autocue, walking through the underbelly of the US government and describing the “greatest scam in human history” and the media are discussing the weather.

Thanks to DOGE we now know that the US government spent $270 million on 6,200 journalists, which presumably buys a lot of “Nothing to see here”. Which is exactly why I feel an urge to pass this on.

What Musk describes is the ultimate pork barrelling

Instead of giving our tax dollars to buy votes in marginal seats, it looks like the Democrats were giving away the country, to buy voters to fill marginal states, so they could stay in power. By offering up free houses, free healthcare and free citizenship to non-citizens,  as Musk describes it, the Democrats (really, the whole Blob) hoped to gain enough permanent Democrat voters so they could win, not just one election, but every election. And of course, the houses, healthcare and lifestyle they were giving away was largely that of the working class. The elites would live on in their private estates, fly on their private planes and visit their private hospitals.

“It is an attempt to destroy Democracy in America… to make it a permanent one party state” — Elon Musk

At one point, Rogan mentions a whistleblower who claimed her job was to turn illegal immigrants into social security or disability “clients”. This hits a nerve with Musk, who gets animated, saying that entitlements fraud is the main reason the Democrat propaganda machine was “so fired up to destroy me”. The way he describes it, the thing they hate the most is that he is turning off the magnet drawing illegal immigrants in and keeping them there:

Entitlements fraud for illegal aliens…  like Social Security Disability Medicaid   … is what is serving as a gigantic magnetic force to pull people in from all around the world and keep them here.  Basically if you if you pay people at a standard of living that is above 90% of Earth then you have a very powerful incentive for 90% of Earth to come here and to stay here. But if you end the illegal alien fraud, then you that you turn off that magnet, and they leave, and they they stop coming, …and the ones that are here — many of them will simply leave and if if that happens, they [the Democrats] will lose… a massive number of democratic voters and if it didn’t happen they would turn those people into voters.  — Elon Musk  [Edited for readability from the transcript]

He explains that it’s not just theoretical, it’s already happening. In New York state illegal aliens can already vote in state and city elections and something like 600,000 illegal aliens are registered to vote. Some of these are staying in expensive hotels which are being paid for by FEMA, a government agency.

Here’s Musk’s analysis (transcript lightly edited):

Musk: They’re buying voters. it’s like a giant voter-fraud scam. A lot of people have trouble believing this, but it’s not just real, it’s an attempt to destroy democracy in America.

If you take the seven swing states, often the margin of victory there is maybe 20,000 votes. If you put 200,000 illegals in there, they have an 80% likelihood of voting Democrat. It’s only a matter of time before they become citizens, and then those swing states will cease to be swing states — we’ll become a permanent, deep blue socialist state.

Rogan: That was the game plan?

Musk: That’s still the game plan. They almost succeeded. If, if, the machine of the Kamala Puppet had won, it would have happened within four years. They would win the Presidency, the House, the Senate. They would create States out of Washington DC and Puerto Rico to achieve four extra Senators, and a majority big enough to pack the Supreme Court.

And then they would keep importing more illegals to cement that outcome. Basically, the same as already happened in California.

It would be the end: an obvious fork in the road. That’s why I went so hardcore for Trump. And that’s why the Democrat machine is so intent on destroying me. And they probably would institute some central bank digital currency and some social credit score system. And censorship, of course.

They’ve been doing this for years in California:

Musk: Yes. The Democrats were doing this under the guise that they’re the kind, compassionate, progressive people. But it’s just about hijacking power for money and control.

California is now a super-majority [60–19 in the 80-seat Assembly]. California  last year made healthcare free for illegals. Obviously, that’s a gigantic magnet for more illegals. If you’re anywhere on earth and you need any operation at all, come to California and have it free.

The tax burden for healthcare for illegals was supposed to be $3 billion. They now estimate $9 billion. That number will scale to infinity.

Read it all The World According to Elon Musk. Or watch the interview below: The parts described above start at 1:04 or so.

We note the Blob didn’t offer free citizenship to just any foreigner — they didn’t seem to want gun-loving Australians or British asylum seekers who wrote offensive words on facebook. The foreigners the Democrats wanted were apparently the people desperate enough to walk through Mexico. What they were aiming at, presumably, were not productive citizens, but welfare cases. Dependent people are more likely to vote to live in a big socialist state.

The Blob clothes itself in compassion and kindness when it talks about immigration, but there is nothing compassionate about selling out the blood sweat and tears of your fellow  citizens, putting their health, wealth and homes at risk, just so you can keep your own career and castle.

And if the Blob cared so much about Africa or Ecuador they could always try to help them in their own countries — keeping families and culture intact and all. We note that billions in USAID funding largely ended with barely any protests from the Third World and nothing to show for it? It’s almost like nearly all the foreign aid money was spent to serve The Blob and their friends, and not the poor. Where is that outrage?

… https://ift.tt/gi8Hh0t