July 14, 2026

~90% chance of a record-setting El Nino

The Strongest El Niño Ever

According to Dr. Zeke Hausfather, one of the world's leading climate scientists, based on the data we have so far and the analysis of that data by some 667 scientists evaluating global temperatures through some 14 different forecast models, not only is this year's El Niño likely to be the strongest ever recorded, it may even be the strongest by a truly "mind-blowing margins."

After all the scientists submit their models' estimates for what may happen during this year's El Niño event, the "multi-model" median stands at 3.6C, which is roughly 0.8C hotter than the prior world record of 2.75C. Previously, the largest jump up was only 0.5C.  Thus, the models are, collectively, predicting weather outside of the bounds of anything previously ever observed with global temperatures. Which means that we are headed into entirely unknown territory as a planet, that even the scientists who have been watching the global temperature trends worsening for years and decade, have never seen in their lives.

What Dr. Hausfather finds remarkable is not just the magnitude of the projected heat level but also the trajectory of how quickly it is developing.  What scientists are seeing in how 2026 global temperatures are progressing, as we enter the northern hemisphere's summer months, is that there is an explosive El Niño onset happening. As unusual as the present trajectory is towards El Niño intensity, in fact the 14 different models have unusually strong model prediction agreement. Given this, the models yield a ~91% chance of a record peak in the El Niño that make it highly likely to be the strongest El Niño ever observed.

This is all still a prediction but the patterns reported by the model are extremely disturbing and the signature of a climate pattern that is not good for humanity or the planet. We definitely need to be more organized around marshalling our response and preparing for a world with record high heat that impacts not just air temperature but also ocean warming.  We can't respond fast enough to this threat and we are clearly going to miss the world's ambition to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030.  But, even with our abject failure to meet our 2030 goals, the good news is that we might be able to meet our 2050 goals, if we can continue our current commercialization progress for next-generation nuclear, that can compete and win against fossil fuels.


References:

The Climate Brink, The Strongest El Niño Ever, by Dr. Zeke Hausfather, July 13, 2026.

July 10, 2025

Indiana Aims to Lead on Nuclear with New SMR Pilot Program ()

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun has signed six pro-nuclear bills, including legislation to launch an SMR pilot program – marking a major pivot for a state with no existing nuclear plants...

July 7, 2025

CORE POWER Forms Consortium to Explore Floating Nuclear in Mediterranean ()

CORE POWER has joined ABS and Athlos Energy to form a new consortium studying floating nuclear power solutions for Mediterranean ports, islands, and coastal communities...

July 7, 2025

Radiant Selected by U.S. Department of Energy to Lead First Microreactor Test at DOME ()

Radiant, a Nucleation portfolio company, has been selected by the US Department of Energy to lead the first microreactor test at INL’s new DOME facility — a key step toward U.S. microreactor deployment.

May 25, 2025

Climate anomalies, ecologic disasters and climate uncertainties: All point to climate being worse than projected

Forest fires

Climate tipping effects may be kicking in

Forest loss graphFor those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.

Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.

Hansen chart 1

Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)

This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?  In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.

These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.

Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.

Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:

Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO2 to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.

Climate modelsWhether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by  tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.

According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years.  We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover.  The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory.  Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO2 impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.

Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."


References:

BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela

Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.

March 17, 2025

Blue Energy

Blue Energy – An innovative, early-stage, Massachusetts-based nuclear plant designer and integrator, working to develop a novel, off-shore methodology to deploy licensed small modular light water reactors (SMRs) at scale using monopiles and other mature, off-the-shelf wind turbine deployment techniques. 

February 28, 2025

Ida Noddack

Ida Noddack (1895 - 1978) was a German chemist who overcame obstacles including sexism and restrictive provisions under the Nazi regime preventing women from entering professions and engaging in academic research, to make a meaningful contributions to nuclear science. Together with Walter Noddack, her husband, and Otto Berg she co-discovered element 75, Rhenium. Ndaddack also proposed the idea of fission of an element, before anybody else envisioned it.

Ida Noddack (née Tacke), was born in Lackhausen in the Northern Rhine region. She loved science, but did not want to be stuck teaching, which was considered a woman’s job. Instead, she decided to study chemistry and then work in the chemical industry. Her father who owned a small varnish factory supported her choice.

She was one of very few women (3%) to graduate with a degree in chemistry and chemical and metallurgical engineering from the Technical University of Berlin in 1915. Her first job was in the chemistry laboratory of the Berlin’s turbine factory of AEG, a company affiliated with General Electric in the USA.

In 1924, Ida resigned from her job and instead started working full-time as an unpaid collaborator at the University of Berlin’s Physical Chemistry Department, helping Walter’s research to search for the missing elements of the Periodic Table. In 1926 Walter Noddack and Ida Tacke got married.

In 1925, she co-published a paper about the discovery of two new elements: Rhenium (75) and Masurium (43). While Rhenium was confirmed, the “Masurium” discovery was not accepted since their equipment sensitivity was too poor to separate it chemically. The name “Rhenium” came from the name of the region she came from (Rhine region). Finally, in 1937, “Masurium” was produced in a nuclear reaction Carlo Perrier and Emilio Segrè and renamed “Technetium.”

In 1929, Walter and Ida were granted a German patent for the Rhenium coating of lamp filaments, and a British patent for the use of Rhenium as a catalyst for oxidation processes. During 1931 and 1932 they secured three patents in the USA for, respectively: filaments for incandescent lamps and vacuum tubes, Rhenium concentrates, and the use of metallic Rhenium as an electric glower for incandescent lamps.

With the onset of the great depression, in 1932, a new law forced married women to leave their jobs and to make them available for men. Luckily, Noddack was able to continue her research because she was an “unpaid collaborator.”

In 1934 Fermi investigated uranium being bombarded with neutrons. He claimed the evidence of new transuranic elements. On the contrary, Ida published a paper “On Element 93” questioning the chemistry of this experiment and suggesting the possibility of fission process way before it was later correctly identified and confirmed by Otto Hahn and Lisa Meitner as nuclear fission.

Ida Noddack faced many professional obstacles because of her scientific nonconformity and gender, the resentment of physicists against intrusion in their field, and the overall difficulty of research under and after the Nazi regime, still she was able to persist.

Ida and her husband were nominated three times for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The two of them were also awarded the German Chemical Society’s prestigious Liebig Medal in 1931. In 1934, they received the Scheele Medal of the Swedish Chemical Society as well as the German patent for rhenium concentrate.

In 1968 Ida retired from her scientific work. She died in 1978 in Bad Neuenahr in Germany at the age of 84.

_____________________

Source: "Women in Nuclear History", Series #11 - Ida Noddack - co-discoverer of Rhenium and fission visionary, by Jagoda Urban-Klaehn, February 2, 2025. Originally published: on Facebook.

— Return to Women in Nuclear page —

© 2026 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

linkedin, for social media footer
X-logo, for social media footer
Nucleation transparent