Rare Snow Blankets Canary Islands; Winter Storm Slams U.S.; Rapid Cooling In Antarctica; Go Nuclear Or Shut-up; + Study Challenges Pre-Industrial 280 ppm CO2 Assumptions

Cap Allon

Rare Snow Blankets Canary Islands

The Canary Islands, a Spanish owned chain off Africa’s northwest coast, have been hit with a rare blast of snow.

Mount Teide in Tenerife was transformed this week, with the typically sun-drenched volcano standing blanketed in snow.


Temperatures have tanked across the islands, with Spain’s national weather agency, Aemet, issuing rare snow warnings for Tenerife and La Palma. Authorities even closed access to Teide National Park due to icy roads and snow, another rare occurrence.


Forecasters predict calmer conditions Wednesday, though the cold will remain.


Winter Storm Slams U.S.

This week, a powerful winter storm is unleashing strong winds, heavy March snow, and brutal cold from the Rockies to the Midwest. Wind chills are biting, travel treacherous, and power outages widespread.

[https://poweroutage.us]


Heavy snow and 60+ mph winds are battering the likes of Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Visibility is near zero, roads impassable, and power lines down. The Palmer Divide and eastern Colorado face towering drifts, while Denver is seeing a rain-snow mix turning icy.

The storm swept the Plains Tuesday, dumping over a foot of snow in some areas.

Chicago and Milwaukee could see record-low pressure for March as the storm intensifies Wednesday, and snowfall rates are forecast to top an inch per hour in the Midwest, snarling travel. The storm is now pushing east into the Northeast. The likes of interior New York and New England facing treacherous conditions, with post-frontal winds keeping the cold locked in.

Many should expect blizzards, freezing temps, and/or dangerous winds over the next few days. Wind chills are dangerously low in the north. Stay off the roads, is the official advice in affected regions, and bundle up — winter isn’t done yet.

GFS Total Snowfall (inches) Mar 5 – 21 [tropicaltidbits.com]


Rapid Cooling In Antarctica

Antarctica is experiencing a significant temperature drop with minimums plunging to anomalous lows for the time of year.

Concordia logged -61.6C (-78.9F) on March 4, with Vostok dropping even further to -62.3C (-80.1F). Dome Fuji AWS also registered a sub -60C low, coming in at -61.C (-77.8F).

March 4 also marked the first day of the year where maximum temperatures remained below -50C (-58F). Vostok posted a high of just -51.6C (-60.9F) — an extreme anomaly.


Antarctica’s March cooling is stark, and it continues the intensifying trend of the past few years.


Go Nuclear Or Shut-up

If climate alarmists were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions while maintaining reliable energy, nuclear power would be the answer. As per the data, it’s the safest, cleanest, most efficient, and least land-intensive energy source going.


The Case For Nuclear

1) Nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced—lower than coal, oil, biomass, natural gas, and even wind and solar.

2) Nuclear emits just 6 tons of CO2 per gigawatt-hour (GWh), compared to coal (970 tons), oil (720 tons), and natural gas (440 tons). Even solar and wind have higher emissions over their lifecycle than nuclear.

3) A single 10-gram uranium fuel pellet produces as much energy as 1 ton of coal, 120 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

4) Nuclear plants operate at full power 93% of the time, outperforming solar (23%) and wind (33%).

5) A 1,000 MW nuclear plant occupies just over 1 square mile and can power 775,000 homes. To match that output a solar farm would require 6,000 acres but only power 193,000 homes; a wind farm 32,000 acres to power 277,000 homes. Wind and solar not only take up vastly more space but also require battery storage due to their intermittency, further increasing land and resource demands.

Nuclear energy offers the ONLY reliable, scalable, and ‘environmentally responsible’ path to clean energy, if that’s your goal. Wind and solar, while good for small, off-grid solutions, cannot match nuclear’s efficiency, reliability, and land conservation benefits.


Study Challenges Pre-Industrial 280 ppm CO2 Assumptions

For decades now, scientists have insisted that before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s atmosphere contained just 280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2). This figure has been treated as an unquestionable baseline, forming the foundation of claims that human activity alone is responsible for rising CO2 levels today. But independent researcher Dai Ato claims this assumption is deeply flawed, arguing that the so-called “evidence” underpinning it is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright methodological failures.

The primary basis for the 280 ppm claim comes from Antarctic ice cores, where tiny air bubbles trapped in ancient ice are assumed to provide an accurate record of past atmospheric conditions. Yet, Ato’s study reveals glaring issues in this reconstruction. Ice core data is frequently “adjusted,” with gas ages shifted forward to align with modern CO2 trends, he says.

The data itself is incomplete, showing abrupt and inexplicable CO2 spikes and drops before 1950 that defy any logical connection to human emissions. If these figures were accurate, they would indicate natural CO2 absorption and release processes so extreme that they would completely invalidate the idea that human emissions are the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 levels.

Adding to the problem, historical chemical measurements and plant-based reconstructions suggest that past CO2 levels may have been significantly higher than 280 ppm, contradicting the conveniently smoothed ice core data. Worse still, Ato exposes how climate models deliberately ignore natural CO2 fluctuations driven by ocean temperatures, volcanic activity, and other environmental factors.

Additionally, Ato details how ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica diverge dramatically, despite modern CO2 levels supposedly remaining similar across both poles. If today’s atmospheric CO2 is relatively uniform worldwide, why would past CO2 levels differ so drastically between ice cores?

Ato’s analysis uses multiple regression models to test whether human emissions have any measurable impact on atmospheric CO2. His results? No significant correlation. Instead, sea surface temperatures (SST) alone explain CO2 fluctuations. This aligns with basic physics—warmer oceans release more CO2, cooler oceans absorb it. Climate models that ignore this fundamental reality are not just misleading but fundamentally broken. They are junk.

The study argues that human emissions are not the dominant force behind rising CO2 levels. If the 280 ppm assumption is indeed a fabrication propped up by flawed ice core reconstructions, then the entire AGW theory must be re-examined. Natural processes govern CO2 fluctuations far more than human activity, is Alto’s key point, and the refusal by establishment scientists to even look into this as a possibility exposes the modern climate narrative as dogma-driven storytelling, not science.

For a full read of the study, click here.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterRepost on X
Please help keep Electroverse online, consider becoming a Patreon.
Become a patron at Patreon!