Lightfoot and Ratzer have a recent, peer-reviewed paper about the Hunga Tonga submarine volcanic explosion. https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2607
This paper attributes the explosion as the cause of a 3-year global surface temperature spike. The peak recorded global temperature was confirmed by the UAH GSAT (Global Surface Average Temperature), and the NOAA satellite data on the increase in stratospheric water vapour. The peak in April 2024 was 1.96 °C above pre-industrial, well above the IPCC and Paris Accord goal of 1.5 °C. There were no tipping points or crises associated with this high temperature. The Earth has been in a cooling period for 18 months! Please read the paper and use it in your legal arguments as you deem useful.
Although there seems to be considerable confusion among governments and the general public, in understanding the difference between Carbon (a particulate) and Carbon Dioxide (a gas), if we overlook that confusion for a moment could the following have any validity?
Using the isotopes Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14, it is argued by some that plants take in less of the rather rare isotope Carbon-13 than the lighter isotope Carbon-12 which is heavily represented in coal and oil. Therefore, the argument goes that because there is much more of the isotope Carbon-12 in our atmosphere, its excessive presence must be because of human’s use of fossil fuels (composed primarily from plants) and inversely not a mineral from volcanoes.
Does such an argument have any validity in determining how much of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic?
The adiabatic lapse rate falsifies premise two. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is greater than the moist adiabatic lapse rate. So, as moisture is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more isothermal. This is the opposite of what GHT would predict.
As I wrote in part 3 of this post, “In my view, Trump’s attorney made good arguments to dismiss LvT.”
Here is the NBC news release: (My bolding)
BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from young climate activists seeking to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders promoting fossil fuels and discouraging renewable energy.
The activists said the orders would worsen global warming, threatening their lives and violating their constitutional rights.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and more than a dozen states had urged Judge Dana Christensen to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs included youths who were victorious in a landmark climate trial against the state of Montana. During a two-day hearing last month in Missoula, the activists and experts who testified on their behalf described Trump’s actions to boost drilling and mining and discourage renewable energy as a growing danger to children and the planet.
Christensen said in a 31-page order that the plaintiffs had shown “overwhelming evidence” that climate change was affecting them and will worsen as a result of Trump’s orders.
But the judge said their request to block Trump’s orders was an “unworkable request” that would have required scrutiny of every climate-related action taken since the Republican came into office.
Christensen said that instead of the courts, the plaintiffs must make their case “to the political branches or the electorate.”
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said the ruling marked a victory “not just for the Trump Administration, but for the American people who voted for President Trump to unleash America’s energy dominance, lower prices, and protect our national security.”
“President Trump saved our country from Joe Biden’s wildly unpopular Green Energy Scam and he will continue to ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL’,” Rogers added.
The 22 plaintiffs included youths and young adults from Montana and several other states.
Legal experts said the young activists and their lawyers from the environmental group Our Children’s Trust faced long odds.
The Montana state constitution declares that people have a “right to a clean and healthful environment.” That language is absent from the U.S. Constitution.
The activists will appeal Wednesday’s ruling, said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust.
“Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future,” Olson said. “The judge recognized that the government’s fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent.”
A previous federal climate lawsuit in Oregon from Our Children’s Trust went on for a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider their final appeal this year.
Christensen cited that case in concluding that the plaintiffs in Montana lacked standing to sue the government.
That is because they failed to demonstrate their request for judicial intervention was likely to fix their injuries through actions that are within the court’s power, the judge wrote.
“This Court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change,” Christensen wrote. “This concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
Only a few other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate.
Montana’s Supreme Court upheld the 2023 trial outcome last year, requiring officials to more closely analyze climate-warming emissions. To date, that has yielded few meaningful changes in a state dominated by Republicans.
Lightfoot and Ratzer have a recent, peer-reviewed paper about the Hunga Tonga submarine volcanic explosion.
https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2607
This paper attributes the explosion as the cause of a 3-year global surface temperature spike. The peak recorded global temperature was confirmed by the UAH GSAT (Global Surface Average Temperature), and the NOAA satellite data on the increase in stratospheric water vapour. The peak in April 2024 was 1.96 °C above pre-industrial, well above the IPCC and Paris Accord goal of 1.5 °C. There were no tipping points or crises associated with this high temperature. The Earth has been in a cooling period for 18 months! Please read the paper and use it in your legal arguments as you deem useful.
Enjoyed your article.
Although there seems to be considerable confusion among governments and the general public, in understanding the difference between Carbon (a particulate) and Carbon Dioxide (a gas), if we overlook that confusion for a moment could the following have any validity?
Using the isotopes Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14, it is argued by some that plants take in less of the rather rare isotope Carbon-13 than the lighter isotope Carbon-12 which is heavily represented in coal and oil. Therefore, the argument goes that because there is much more of the isotope Carbon-12 in our atmosphere, its excessive presence must be because of human’s use of fossil fuels (composed primarily from plants) and inversely not a mineral from volcanoes.
Does such an argument have any validity in determining how much of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic?
Dr. Ed,
The adiabatic lapse rate falsifies premise two. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is greater than the moist adiabatic lapse rate. So, as moisture is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more isothermal. This is the opposite of what GHT would predict.
Pingback: Montana's Climate Lawsuits: An In-Depth Analysis of Lawfare
Pingback: AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover Energy to Education to Elections — and more! – Dr. Rich Swier
Pingback: Energy & Environmental Review: September 29, 2025 - Master Resource
Judge dismisses young climate activists’ lawsuit challenging Trump on fossil fuels
by NBC Montana Staff
Wed, October 15th 2025 at 3:05 PM.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/judge-dismisses-young-climate-activists-lawsuit-challenging-trump-on-fossil-fuels
Thank you, Opaobie,
As I wrote in part 3 of this post, “In my view, Trump’s attorney made good arguments to dismiss LvT.”
Here is the NBC news release: (My bolding)
BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from young climate activists seeking to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders promoting fossil fuels and discouraging renewable energy.
The activists said the orders would worsen global warming, threatening their lives and violating their constitutional rights.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and more than a dozen states had urged Judge Dana Christensen to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs included youths who were victorious in a landmark climate trial against the state of Montana. During a two-day hearing last month in Missoula, the activists and experts who testified on their behalf described Trump’s actions to boost drilling and mining and discourage renewable energy as a growing danger to children and the planet.
Christensen said in a 31-page order that the plaintiffs had shown “overwhelming evidence” that climate change was affecting them and will worsen as a result of Trump’s orders.
But the judge said their request to block Trump’s orders was an “unworkable request” that would have required scrutiny of every climate-related action taken since the Republican came into office.
Christensen said that instead of the courts, the plaintiffs must make their case “to the political branches or the electorate.”
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said the ruling marked a victory “not just for the Trump Administration, but for the American people who voted for President Trump to unleash America’s energy dominance, lower prices, and protect our national security.”
“President Trump saved our country from Joe Biden’s wildly unpopular Green Energy Scam and he will continue to ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL’,” Rogers added.
The 22 plaintiffs included youths and young adults from Montana and several other states.
Legal experts said the young activists and their lawyers from the environmental group Our Children’s Trust faced long odds.
The Montana state constitution declares that people have a “right to a clean and healthful environment.” That language is absent from the U.S. Constitution.
The activists will appeal Wednesday’s ruling, said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust.
“Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future,” Olson said. “The judge recognized that the government’s fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent.”
A previous federal climate lawsuit in Oregon from Our Children’s Trust went on for a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider their final appeal this year.
Christensen cited that case in concluding that the plaintiffs in Montana lacked standing to sue the government.
That is because they failed to demonstrate their request for judicial intervention was likely to fix their injuries through actions that are within the court’s power, the judge wrote.
“This Court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change,” Christensen wrote. “This concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
Only a few other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate.
Montana’s Supreme Court upheld the 2023 trial outcome last year, requiring officials to more closely analyze climate-warming emissions. To date, that has yielded few meaningful changes in a state dominated by Republicans.