Over recent months, a few Cliscep articles have discussed AI, the most recent being Jit’s piece yesterda. I had just finished reading it when Jaime Jessop commented on one of my old articles, to the effect that “The weather models are predicting some pretty severe cold for northern Europe and north America in the next 7-10 days.” Feeling a little mischievous, and thinking about AI, I decided to ask it “How does the start to 2026 rank in terms of recent cold starts to a year?” A simple factual question, calling for a simple factual answer, but although the facts were forthcoming, AI (or those who programme it) felt the need to ensure that I didn’t get the wrong impression, and thus it reminded me about the ongoing effects of climate change. Here is its answer:
The start of 2026 has been characterized by significant regional cold extremes, notably in Europe, despite being part of a larger trend that is forecast to make 2026 one of the four warmest years on record globally.
Regional Cold Rankings
- Europe: Parts of the continent experienced an unprecedented cold wave in early January 2026. Northern regions in Sweden recorded temperatures as low as -44°C, some of the lowest ever for those areas.
- Switzerland: Zurich recorded its coldest morning since January 2021, with temperatures dropping to -14.9°C on the night of Epiphany (January 6).
- United Kingdom: Reading recorded a “very cold start” to 2026, a sharp contrast to 2025 being its second-warmest year on record.
- North America: A major Polar Vortex disruptionin mid-January 2026 began unleashing the coldest air of the season across the United States and Canada, expected to persist into early February.
- Global Context and Projections
- While these regional events are severe, they are occurring against a background of high global temperatures:
- Global Average: The average global temperature for 2026 is forecast to be 1.46°C above pre-industrial levels, likely ranking as the fourth warmest year since 1850.
- Historical Sequence:2026 is expected to be the fourth consecutive year where global temperatures exceed the 1.4°C threshold.
- Cooling Influences: A weak La Niña early in 2026 is providing a modest cooling effect compared to the record-breaking warmth of 2024, but it has not been enough to offset the long-term warming trend.
I didn’t ask it for global context or projections, so why did it supply them?
Moving on, I started reading an article in the Guardian headed “Australia’s koala paradox: why is the beloved marsupial endangered in parts but overabundant in others?”. This piqued my interest, as I have been to Australia, and I had the delightful experience of seeing koala bears in the wild. I have also read articles suggesting that land clearance for renewable energy is leading to koala bear deaths. I don’t know the extent to which – if at all – these claims are true, but I wondered about it again when I read this in the Guardian article:
Analysis has shown that nearly 2m hectares of forests suitable for koalas have been destroyed since the marsupial was declared a threatened species in 2011. Most of the clearing – 81% – occurred in Queensland.
I wondered how much of this land clearance was associated with renewable energy developments, and so I asked AI. I referenced the Guardian article and the paragraph I cited above, then asked a simple factual question:
How much of that clearing was for wind and solar farms?
The answer AI came up with was very coy, almost a non-answer. Here it is:
Based on the April 2025 analysis, wind and solar farms represent a very small fraction of the total koala habitat cleared since 2011. You can find more information in the Guardian article.
Somewhat irked by this, I became a little more forceful, telling it:
I have read the Guardian article. I was asking you to provide me with factual information. How many acres of land have been cleared in Australia to build wind and solar farms, and how has that impacted on koala bears?
It was still reluctant to tell me anything negative about renewable energy, and tried to play things down:
Since 2011, renewable energy projects (wind and solar) have been a growing but relatively small contributor to total land clearing in Australia compared to mining and agriculture.
But then it took a deep breath and actually deigned to offer me an answer to my simple factual question:
Land Cleared for Wind and Solar Farms
Between 2012 and 2024, approximately 6,824 hectares(~16,860 acres) of koala habitat were approved for clearing specifically for renewable energy projects, including wind, solar, and battery sites.
- Proportional Impact: This represents roughly 20% of all federally approved koala habitat clearing during that period.
- Future Trends: While historically lower than other sectors, the impact is rising. Current proposals under assessment could see renewables become responsible for up to 42% of future approved habitat loss, potentially clearing an additional 13,888 hectares(~34,300 acres).
- Queensland Concentration:About 89% of the renewable-related habitat clearing approved to date has occurred in Queensland.
Comparison with Other Industries
For context, the 2 million hectares mentioned in the Guardian article covers total clearing from all causes. Within the specific category of federally approved clearing:
- Mining: Responsible for approximately 50% of total approved habitat loss (roughly 15,160 hectares).
- Agriculture and Logging: These remain the primary drivers of total land clearing (the 2 million hectare figure), though they are often exempt from the same federal approval processes that track specific “renewable” or “mining” impacts.
Impact on Koalas
The clearing for wind and solar farms affects koalas through:
- Habitat Fragmentation: Large-scale wind projects require wide access roads (sometimes up to 125 meters wide) to transport turbine blades, which fragments remnant forests and isolates koala populations.
- Displacement and Stress: In specific zones like the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, hundreds of hectares of habitat loss have displaced local populations, reducing access to food and shelter.
- Direct Mortality: Construction activities and increased road traffic in previously remote forest areas pose a direct risk of injury or death to local wildlife.
Having obtained a level of honesty from AI about the problems of habitat clearance for wind farms, I decided to conclude our little chat by asking another question:
Are greater gliders adversely affected by renewables developments?
It seemed to have got over its nervousness, and decided to be much more forthcoming at the first time of asking:
Yes, greater gliders are adversely affected by renewable energy developments, particularly large-scale wind farms in Queensland. While these projects aim to reduce carbon emissions, their physical footprint in high-biodiversity areas has drawn significant concern from ecologists.
The primary impacts include:
1. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
- Destruction of Old-Growth Trees: Greater gliders depend on mature trees with hollows for nesting, which can take over 100 years to form. Wind farm construction often requires clearing these trees for turbine foundations and wide access roads.
- Specific Examples:
Lotus Creek Wind Farm
- Stony Creek Wind Farm : Approval was granted despite ecological reports stating that clearing 179.2 hectares of foraging habitat would have a “significant impact” on the species.
- Gawara Baya (formerly Chalumbin) : Involves the removal of approximately 581 hectares of northern greater glider habitat.
2. Displacement and Connectivity Issues
- Fragmentation: Because greater gliders are sensitive to forest gaps, the wide roads needed to transport turbine blades can act as barriers, isolating populations and making them more vulnerable to predators when they are forced to traverse open ground.
Avoidance Behavior: A December 2023 study indicated that up to 67% of mammals may be displaced by wind farms, moving as far as 1 kilometer away from the infrastructure.
3. Secondary Physical Risks
- Collision and Barotrauma: While most turbine-related deaths involve birds and bats, the increasing height of modern turbines (up to 275 meters) introduces unknown risks to high-altitude gliding marsupials through direct strikes or pressure changes (barotrauma) near the blades.
- Noise and Vibration: Operations can generate noise and electromagnetic fields that may disrupt the behavior of these sensitive nocturnal animals.
Context of Global Impact
Conservationists note a “green paradox” where projects intended to solve the climate crisis are being cited as contributors to the local extinction of species like the greater glider. If all currently proposed renewable projects in Queensland are approved, an estimated 6,744 hectares(~16,660 acres) of greater glider habitat could be lost.
There. That wasn’t so difficult, was it?
Climate Scepticism 
“How does the start to 2026 rank in terms of recent cold starts to a year?”
I tested Grok with “How does the first 19-day period of 2026 rank in terms of recent cold starts to a year?”
It ‘knows’ I’m in the UK. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its tailored response! 😀
“The first 19 days of January 2026 have delivered a notably cold start to the year across the UK, driven by an Arctic airmass that brought widespread frost, snow (especially in northern Scotland), hail showers, and some extreme low temperatures.Key highlights from the period include:Record or near-record overnight lows in early January, such as -12.5°C at Marham (Norfolk) around January 6-7 — unusually cold for lowland southern/central England.
Prolonged cold with daytime highs often struggling near or below freezing in many areas during the first week or so.
Significant snow accumulations in northern Scotland (up to half a metre in places).
This led to widespread descriptions of it as a “wintry” and “cold” opening to 2026, with warnings for snow and ice persisting into mid-month.
How it ranks among recent cold startsThe period ranks as one of the coldest starts to a year in recent times, particularly when looking at the opening days/weeks of January:The coldest first half of January (1-16) since 2010 (a year known for severe cold outbreaks), according to detailed weather records and analysis from sources like Weather Diary.
The coldest start to a New Year (late December into early January, e.g., 31 Dec – 6 Jan) since 2010 in the Central England Temperature (CET) series, with notably low mean minima.
The first week of January was exceptionally cold in places like London Heathrow, with an average of just 1°C (about 4.5°C below the 1991-2020 norm) — again the coldest opening week since 2010.
For context, recent years have often seen milder or more unsettled New Year periods, with fewer widespread cold snaps of this duration and intensity. The 2026 event stands out for its early arrival, severity (including rare southern England lows), and wintry impacts, though it eased somewhat by mid-month with milder Atlantic air taking over temporarily (bringing temperatures closer to average around January 19).Overall, while not breaking all-time historical records (e.g., compared to extreme events like the 1960s or 1980s), the first 19 days of 2026 rank among the top few coldest January starts in the last 15-20 years — most directly comparable to the notable cold outbreaks of 2010. By late January, forecasts suggested potential for another cold push, but the early-month chill has already made this a memorable “cold start” to the year.”
https://x.com/i/grok/share/f55ad767fdfa4f36a917db54d72fa248
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Joe,
That’s very interesting. Grok might have its problems, but it seems to be less politically correct than ChatGPT!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I used slightly different wording to your Q, in case you too used Grok and it might have ‘remembered’ your precise words.
LikeLike
Good idea, Joe – but no, I just used the first version of AI that was to hand, knowing it’s the one that is probably used by most people. I was interested to see how it would steer the “conversation”, and sure enough it steered it towards preaching about climate change and making the case for renewables until I got a bit shirty with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve tried asking GPT AI some simple (if a bit obscure) historical questions like …
Q: When was the first road vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine ?
[ Real answer = 1807 Francois Isaac de Rivaz (powered by Hydrogen) ]https://www.automostory.com/first-hydrogen-car.htm
Q: Where & when was the first steam-driven fare-paying passenger train ?
[ Real answer = London 1808, Trevithick’s ‘Catch me Who Can’ ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_Me_Who_Can
Q: When was the first incandescent light bulb (filament in a glass envelope) demonstrated, where & by who ?
[ Real answer = July 1835, Dundee, James Bowman Lindsay ]https://www.dundeeculture.com/post/it-s-been-190-years-since-the-first-public-electric-light-bulb-was-demonstrated-in-dundee
Simple questions, easily available answers that AI can’t find.
100% Fail.
It can’t even read Wikipedia.!! (I’m not saying that wiki info is always kosher either)
Use AI at your peril.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“(ChatGPT) … sure enough it steered it towards preaching about climate change and making the case for renewables until I got a bit shirty with it.”
Depending on how questions are phrased to it, Grok also tends to do that. Even when specifically instructed to “Provide a one-word answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ “, it likes to provide a full sermon. With patience and practice, it’s possible to get it to contradict itself!
LikeLike
Mark, this is very interesting. I asked ChatGPT a similar question and, like you, as well as a perfectly adequate answer, got some uncalled for additional comment. So I posed this follow-up question:
‘Why did you initially decide to put recent weather into the longer-term historical context and therefore thought it necessary to advise me about the overall trend of UK temperatures? I didn’t request this and I suggest it’s rather concerning that AI should try to take control and shift the emphasis of what was expected to be a straightforward factual exchange.‘
I got a long answer. Here’s some of it:
Not satisfied with that, I asked this:
‘An interesting answer. But I find it rather worrying: surely, if someone asks AI a simple unambiguous question, it should provide a plain unalloyed response – especially on a controversial topic?‘
This time I got an even longer reply. I won’t bore you with it here – unless you specifically ask me to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Equally fascinating, Robin. Thank you. I am very happy for you to post the even longer reply, if you would like to do so.
LikeLike
1saveenergy: You don’t ask AI pub quiz questions; you have to coax him/her with a collaborative approach.
For example I asked “The identity of the original inventors of everyday items can often be contentious. What can you tell me about the earliest developments of what we now call incandescent light bulbs?”
And here is what I got back:
The story of the incandescent light bulb is a perfect example of how invention is rarely a single moment of genius and far more often a long, branching evolution. The search results paint a picture of decades of experimentation, competing claims, and incremental breakthroughs — exactly the kind of contested lineage you’re interested in.
🔥 Before “light bulbs”: early electric incandescence
💡 Moving toward the true incandescent bulb
The key challenge was always the same:
How do you heat a filament until it glows without it burning up?
This required:
Throughout the mid‑19th century, inventors chipped away at these problems.
Notable pre‑Edison/Swan developments
These inventors solved pieces of the puzzle but didn’t yet produce a long‑lasting, commercially viable lamp.
🌟 The Edison–Swan era (where the story gets contentious)
Eventually, the two merged their interests in Britain into the Ediswan company.
🧪 Why Edison is remembered (fairly or not)
Edison didn’t invent the idea of the incandescent bulb.
What he did do was:
In other words, he turned a scientific curiosity into a commercial ecosystem……..
LikeLike