An interesting cluster of sunspots on 8/10/26…

These images show an interesting cluster of sunspots that were visible in white light on 8th October:

One of my friends asked, “What does that mean though?” That’s a fair question… and sometimes I forget that people don’t generally know these kinds of things!

Here’s my answer to that excellent question: “The Sun is a dynamic place, formed (mostly) from a plasma of electrons (negative charge) and protons (positive charge, hydrogen nuclei). These particles are constantly convecting (a bit like water in a saucepan) and their motions are affected by strong magnetic fields in the Sun.

Sunspots are areas where the magnetic field is pointing upwards, away from the surface, allowing us to see a little further inside. Temperature is a bit lower beneath the surface we usually see, so the sunspot areas look a bit darker by contrast.

Because the Sun is so dynamic, the numbers of sunspots is variable, depending on how the magnetic field lines are changing.

And that’s it… sunspots don’t indicate problems… they’re just natural phenomena in an extreme environment – and interesting to observe!”

Interestingly, another friend took a hydrogen-alpha image of the Sun at the same time, and it is rather unexciting. H-alpha emission mostly occurs just above the visible surface (the photosphere) in a region called the chromosphere – physical processes are different between the 2 regions, and images of them are generally different… just another example of how complex and fascinating the Sun is!

The New World On Mars – What We Can Create on the Red Planet – Robert Zubrin…

In the ‘New World On Mars’, Robert Zubrin lays out what is obviously a thought out programme for how Mars might be colonised by human beings.

The book considers both the physical demands for how to travel to Mars and then develop a stable colony utilising in situ materials as much as possible, and the social demands for creating stable Mars cities.

His reflections on how the Starship being created by Space-X could be used to (relatively) efficiently transport colonists and cargo to Mars at reasonable costs are well-explained. For the first time I felt that this Space-X project of Elon Musk’s wasn’t just a mad, vanity-driven escapade from a man with too much money and time on his hands. What I had missed was how scaleable the systems to build, launch, maintain and re-use the Starship spacecraft are, and how that re-usability could (again, at scale) include the refuelling and maintenance of Starships on Mars. All the while my thinking was locked into the one-off, high-cost approach previously taken by national government enterprises, I missed realising that Space-X were now doing something that could totally transform space travel.

Zubrin also discusses the extensive availability of mineral and water resources in a way that shows how, if done deliberately at scale, covered colonies (cities) could be created that are largely self-sufficient in terms of the basic needs for food, water, air and shelter from radiation.

In these terms, I agree with the cover quote from Michio Kaku that this book has set “… the gold standard for all future books about Mars.”

However, the programme laid out by Zubrin in this book also has some problems, which at times (as a European reader) irritated me immensely.

Firstly, he rightly calls out that insolation on the surface of Mars is less than that received on Earth. However, he says that “… sunlight is only 40 percent as strong on the Red Planet as it is on Earth” (p. 85). NASA, on the other hand, has said that “… the net average annual solar radiation incident upon Earth and Mars is 209 W/m² and 126 W/m²” (Design Of An Unmanned Martian Polar Exploration System – 1994, page 5.19). The NASA estimate is that Mars receives 60% of the surface insolation on Earth – ie it is 40% less, but 60% as strong.

Secondly, he relies intensely on the repeated idea that Mars colonists will principally power their systems via fusion reactors. These reactors do not currently exist in a functioning state that could be sent to Mars, and it is not yet clear if the technology can cross the threshold to becoming a mainstream power source. Zubrin then seems to rely on an argument that, since innovation will need to be very high on Mars or colonies (cities) will fail, the colonists will find ways to make this technology work out of extreme necessity. This seems like a flawed argument to me, and power constraints could be a much larger brake on Mars colonisation that Zubrin suggests.

Thirdly, he is fixated on reaching Mars using Space-X Starship style rockets. Other researchers are already blending that technology with ideas for a Space Elevator, that could transform the costs, cargo potential and transit times for journeys to Mars. Of course, the technology for a Space Elevator does not exist yet either, but that just puts it in the same camp as fusion reactors.

Fourthly, from a social perspective, in the latter chapters of the book devoted to ‘Social Customs on Mars’ and ‘Liberty on Mars’, Zubrin repeatedly asserts that the social customs adopted in the USA are the best model for a future Mars colony. His argument here seems to descend into a stereotypical “USA is best” approach, which feels pretty arrogant from a nation that is just around 240 years old.

Given recent events with the second Trump administration in the USA, Zubrin’s argument that the USA style of government will be best for Mars colonists now seems very suspect. Zubrin himself says that the USA approach includes ‘monarchical (the Presidency) elements’ and that ‘a monarchical element… can easily devolve into dictatorship unless watched over by a body sophisticated enough to know the political game’ – unless the world outside of the USA has got it wrong, this does seem to have happened, and therefore a different style of government will likely be needed on Mars.

So in summary, this is a good book that gave me a lot to think about. But it also has its flaws, and is not a boilerplate programme for achieving the colonisation of Mars. And there is more to the Earth than the USA.

Sunspots images with the Acuter Solarus 80 ‘scope…

Having made a first pass of my partial solar eclipse images from 12/8/26, I thought I’d take a look at how much detail in the visible sunspots had been captured using the Acuter Solarus 80 ‘scope and a digital phone camera – and I was impressed!

I’ve desaturated the colour, slightly boosted the contrast and then slightly sharpened the image.

With little work, this image is as good as I was previously achieving through eyepiece projection onto a sheet of card.

What’s better, the original image here was taken with the ‘scope at the lowest magnification using the pre-fitted zoom eyepiece set at x25 (16mm). I then set the phone camera to a digital zoom of about x2.5

Other users have said that the Solarus 80 also gives good images at x40 (10mm). A modest zoom on the phone camera should give an even better image than this one.

It might also be that a magnification of x80, with the eyepiece zoomed to its 5mm setting, could produce a good image without needing any magnification on the camera. However, a reviewer in Astronomy Now magazine (August ’26) said that this level of magnification on the ‘scope “… simply enlarged the image without revealing meaningful detail.“

Clearly, there are things to try out as I become used to getting the best that I can out of this solar scope, but early indications are very good.

Partial Solar Eclipse – 12/8/26…

The UK enjoyed a partial solar eclipse on 12/8/26. About 92% of the Sun was covered by the Moon, and it seemed liked 92% of all people had gone out to see it!

I chose to view the eclipse from the cliff tops at Minnis Bay, on the Isle of Thanet. This location has an unobscured view to the western horizon, with Reculver Towers in the distance as a scenic backdrop. I was very impressed by the very good-natured way that people were enjoying the eclipse together, with plenty of small parties happening all around me.

As an amateur astronomer, I was of course well-equipped to view and image the eclipse. In recent years I have been imaging the Sun via eyepiece projection from a small refractor. I was finding that method fiddly and time-consuming, and had just invested in a dedicated white-light solar telescope to improve the whole process (an Acuter Solarus 80 ‘scope). I only managed to capture 1 good image by my old method during the partial eclipse of 29/3/25, but for this eclipse I easily took 47 images, with much better quality.

Of course, nearby people could also watch how the eclipse was progressing on the phone camera I was using. I think this may have helped to save the sight of several people who were otherwise trying to watch it through a welder’s mask (despite all the media advice not to do that). I almost missed First Contact while talking to people, so my first image of that is blurry, as I made sure to at least get something!

Here is a montage of some of the images that I took – the blue colour comes from a filter I was using for comfort on my eyes and contrast:

Montage of images from the 12/8/26 partial solar eclipse in the UK
(c) Lee Russell, 2026 – all rights reserved

Wherever you were, I hope you also got to see the eclipse!

The Use of AI / LLMs in Creative Writing…

OK, I admit it… I got lazy.

I wanted to quickly finish some non-fiction work, so I could move on to new, more exciting projects…

“The Edge of Gamification” by Steve Jurvetson on Flickr.com – CC BY 2.0

… I’d already discovered the efficiency of asking ChatGPT research questions, rather than searching in the traditional way and then wading through pages for the information I now wanted.

It was such a simple step, on a slippery slope, to see if the tool could then draft articles from those questions?

The answer was ‘yes’, and it speeded up my workflow by at least 50%. Instead of researching, collating, drafting and editing… I found I could move straight to editing.

Or so I thought.

The reality is that using ChatGPT in that way was making me creatively lazy.

Like a marathon runner in the closing miles of a race, I suddenly hit a creative wall when I found a topic that Chat-GPT could not write about… counter-surveillance. My story had a strong historical base, being set during the Cold War in East Germany, where surveillance was rife, and the BRIXMIS teams (I’ll let you look that up) used a whole raft of documented, factual, counter-surveillance techniques to evade the Stasi. Depsite the factual evidence that ChatGPT knew about, it was forbidden to write about those techniques.

I almost had a sweat for a moment, when I realised I’d have to do the work and write this story all by myself.

And then the revelation – what had using ChatGPT as a research tool done to me?

It had certainly made me lazy.

More subtly, I think using it was re-wiring my creative brain towards editing instead of creating.

Now I’ve noticed that, I’ve immediately stopped using ChatGPT to generate drafts. I still use it to research topics, but the creative energy is back where it belongs… in my head. I immediately feel much more connected to my work, and I’m getting a lot more enjoyment from it.

What about you? Are you over-using these new “AI” tools?

I can reassure you that there is life after GPT, and it feels every bit as good as it used to!

The “Fractured Europe” series by Dave Hutchinson…

Between 2014 to 2016, Dave Hutchinson published 3 books in his “Fractured Europe” series of science fiction novels. A fourth book was later published in 2018, and then a fifth in 2022.

Europe in Autumn (2014)
Europe at Midnight (2015)
Europe in Winter (Nov 2016)
Europe at Dawn (Nov 2018)
Cold Water (2022)

I have only read “Europe in Winter” but enjoyed it so much that I had to talk about it on my blog. Unfortunately, life is short and my to-be-read list is very long, so I won’t be reading the other books in the series.

From some background reading on the internet, Hutchinson uses the first 3 novels to show a near-future Europe that has been shattered by economic collapse, pandemic and political fragmentation.

The continent has splintered into hundreds of tiny states, city-states and micronations, all separated by heavily policed borders. Movement, especially of information, has become a valuable commodity.

The trilogy story follows spies, smugglers, intelligence operatives and couriers, especially those connected with the clandestine Les Coureurs des Bois, as they navigate this labyrinth of shifting allegiances, espionage and intrigue. This fractured political landscape is neither entirely accidental nor entirely understood by the people living within it.

Across the trilogy, the focus broadens from espionage to a deeper mystery about how history, geography and even reality have been subtly manipulated by hidden forces operating across different timelines and versions of Europe. Who is reshapign Europe, and why? Can competing visions of Europe’s future coexist?

“Europe in Winter” follows a new cast of characters who are drawn into a series of investigations spanning Europe’s maze of microstates. What initially appear to be unrelated incidents gradually reveal links to the secretive ‘Community’, an organisation that has long manipulated events behind the scenes. Couriers and intelligence networks remain essential because fragmented Europe still depends on people who can cross borders and carry information.

The existence of multiple, subtly different Europes, all connected through hidden routes is revealed. The Community has been exploiting these parallel worlds for decades, moving people, resources and even entire political projects between them while concealing the truth from almost everyone. The connection between Europe’s fragmentation and these interwoven realities is slowly revealed, showing how rival factions within the Community have competing plans for Europe’s future.

In the climax, the conspiracy begins to unravel as the hidden network is exposed and its control over events weakens. Rather than restoring Europe to its former political unity, no single version of Europe seems destined to prevail. The surviving characters emerge into a future where the existence of multiple Europes is increasingly difficult to suppress, bringing the trilogy to a close by resolving its central conspiracy while leaving the long-term consequences open to interpretation.

So much for the plot. What I loved about “Europe in Winter” was the shape of the characters that Hutchinson draws for us. Shaped by circumstances and regional differences, just about staying on the right side of fun instead of cliché, they are believable with excellent individual voices and sense of place.

Not having read the first 2 books in the series did not stop me from enjoying “Europe in Winter”, with some genuine laugh out loud moments (in a good way) and a thirst to see how it would all wrap up.

Recommended.

The Tensions Between Capitalism and Social Good in the Provision of Internet Services…

I have happy memories of enjoying using the internet with 33.6k and then “fast” 56k dial-up modems in the late 1990s. Pages took a short moment to load, especially if they were image-heavy. But as my interests were largely centred on science news, I was well prepared to wait a moment for the latest updates.

It was amazing that so much information was available for free, from experts who were willing to share their knowledge with anyone who was interested in their topics. The internet was like a vast, inclusive, knowledge-growing library… ready to answer any questions that I wanted to throw at it.

And then, at some point that I can’t quite put my finger on, the whole experience started to degrade.

The first online advert appeared in a webpage banner on Hotwired magazine in 1994. The click-through rate was great, and the flood gates had opened to the degrading effects of capitalism on the internet.

Today, it is very difficult to use the internet without being subjected to online advertising, that is often intrusive to your experience, driven by degrees of tracking and categorisation of your “interests” that in the worst instances expose your intimate details to commerce, criminals and human rights abuses in less-democratic States.

The days of the all-including, global knowledge library are over… corrupted by tech oligarchs driven by profit, not social good.

Yet the internet has now become a necessity in developed nations, as organisations force their “customers” onto their digital platforms instead of paying staff to support them. In some cases these changes are transformative and bring real benefits to people. But too often the services are badly configured, on poor architecture, subject to the whims and headwinds of change in the tech oligarchs’ centralised services, all the while creating massive data-breach risks that expose millions to criminal activity. And in the meantime, many organisations want us to pay a double-cost for that by sucking up online ads.

For me, online ads are capitalistic leeches on the modern miracle that is the internet. They consume power to be delivered to a user’s computer, more power to be rendered and (maybe) viewed, consuming bandwidth that would be better used for delivering real content. At times the delivery of ads is now making some online services unusable, like YouTube for example.

Many corporations seem to be using ads to funnel us towards an ad-free, “better” experience that is waiting behind their paywalls. But we all know how that ends – you pay the money, then the corporation degrades the service or demands unreasonable cost increases to stay behind the paywall. They want the profits; so they’ll either grab them via advertising, reduce the quality of the service, or milk their paywall for what they can get.

My suggestion is to split the internet.

Keep the current “Internet v1” so that companies can continue to operate the digital businesses they have built. Let the oligarchs have that, if they wish.

Build an “Internet v2” where commercialised practices are not allowed. The services hosted on this new global platform should be just those that enhance the provision of social goods, including education, public healthcare and so on. We could drive and protect this new internet v2 with tools produced and hardened via international agreements, to ensure a robust and safe experience for the populations using it, leveraging all the protections that the nation states’s security services can help with.

Without change, how are we going to ensure that the internet remains a life-enhancing tool for generations to come?

Climate Politics…

Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988, it has issued 6 reports synthesising the scientific results. It is now in its seventh assessment cycle, which started in July 2023.

Even without taking part in Climate research, or being a Policy Maker, or part of an advocacy group, the effect of Climate Change has become obvious over the past 3 decades, and was increasingly debated before then. After thirty years of little sustained, concrete action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the whole planet is being affected by an avoidable disaster.

Here in southern England, we are only really seeing 2 seasons a year instead of 4. Winters are mild and no longer very cold, with much reduced rain and snowfall. Summers are becoming dangerously hot, with heatwaves and water shortages. We are seeing more ferocious storms, and erratic temperature swings over periods of a few days. It is not a healthy climate, and society seems poorly equipped to cope with it.

None of this is a surprise if you have been following the Climate Change story and reading first-hand the IPCC reports. However, most people don’t do that and instead rely on Politicians and the Media to tell them what is happening.


That gap between knowledge and informing has enabled some politicians and businesses to undermine the compelling story of anthropogenic climate change, creating the space they needed for a “business-as-usual approach” to maintain short-term advantage, profits and power…

… they have literally had us all fiddling while the world has begun burning.

And still they do it.


In the UK, some power and cash hungry politicians continue to advocate for extracting and burning fossil fuels, decrying “eco-policies” as being “mad” and “anti-public interest”.

Playing to the lowest common denominators in a recession (that they deny is happening), they twist the electorate with the idea that if they are elected they will reduce energy costs and be pro-employment. Laudable, to be sure… but heaping petrol (literally) on the already burning global environment is not the way to do it.


It is not a failure of Science to properly inform Policy Makers about Climate Change.

In its 6 reports so far, the IPCC has estimated the following trends of mean global temperature rises to the end of the 21st Century:

1990 : +1.5°C to +4.5°C
1995 : +1.0°C to +3.5°C
2001 : +1.4°C to +5.8°C
2007 : +0.6°C to +3.6°C
2014 : +0.3°C to +4.8°C
2023 : + 1.5°C to +4.4°C

The lower numbers are best-case scenarios, if everything went well and governments were working hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The upper numbers are worst-case scenarios, which our global leaders seem to be taking us all towards.

There is a lot of energy being stored in the environment by even +1.0°C… but unfortunately it sounds like a small number, so why should the under-informed public or scientfically illiterate politicians care?

We should all care because the IPCC reports have also been spelling the situation out in plain language ever since the first report. Here are some examples:

1990 : “We are certain … These increases [in emissions from human activities] will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.”

In dense language, they highlighted potential negative effects of this rise on Agriculture, Ecosystems, Water Resources, Human Settlements, Oceans, Snow Cover and Permafrost.

1995 : “… human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, land-use change and agriculture, are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases…

“Potentially serious changes have been identified, including an increase in some regions in the incidence of extreme high-temperature events, floods and droughts…”

2001 : “Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities….”

“… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

2007 : “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”

2014 : “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

“Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries…”

“… Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation,warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally.
”

2023 : “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming…”

“Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people.”


As an electorate, we must resist short-term calls to increase the rate of damage to the global environment.

We must resist the economic bribery that politicians and businesses seeking short-term advantage, profits and power place in front of us.


Throught ballot boxes, we can all make it clear to politicians that we take Climate Change seriously, and that we expect them to resolve both our enviromental and economic problems with credible plans that do not undermine each other.

In the UK, this means that the following political parties are currently unelectable:

UNELECTABLE: Conservatives
On 4/4/26, Kemi Badenoch said “… we need to get Britain drilling. It’s good for our financial security, our energy security and above all our national security.”
[ https://www.kemibadenoch.org.uk/news/kemi-badenoch-mp-we-must-get-our-oil-and-gas-out-ground ]
– I believe that our national security is not served by accelerating Climate Change.

UNELECTABLE: Reform UK
Party policy as at 1/6/26, “… Scrap Net Zero to Cut Energy Bills… Reform UK will prioritise energy security, expand domestic energy production, and scrap policies that drive bills higher while making Britain more dependent on foreign energy. Lower energy costs mean lower prices, higher wages, and a stronger economy.”
– I believe that the short-term economy is not the only imperative, and the nation’s interests are not served by accelerating climate change.


Good News – the Liberal Democrats are saying the right thing:

ELECTABLE: Liberal Democrats
On 24/3/26, Liberal MP Pippa Heylings said “I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North sea.”
[ Hansard – Oil and Gas, Volume 783: debated on Tuesday 24 March 2026 ]


Meanwhile, other problems with the Greens and Labour are undermining their electability, despite saying the right things here:

Green Party – On 30/3/26, the Green Party said “… stop new oil and gas, close the loopholes, and invest properly in the transition to renewable energy.”
– however, the Greens also seem to have many other troubling Policy proposals.
[ https://greenparty.org.uk/2026/03/30/stop-new-oil-and-gas-close-the-loopholes-invest-properly-in-transition-to-renewable-energy-say-greens-in-response-to-badenoch/ ]

Labour Party – Current Manifesto commitment, that the government is standing behind, “… We will not issue new licences to explore new fields…” – “… they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure”
– it is commendable that Labour are standing behind this commitment. However, even if they see off a despicable interjection from Tony Blair, they are not currently looking electable for the next Parliament.

United States – Keeping the Peace, or Addicted to Killing?

The United States has been at war or in conflict with other peoples for roughly 225 of its 250 years of existence. No other nation has, on the face of it, been more war-like in the same period.

The reasons for war (declared or otherwise) are varied, and in some cases one might say are justified in order to avoid a greater evil. However, the wars fought by the United States after WWII seem subjectively different. It is as if the United States, emboldened by its rise as a global superpower after WWII, decided it had the right to intervene when other nations were not aligned to its own domestic interests.

Consequently, we see wars fought by the United States over access to resources and regime change, sometimes dressed as trying to help local populations escape from despotic regimes. That argument has some validity, but the (perhaps low) estimated 300,000 dead Iraqi civilians from 2003-2011 significantly undermines it.

1950 – 1953 Korean War 1953 Iran
1954 Guatamala 1955 – 1975 Vietnam War
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs1965 – 1966 Domincan Republic
1970 – 1973 Chile 1983 Grenada
1989 – 1990 Panama1990 – 1991 Gulf War
1992 – 1994 Somalia1995 – 2004 Bosnia
1998 – 1999 Kosovo 2001 – 2021 Afghanistan
2003 – 2011 Iraq War 2011 Libya
2014 – 2025 Syria2026 Iran

Now, under the latest Trump government, the USA has ramped up its aggression, aiming at enemies and allies alike.

It has threatened to take over Greenland, threatened Canada, threatened Mexico and South America, and started a war with Iran that is destabilising much of the developed world.

Wars of aggression for regime change are, of course, illegal under international law – not that this stopped the USA from attacking Venezuela in January 2026 and abducting President Nicolás Maduro.

So is the United States aligned towards keeping the peace, or simply addicted to killing?

Trump is “… strongly considering pulling out of NATO…” – bye then…

The Telegraph reported on 1st April ’26 that President Donald Trump is “… strongly considering pulling the United States out of Nato (sic) after it failed to join his war on Iran.” – the comment can be found in this article.

Bye then.

At this point, I doubt that any European nation believes that the United States would keep its commitments under the NATO treaty, so this latest statement is already an empty threat. As I said in my blog on 21st Jan ’26, “… NATO is now dead, and a new Western security treaty is needed that does not include the USA.”

The feeling is that Europe is already moving on. In other news today, it has been reported that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer will use a summit with the EU to “… seek more cooperation with the bloc on the economy and security… as relations between the US and the UK have been increasingly strained by the PM’s refusal to be drawn further into the war with Iran.” – see this BBC News article.

NATO is a mutual defence organisation, not an extension of USA imperial ambition, and as many European leaders have already said, this USA war with Iran is not Europe’s war.

“USA pirate” image via ChatGPT

As an unreliable ally, who has already been threatening the territorial integrity of Greenland and generally denigrating Europe, its people and leaders, there is a sense that Europe will be safer without the United Statesians close by.

Europe should not take part in the USA’s war on Iran, even when it leads to shortages and inflation…

… because the greater win is that every day it drags on,

… the more damage the USA causes to itself,
… the more it is shamed by the global chaos it is causing,
… the more the current USA administration is itself politically damaged.

The longer this USA war with Iran goes on, perhaps enough United Statesians will decide that their current government is not acting in their best interests… and the world may then get to see change via USA ballot boxes.