Sordid

 The thing about life's lessons is that they are often obvious...after one has made

the sordid mistake! Here's one such from my baking experience.

Sunday evening, already tired from a day on the computer, felt I really should bake

something for later that evening. Decided to go with a great favourite:  souffle lemon cake,

with cream cheese and condensed milk but a mere tablespoon or two of flour. Thus light and

tasty. But the cream cheese was in the refrigerator and I just felt overwhelmed at the thought 

of heating it on the stove to make it just right for whipping. Decided to ask Copilot how this

might be done in the microwave. Below:

The answer surprised me. I had been denaturing the cream cheese with the stove method. 

So I followed instructions with three 15 second bursts. Then transferred the product to a bowl 

for whipping... only to end up with cream cheese bubbles on the wall. Big mistake. I eventually

had to run the remaining cheese quite a few times in the microwave to a get a finger tested 

soft product. *

Only, guess what. The cake I ended up making was utterly delicious; in effect, perfect. I had made

this beast many times, and it had never looked like this. 

So there is a lesson here: Copilot found the understanding I was missing, but the engineering

problem was mine. It is a language model, and no one making that very same cake served as a

source for it's advice. I need to get smarter about THAT...

* In point of fact, I'm lying on the specifics. The remaining cream cheese was in clumps on the

 bottom and sides of the largish bowl I was using...notwithstanding the clumps on the wall and 

the coffee maker. I still had to add the condensed milk, five egg yolks, the juice of a large lemon 

and vanilla to get a homogenous mix, so the bowl had to be large. I judged the clumps had given

me separate specimens, so I just ran the lot at high force for 15 seconds, as I would to melt 

butter I wanted to put on toast( 8 seconds). One is allowed two tablespoons flour for a final 

adjustment. It all worked out!! I then whipped up the egg whites in a separate bowl and poured 

the two together. That was it for this recipe...

                                                                 *     *     *

Copilot:

Last Sunday

I am baking a cake, and need to whip a 250 gram block of cream cheese from the refrigerator. How long should I put it in the microwave first, and at what setting?

Cold cream cheese is notoriously stubborn, so softening it just enough—without melting it—is the sweet spot for whipping it smoothly into a cake batter.

Softening a 250 g block of cream cheese in the microwave

These timings work for a standard 1000‑watt microwave:

Method

Power: 30% (low power)

Time: 15 seconds at a time

Process:

Heat 15 seconds, then press the block gently with your fingers.

Flip it over, heat another 10–15 seconds.

Stop as soon as it yields easily to pressure but still holds its shape.

Total expected time

Usually 25–35 seconds total, broken into short bursts.

Why short bursts matter

Cream cheese melts from the edges first, and melted spots ruin the texture when whipping.

Low power keeps it softening evenly rather than turning oily.

Quick test for “ready to whip”

Press the center: it should feel pliable, like room‑temperature butter.

If it’s warm or glossy, it’s gone too far.

If you want, I can walk you through getting it perfectly smooth for your cake batter.

                                                       *     *     *

Today

Microwave; does it take longer to melt two pats of butter than one. I'll behaving toast and the butter if from the fridge...

Short answer: yes — two cold pats take longer than one — but not twice as long.

Here’s the physics in a kitchen‑friendly way:

🧈 Why two pats melt slower

A microwave heats by exciting water molecules. Butter has very little water, so it warms unevenly.

More mass = more energy needed. Two fridge‑cold pats contain roughly double the cold mass, so they need more total energy to reach melting point.

But microwaves don’t heat linearly. Hot spots form, edges melt first, and the butter shape matters more than the exact weight.

⏱ What this means in practice

If one pat melts in, say, 8–10 seconds, then:

Two pats might take 12–15 seconds, not 16–20.

The difference is noticeable but small.

🔧 Practical trick for perfect toast buttering

Cold butter on hot toast is a classic frustration. A few reliable options:

Option A — Microwave gently

Put the pats side by side, not stacked.

Start with 5 seconds, check, then add 2–3 second bursts.

Stop as soon as the edges slump; residual heat finishes the job.

Option B — The “toast tent”

Put the cold pats on the toast, then cover loosely with another slice or a bowl.

The trapped steam softens the butter in 20–30 seconds without melting it into a puddle.

Option C — Smash technique

Use the back of a spoon to press the cold pat into the toast.

Works surprisingly well when the toast is fresh and hot.

If you want, I can help you dial in the exact timing for your microwave wattage and butter size.

So the total energy delivered to the oven is always the same...

Not quite. The microwave’s power output stays the same, but the total energy absorbed by the butter is not fixed — it depends on how long you run it and how much material is in there.

A microwave is basically a constant‑power device. If yours is rated at 1000 W, it’s dumping roughly 1000 joules per second into the oven cavity no matter what’s inside. What changes is:

🧈 How much of that energy the butter actually absorbs

One pat absorbs less energy before it melts.

Two pats have twice the mass, so they need roughly twice the energy to reach the same softness.

The microwave keeps delivering the same power, but you run it longer to get the extra energy into the butter.

So the oven doesn’t “decide” to deliver more energy — you deliver more energy by running it longer because the larger mass needs it.

🔍 A simple way to picture it

Think of the microwave as a faucet:

The flow rate (power) is constant.

A small cup (one pat) fills quickly.

A bigger cup (two pats) takes longer.

The faucet didn’t change — the container did.

🍞 For your toast situation

If you want fridge‑cold butter to soften fast without melting into a puddle:

Spread the pats out so they heat evenly.

Use short bursts (3–5 seconds).

Stop as soon as the edges slump.

If you want, I can help you estimate the timing based on your microwave’s wattage and the size of your butter pats.

If one pat gets a ray, then the other doesn't?

Ah, I see what you’re getting at — the “ray‑sharing” intuition. Microwaves feel like little beams that might hit one pat but miss the other. But that’s not how the field inside the oven works.

🌀 Microwaves don’t fire single rays at single objects

Inside the oven, the magnetron fills the cavity with an electromagnetic field pattern. It’s more like a standing wave soup than a sniper beam.

So:

There aren’t individual “rays” that one pat could hog.

Both pats sit in the same fluctuating field.

Each pat absorbs energy proportional to its mass, shape, and position.

🧈 What can happen

Even though both pats are exposed to the same field, they may heat differently because:

The field has hot spots and cold spots.

Butter has uneven water content.

One pat might sit in a slightly hotter region.

The shape and orientation change how much energy each absorbs.

So yes, one pat can melt faster — but not because it “got the ray” and the other didn’t. It’s because the field isn’t uniform.

🔬 A simple analogy

Imagine two people standing in a room with uneven heating from the sun through a window.

They’re both in the same room, but one might be in a warm patch and the other in a cool patch.

The sun isn’t choosing one — the geometry is.

🍞 For your toast

If you want both pats to soften evenly:

Place them side by side, not stacked.

Put them near the center of the plate.

Use short bursts so you don’t overshoot.

If you want, we can even talk about why rotating plates exist and why microwaves still have cold spots despite the turntable.

Antartica

 

Does Antartica cover the South Pole?

Yes — Antarctica absolutely covers the South Pole.

The geographic South Pole sits on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, roughly in the middle of the continent. A few key details make the picture clearer:

🧊 1. The South Pole is on land — unlike the North Pole

South Pole: on a thick ice sheet resting on a continental landmass (Antarctica).

North Pole: in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, covered by floating sea ice.

This difference is why Antarctica can support mountains, valleys, and a massive ice sheet, while the Arctic cannot.

🏔️ 2. The ice at the South Pole is thick

The ice sheet at the Pole is about:

2,700–2,800 meters thick

Elevation at the Pole is ~2,800 meters above sea level because of that ice

So you’re standing on ice nearly 3 km thick.

🧭 3. The South Pole is not near the coast

It’s deep in the interior, far from the ocean.

The nearest coast is about 1,300 km away.

🏛️ 4. There’s a permanent research station at the Pole

The Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station sits directly on the geographic pole.

It slowly drifts because the ice sheet moves a few meters per year.

If you want, we can explore:

how Antarctica’s ice sheet formed

why the South Pole is so much colder than the North Pole

how the continent’s shape affects global climate

Just tell me where you want to go next.

Why is the South Pole is so much colder than the North Pole?

The South Pole is dramatically colder than the North Pole, and the reasons are beautifully physical — a mix of geography, elevation, ocean dynamics, and albedo feedbacks. Once you see the full picture, it feels almost inevitable.

Here’s the clean breakdown.

🧊 1. Antarctica is a high‑elevation continent; the Arctic is an ocean

This is the single biggest reason.

South Pole (Antarctica):

Sits on a continental landmass

Covered by an ice sheet 2,700–3,000 m thick

Elevation at the Pole is ~2,800 m above sea level

Air temperature drops roughly 6.5°C per 1,000 m of elevation

So Antarctica starts with a built‑in −18°C disadvantage just from altitude.

North Pole (Arctic):

Sits on floating sea ice

Elevation: basically 0 m

Underneath is ocean, which stores and releases heat

The Arctic is insulated by water; Antarctica is isolated by altitude.

🌊 2. The Arctic Ocean moderates temperature; Antarctica has no such buffer

Water has enormous heat capacity.

Arctic:

The ocean below the ice is relatively warm (−2°C to +2°C)

Heat leaks upward through the ice

This prevents temperatures from dropping as low as Antarctica

Antarctica:

Interior is 1,300 km from the ocean

No oceanic heat influence

Air is extremely dry, allowing heat to radiate away efficiently

The South Pole is essentially a desert plateau with no thermal buffer.

🌬️ 3. Antarctica is surrounded by the strongest wind barrier on Earth

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and the polar vortex isolate the continent.

The ACC prevents warm ocean water from reaching Antarctica’s coast

The polar vortex traps cold air over the continent

The Arctic has no such isolation — warm Atlantic water flows directly into it.

❄️ 4. Antarctica has a much higher albedo

Antarctica is:

brighter

more reflective

more consistently snow‑covered

This means it reflects more sunlight back into space.

The Arctic loses albedo in summer when sea ice melts, exposing dark ocean that absorbs heat.

🌡️ 5. Seasonal sunlight differences

Both poles have 6 months of darkness, but:

The South Pole’s summer sun is weaker because it’s farther from the Sun during austral summer (Earth is at aphelion in July).

The North Pole’s summer sun is stronger because Earth is closer to the Sun during boreal summer (perihelion in January).

This adds a few degrees of difference.

📉 6. Result: The temperature gap is enormous

Typical annual averages:

Location Average Temperature

South Pole ~−49°C

North Pole ~−18°C

A 31°C difference — and that’s the average.

⭐ The big picture

The South Pole is colder because:

it’s on a high, thick ice sheet

on a continent

isolated by winds and currents

far from ocean heat

with higher albedo

and weaker summer sunlight

The North Pole is warmer because:

it’s over an ocean

at sea level

influenced by warm currents

losing ice in summer

The asymmetry is structural — it’s baked into Earth’s geography.

If you want, we can explore:

why Antarctica formed such a massive ice sheet

how this asymmetry affects global climate

whether the South Pole could ever warm enough to resemble the Arctic

Just tell me where you’d like to go next.

When did ice accumulation begin?

Ice accumulation in Antarctica began far earlier than most people realize — and it didn’t happen all at once. It unfolded in stages as Earth’s climate, continents, and ocean currents shifted into the configuration we know today.

Here’s the clear, layered timeline.

🧊 1. The first Antarctic ice began ~34 million years ago

This marks the Eocene–Oligocene transition, one of the sharpest climate shifts in Earth’s history.

Around 34 million years ago (Ma):

Atmospheric CO₂ fell below a critical threshold (roughly 600–750 ppm).

Antarctica drifted fully over the South Pole.

Ocean gateways opened (Drake Passage(South America), Tasman Gateway (Australia)), allowing the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to form.

These changes isolated the continent and allowed the first permanent ice sheets to form.

This is the birth of the modern Antarctic cryosphere.

❄️ 2. The ice sheet expanded dramatically ~14 million years ago

During the Middle Miocene Climate Transition (~14 Ma):

CO₂ dropped further.

The ice sheet grew thicker and more stable.

Antarctica became the frozen continent we recognize today.

This is when the East Antarctic Ice Sheet became truly massive.

🧊 3. West Antarctica glaciated later (~5–7 million years ago)

West Antarctica is lower, more marine-based, and more vulnerable.

Its ice sheet formed later and has been more dynamic.

By 5–7 Ma, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was established, though it has collapsed and reformed multiple times since.

🌍 4. The modern Ice Age cycles began ~2.6 million years ago

This is when:

Northern Hemisphere ice sheets began forming

Earth entered the Quaternary Ice Age

Glacial–interglacial cycles started (driven by orbital variations)

Antarctica was already frozen by this point, but its ice sheet began responding rhythmically to global climate cycles.

⭐ Summary timeline

Time What happened

34 Ma First major Antarctic ice sheets form

14 Ma Ice sheet thickens and stabilizes; Antarctica becomes fully glaciated

5–7 Ma West Antarctic Ice Sheet forms

2.6 Ma Global Ice Age cycles begin

🧠 The deeper insight

Antarctica’s ice sheet is not ancient in the geological sense — it’s a recent feature of Earth’s climate system. For most of Earth’s history, Antarctica was forested, warm, and ice‑free.

If you want, we can explore:

what Antarctica looked like before it froze

how CO₂ thresholds control ice sheet formation

whether Antarctica could ever become ice‑free again

how this ties into Milankovitch cycles and your Goldilocks‑CO₂ question

Just tell me where you want to go next.

aphelion vs perhelion...

Aphelion and perihelion are one of those elegant little orbital details that quietly shape Earth’s climate — including the subtle differences between the North and South Poles you’ve been exploring. Let’s give you a crisp, intuitive comparison.

🌞 Aphelion vs. Perihelion

Perihelion

When: Early January

What it means: Earth is closest to the Sun

Distance: ~147 million km

Effect: Slightly more solar energy reaches Earth

Aphelion

When: Early July

What it means: Earth is farthest from the Sun

Distance: ~152 million km

Effect: Slightly less solar energy reaches Earth

The difference in solar energy is about 6–7%, which is small but not trivial.

🌍 Why this matters for climate

1. Seasons are NOT caused by distance — they’re caused by tilt

But the distance does modulate the seasons.

2. Northern Hemisphere summers happen at aphelion

So the north gets:

slightly weaker summer sunlight

slightly milder summers

slightly less intense winters

3. Southern Hemisphere summers happen at perihelion

So the south gets:

slightly stronger summer sunlight

slightly hotter summers

slightly colder winters

This is one reason the South Pole is colder overall — its winters occur when Earth is farthest from the Sun, and its summers occur when Earth is closest but the continent is so reflective and high‑elevation that it barely warms.

🌡️ How this ties into your earlier questions

You’ve been exploring:

hemispheric asymmetry

why Antarctica is colder

how Milankovitch cycles shape glaciation

Aphelion/perihelion are part of the eccentricity component of Milankovitch cycles. Over tens of thousands of years:

the timing of perihelion shifts

the shape of Earth’s orbit changes

this alters the strength of seasons

When perihelion aligns with Northern Hemisphere summer, summers become stronger — which can help melt ice sheets.

When aphelion aligns with Northern Hemisphere summer, summers weaken — which can help grow ice sheets.

This is one of the triggers for glacial cycles.

If you want, we can go deeper into:

how eccentricity cycles interact with CO₂

how the timing of perihelion has shifted over the last 100,000 years

why the next glacial cycle is “paused” despite orbital conditions

Just tell me where you want to take it.

Are the two poles of Earth destined to being increasinly different? What about tectonic activity?

The two poles are already very different, and the forces that made them unequal are still operating — some slowly (tectonics), some rapidly (climate change). So yes, the asymmetry is likely to increase, not shrink, unless something dramatic changes in Earth’s configuration.

Let’s unpack this in a way that respects both the physics and the deep‑time tectonic story you’re pointing toward.

🌍 1. The poles are different because of geography — and that geography is not going away

The fundamental asymmetry is simple:

South Pole: on top of a high, isolated continent (Antarctica)

North Pole: in the middle of an ocean (Arctic Ocean)

This difference drives everything:

Antarctica is high, dry, reflective, and isolated → extreme cold

The Arctic is low, ocean‑moderated, and connected to warm currents → less cold

This basic configuration is stable on million‑year timescales.

🌡️ 2. Climate change is amplifying the difference

This is the fast part.

Arctic: warming extremely fast

Sea ice is thinning and disappearing in summer

Dark ocean absorbs heat

Air temperatures rise rapidly

The Arctic is warming 3–4× faster than the global average

Antarctica: warming slowly and unevenly

East Antarctica remains extremely cold and stable

West Antarctica is losing ice, but the interior stays frigid

The continent is insulated by the circumpolar current

Result:  

The Arctic is racing ahead into a new climate regime, while Antarctica changes slowly.

This widens the gap.

🧊 3. Will the poles become even more different?

Almost certainly.

Arctic future:

Likely to see ice‑free summers within decades

Ocean heat will dominate the region

Weather patterns will shift dramatically

Antarctic future:

Interior remains brutally cold for a very long time

West Antarctic Ice Sheet may collapse over centuries

East Antarctica stays stable unless CO₂ rises far beyond today’s levels

The Arctic is heading toward a blue‑ocean state.

Antarctica is not.

🌋 4. What about tectonic activity? Could it change the poles?

This is the slow part — but it’s fascinating.

A. Antarctica is frozen because of tectonics

About 34 million years ago:

Antarctica drifted over the South Pole

The Drake Passage and Tasman Gateway opened

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed

CO₂ dropped

This isolated the continent and allowed the ice sheet to form.

B. Tectonics will continue to isolate Antarctica

The Southern Ocean will remain open

The circumpolar current will continue

Antarctica will stay over the pole for tens of millions of years

Nothing in plate motion suggests Antarctica will warm via tectonics anytime soon.

C. The Arctic is tectonically “open”

The Arctic Ocean is connected to the Atlantic

Warm water can always flow north

No tectonic barrier will isolate it the way 

Antarctica is isolated

This ensures the Arctic will always be more vulnerable to warming.

D. Long-term future (tens of millions of years)

Eventually:

Continents will drift

New supercontinents will form

Ocean currents will reorganize

Either pole could end up with land or ocean

But this is far beyond human timescales.

⭐ 5. The big-picture answer

Yes — the poles are destined to become increasingly different.

The Arctic is rapidly warming, losing ice, and shifting toward an ocean‑dominated climate.

Antarctica remains a high, isolated, reflective ice fortress, changing slowly.

Tectonics will reinforce this asymmetry for millions of years.

The only force capable of making the poles more similar again would be:

a massive drop in CO₂ (returning Earth to glacial conditions), or

a tectonic reorganization on million‑year timescales.

Neither is happening soon.

If you want, we can explore:

whether Antarctica could ever become ice‑free again

how tectonics might reshape the poles in 50–100 million years

whether the Arctic could ever refreeze once it becomes ice‑free

Just tell me which direction you want to take.

                                                                            

Drake Passage:

image sources: Wikipedia

GFroid

 RE: that famous chocolat confection Queen Elizabeth used to eaT every day...

These are the ingredients the Royal Chef specified (from a US adaptation):

Equipment

8 inch cake pan (the original recipe uses a 6 inch cake ring.)

Ingredients

 

US Customary

Metric

for the cake

8 ounces British tea biscuits , (I used McVities Digestive Biscuits.)

6 ounces butter, at room temperature

6 ounces white sugar, (caster sugar in the UK)

6 ounces dark chocolate, melted

chocolate topping

8 ounces dark chocolate, melted

garnish, optional

mini chocolate chips. You could also use chocolate sprinkles, or chocolate curls.

                                                                   *     *     *

Copilot:

Food; are raw eggs dangerous to put in a gâteau froid recipe? Queen Elizabeth's much appreciated chocolate confection calls for one...

Raw eggs can carry a food‑safety risk in a gâteau froid, but the risk can be reduced or avoided by using pasteurized eggs or safe substitutes. In Canada, including Quebec, public‑health agencies still consider raw or lightly cooked eggs a potential source of Salmonella, even when shells look clean. 

Why raw eggs are considered risky

Salmonella can be present inside an egg, not just on the shell. 

No‑bake desserts (like tiramisu, mousse, or a classic gâteau froid) keep the egg raw, so the bacteria—if present—are not killed. 

Traditional recipes, including Queen Elizabeth II’s beloved chocolate biscuit cake, were created before modern food‑safety standards and often assume extremely fresh, high‑quality eggs.

What food‑safety authorities recommend

Egg mixtures are considered safe only when heated to 71.1 °C (160 °F)—which a gâteau froid does not reach. 

For recipes calling for raw eggs, they recommend:

Pasteurized in‑shell eggs

Pasteurized liquid eggs

Pasteurized dried egg whites (if only whites are needed) 

These products have been heat‑treated to kill Salmonella while keeping the egg usable in uncooked desserts.

Practical options for your gâteau froid

Use pasteurized eggs (widely available in Quebec grocery stores).

If the recipe uses only yolks or only whites, consider pasteurized substitutes.

If you want to keep the traditional texture but avoid raw egg entirely, some bakers replace the raw egg with:

A sabayon‑style base heated to 71 °C

Whipped cream or stabilized whipped cream (for lightness)

A small amount of buttercream folded in (for richness)

Bottom line

You can make the classic version, but using a raw, unpasteurized egg carries a real—though statistically small—risk of Salmonella. Using pasteurized eggs gives you the same texture with far less risk.

If you want, I can help you adapt your specific gâteau froid recipe so it stays faithful to the original while being safer.

Above, the ingredients (minus the egg). How much whipped cream should I add?

For a gâteau froid or a chocolate biscuit cake like the one you’re making, replacing the raw egg with whipped cream is very doable — you just need enough to restore the mousse‑like texture without making the mixture loose.

A reliable substitution ratio

For a recipe built on:

6 oz butter

6 oz sugar

6 oz melted dark chocolate

8 oz biscuits

…the single raw egg normally contributes about ¼ cup (60 ml) of volume and lightness once beaten in.

When substituting with whipped cream, you want more volume because whipped cream is mostly air.

Use ½ cup to ¾ cup of whipped cream

That’s 120–180 ml, measured after whipping.

How to choose the exact amount

½ cup (120 ml) → firmer, richer, closer to the original dense royal chocolate biscuit cake.

¾ cup (180 ml) → lighter, more mousse‑like, closer to a classic gâteau froid texture.

Both versions set well in the fridge.

Technique tip

Fold the whipped cream in gently once the chocolate–butter–sugar mixture has cooled to lukewarm. If it starts to loosen too much, stop folding — the biscuits will help firm it up as it chills.

If you want, I can help you tune the texture (denser vs. lighter) based on how you prefer your gâteau froid.

                                                                 *     *     *

https://www.cbc.ca/life/food/let-me-eat-cake-the-queen-never-ever-travels-without-this-very-specific-treat-1.4059238

In point of fact, my late mother was found of this kind of cake. I vaguely remember how it tastes...

Perhaps it was fashionable Post War, and the British Royals kept it going forward!

                                                              *     *     *

le Monde, on those 'poisonous' Epstein documents (in French):

https://archive.ph/9vFVU

Locked_In

 There is no pleasant way to say this: we (East North America) are in for a cold February.

Polar vortex to lock brutal cold over eastern US for most of February

Getting clear on the mechanisms involved, it is all about understanding what the wind is:

cold air rushing in to replace warm air that rises:

https://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm

                                                                                    

Copilot:

https://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm; where is Montreal on the global wind patterns map, above or below the 30 degree line... I am trying to make sense of the very cold weather we will be seeing to the end of February...

Montreal sits well above the 30° latitude line. Your latitude is roughly 45.5° N, which places you squarely in the mid‑latitudes, inside the zone dominated by the prevailing westerlies.

Here’s how that fits into the global wind‑pattern map you were reading:

Montreal is 15° north of the 30° line, deep in the zone where: The jet stream controls winter weather Cold Arctic air can plunge south when the jet dips Storm systems frequently track west‑to‑east across North America This is exactly the region where polar vortex disruptions and Arctic outbreaks hit hardest. ❄ Why the End of February Looks So Cold Your other open tab mentions a polar vortex locking brutal cold over the eastern US. That’s the key. When the polar vortex weakens or becomes distorted, lobes of extremely cold Arctic air spill southward. Because Montreal is in the westerlies + jet stream corridor, you’re directly in the path when: The jet stream dips south Arctic high‑pressure systems slide southeast Storm tracks shift to bring cold, dry air from the Prairies or the Arctic Archipelago This is why Quebec often gets sharper, longer cold snaps than places even farther north but outside the jet‑stream corridor. 🧭 Putting it all together Montreal is above 30°, in the mid‑latitude westerlies. This zone is highly sensitive to jet‑stream shifts. A polar vortex disruption can lock in cold for weeks. Late‑February cold snaps are classic outcomes of this pattern. If you want, we can map out how the jet stream typically behaves over Quebec, or look at historical late‑February cold patterns to see how this year compares.

                                                                       *     *     *

Comparing

 Decided to follow the temperture in Nuuk. Actually mild compared to what I am

going through from the greater Montreal region...

                                                                           

Copilot:

Weather; does Nuuk, Greenland have warmer winters than Montreal, Canada? Clearly, Montreal's summers are warmer, but the winters... How bad does it get??

Nuuk’s winters are milder than Montreal’s — sometimes dramatically so — even though Nuuk is far north. Montreal’s continental climate produces far colder lows and longer deep freezes, while Nuuk’s coastal, maritime Arctic climate keeps winter temperatures closer to the freezing point.

Winter Temperature Comparison

                                                                               

Why Nuuk Is Warmer in Winter

Nuuk sits on the southwest coast of Greenland, heavily influenced by the ocean.

Maritime climates change temperature slowly, preventing the brutal deep freezes typical of inland North America.

Montreal, by contrast, is far south but landlocked, so Arctic air masses can plunge temperatures dramatically.

How “Bad” Nuuk’s Winters Get

Based on climate data:

Average highs in the coldest months hover around −5 °C.

Average lows bottom out around −10 °C to −11 °C. 

Nuuk’s mean annual temperature is −3.9 °C, reflecting persistent coolness rather than extreme cold. 

Snow and wind are common, but the temperature rarely reaches the brutal lows familiar to Quebec winters.

How “Bad” Montreal’s Winters Get (for comparison)

Deep freezes of −20 °C to −30 °C are normal.

Wind chills can push perceived temperatures into the −30s or −40s.

Montreal’s winter is longer, with more freeze–thaw cycles and harsher cold snaps.

Bottom Line

Yes — Nuuk’s winters are noticeably milder than Montreal’s, despite Nuuk being far north.

Nuuk is cold, snowy, and dark in winter, but not nearly as brutally cold as a typical Montreal January or February.

Montreal wins for summer warmth, but Nuuk wins for winter gentleness.

If you want, I can break down month‑by‑month comparisons or add wind, snowfall, or daylight differences — which are very dramatic between the two.

Could I see month for month comparisons ... and also daylight differences...

Yes — a month‑by‑month comparison makes the contrast between Nuuk and Montreal extremely clear: Nuuk is consistently milder in winter but dramatically darker, while Montreal is far colder but much brighter in mid‑winter.  

The tables below use the best available climate summaries for Nuuk from recent sources . Montreal’s values come from long‑term Environment Canada normals (internal knowledge).

                                                                                            

What jumps out

Nuuk’s coldest lows (~−11 °C) are warmer than Montreal’s typical winter days.

Montreal routinely hits −20 to −30 °C in cold snaps; Nuuk almost never does.

Nuuk’s summer is extremely short and cool; Montreal’s is hot and humid.

🌞 Daylight Comparison (Approximate)

Nuuk’s latitude (64°N) produces extreme seasonal daylight swings. Montreal (45°N) is much more moderate.

                                                                                           

What this means in practice

Nuuk’s winter is dim, not brutally cold.  

You get only ~4 hours of daylight in December.

Montreal’s winter is bright but harsh.  

Even in January you still get ~9 hours of sun, but temperatures can be savage.

Summer flips the script: Nuuk gets near‑midnight sun; Montreal gets warm, long days but nothing extreme.

🧭 Overall Takeaways

Thermal comfort: Nuuk wins in winter; Montreal wins in summer.

Daylight: Nuuk is extreme — very dark winters, very bright summers.

Seasonality: Nuuk’s climate is “cold but stable”; Montreal’s is “warm summers, brutal winters.”

If you want, I can also add wind, snowfall, or wind‑chill comparisons, or build graphs to visualize the differences.

                                                                           *     *     *

So people from Danemark would not feel too dispirited from a Nuuk winter...

                                                                                   

FFires

 Copilot:

Forest management; is it true that our forests are vulnerable to massive fires in part, because they are not natural and varied?

Yes — a major part of today’s wildfire vulnerability comes from forests that are less diverse, less natural, and less actively stewarded than they once were. Modern fire regimes in Canada (including Quebec) are strongly shaped by past logging practices, fire suppression, and the loss of Indigenous cultural burning — all of which create dense, uniform, highly flammable forests. 

Why Less‑Natural, Less‑Varied Forests Burn More Severely

1. Loss of natural diversity → more uniform fuel

Historically, forests were mosaics of:

Mixed ages

Mixed species

Recently burned patches

Open meadows and wetlands

Modern industrial forestry often replaces this with:

Even‑aged stands

Monocultures or low‑diversity mixes

Dense, continuous canopies

This uniformity acts like a continuous fuse, allowing fire to spread rapidly and intensely.

2. A century of fire suppression created unnatural fuel loads

Natural fire cycles used to clear underbrush and maintain patchiness.

Decades of suppression allowed:

Thick understory growth

Heavy deadwood accumulation

Dense young trees competing for water

These conditions make forests extremely flammable during drought.

3. Decline of Indigenous cultural burning

Indigenous Peoples across Canada used low‑intensity, frequent burns to maintain healthy, varied landscapes.

These practices:

Reduced fuel

Promoted biodiversity

Created natural firebreaks

Protected communities and wildlife

Research shows Indigenous‑managed lands today have higher biodiversity and lower tree‑cover loss, yet are increasingly threatened because colonial policies restricted traditional burning for decades. 

4. Climate change amplifies the vulnerability

Even if forests were perfectly managed, hotter, drier, longer fire seasons increase ignition and spread.

But when climate stress meets:

dense fuels

uniform stands

drought‑stressed trees

…the result is the kind of extreme fires Canada saw in 2023–2025. 

                                                                                  

What This Means for Quebec and Eastern Canada

Even though Quebec’s forests are wetter than the West, the same vulnerabilities apply:

Large areas of even‑aged black spruce and boreal conifers

Fire suppression legacy

Limited use of cultural burning

Increasing drought cycles

The 2023 Quebec fires demonstrated how quickly these forests can shift from “wet and safe” to “highly flammable” under heat and drought.

Bottom Line

Yes — forests that lack natural variation and Indigenous‑informed stewardship are significantly more vulnerable to massive, high‑severity fires.  

Restoring diversity, reintroducing cultural burning, and reducing fuel loads are among the most effective ways to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk.

If you want, we can dig into:

How Quebec’s forest policies contribute to this

What a “healthy, fire‑resilient” forest actually looks like

How Indigenous burning could be reintroduced in Eastern Canada

Or the science behind fire behaviour in mixed vs. uniform stands

                                                           *     *     *

If we got serious about managing forest fires when they do occur, what could we do better?

Getting serious about managing fires once they’ve already started means shifting from a reactive, overwhelmed posture to a strategic, anticipatory one. Canada can do far better — and the science is very clear on where the biggest gains lie.

Below is a structured look at what “better” actually means in practice.

🔥 1. Attack fires much earlier and more aggressively

Canada often waits until fires threaten communities or infrastructure before committing major resources. By then, the fire is too large, too hot, and too fast.

What works better:

Rapid‑response crews deployed within minutes, not hours

Pre‑positioning aircraft and crews based on fire‑weather forecasts

Treating every new ignition during extreme conditions as a potential major fire

Using night operations more routinely (many countries do this; Canada rarely does)

Early attack is the single most cost‑effective intervention in fire management.

🌲 2. Create strategic fuel breaks before fire season

Fuel breaks aren’t clearcuts; they’re carefully designed zones where fire intensity drops enough for crews to fight it.

Canada has very few of these, especially in the boreal.

Better approaches include:

Thinning dense stands around communities and critical infrastructure

Removing ladder fuels (the “stairs” that let fire climb into the canopy)

Creating mixed‑species buffers that slow fire spread

Maintaining open meadows and wetlands instead of letting them infill with conifers

This is where Quebec could make huge gains — the province has many communities surrounded by continuous black spruce, which is essentially gasoline on a stick.

🔥 3. Use controlled burns at scale

Canada uses prescribed fire, but at a tiny fraction of what’s needed.

Why it matters:

Safely removes fuel

Restores natural fire cycles

Creates patchiness that stops megafires

Protects wildlife habitat

Indigenous cultural burning is especially effective because it’s frequent, low‑intensity, and landscape‑specific.

🚁 4. Modernize aerial firefighting

Canada’s fleet is aging and too small for the size of the territory.

Improvements include:

More water bombers and helitankers

Larger scooper fleets for boreal lakes

Drones for night surveillance and hotspot detection

Real‑time thermal mapping to guide crews

Aerial assets don’t put out fires alone, but they buy time for ground crews.

🧭 5. Use predictive modelling to stay ahead of fires

Fire behaviour can be forecast with surprising accuracy when you combine:

wind

humidity

fuel type

slope

drought index

Canada has the science, but not the operational integration.

Better management would:

Predict where fires will blow up before they do

Move crews pre‑emptively

Close vulnerable areas during extreme fire weather

Prioritize resources based on risk, not politics

🏘️ 6. Harden communities so they don’t ignite

Most homes burn from embers, not direct flame.

Better practices:

Ember‑resistant roofing and siding

30‑metre defensible space around structures

Burying power lines in high‑risk zones

Fire‑resistant landscaping

Community‑level fuel management

This is the “FireSmart” approach, but adoption is inconsistent.

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 7. Integrate Indigenous fire stewardship

This is not symbolic — it’s practical, proven, and urgently needed.

Indigenous fire knowledge:

Reduces catastrophic fire

Maintains biodiversity

Protects cultural landscapes

Creates natural firebreaks

Many of the world’s most fire‑resilient landscapes are Indigenous‑managed.

🧯 8. Accept that some fires must burn — but under control

Trying to extinguish every fire creates the fuel buildup that leads to megafires.

A smarter approach:

Let low‑risk fires burn under supervision

Use natural ignitions as opportunities to reduce fuel

Focus suppression on high‑risk zones

This requires political courage, because “letting a fire burn” sounds counterintuitive to the public.

🌡️ 9. Adapt to the new climate reality

Even perfect management won’t eliminate extreme fire years. But it can prevent the worst outcomes.

Adaptation means:

Planning for longer fire seasons

Expanding the workforce

Increasing interprovincial and international cooperation

Building redundancy into equipment and logistics

The Big Picture

If Canada (and Quebec) got serious, we would see:

Fewer megafires

More manageable fire seasons

Lower suppression costs

Less smoke exposure

More resilient forests

The science is not the bottleneck — political will, funding, and cultural change are.

If you want, we can zoom in on:

What Quebec specifically could implement

How to integrate Indigenous burning in eastern forests

The economics of early attack vs. megafire suppression

Or how forest structure (species mix, age, density) changes fire behaviour

K_Warsh

 The US is getting a new Governor for the Fed: Kevin Warsh (a Stanford U graduate).

On reading up on Mr Warsh, found a reference to the Group of 30, and decided to investigate.

Below...

Copilot:

Group of 30; does Canada currently have a member in this economic advisory group?

Yes — Canada does currently have representation in the Group of 30 (G30).  

The most prominent Canadian member is Mark Carney, former Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. He has been involved in G30 work, including co‑chairing major committees. 

Canada’s Presence in the G30

Mark Carney

Former Governor, Bank of Canada

Former Governor, Bank of England

Former Senior UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance

Co‑chaired the G30 steering committee on the “Mainstreaming the Transition to a Net Zero Economy” report (2020) 

What the G30 Is

An international, invitation‑only group of central bankers, economists, and financial leaders.

Focuses on global monetary policy, financial stability, and economic governance. 

If you want, I can also list the full current membership or outline what influence the G30 actually has on global policy.

What is a net zero economy?

A net‑zero economy is one where the total greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are balanced by the amount removed. In other words, emissions don’t have to be literally zero — but whatever is still emitted must be offset by credible, measurable absorption.

Core idea

A net‑zero economy reaches a point where

Emissions produced - Emissions removed = 0

That balance can be achieved through a mix of reducing emissions and increasing removals.

How a net‑zero economy works

1. Deep emissions cuts

Most sectors must dramatically reduce their emissions:

Electricity: shift to renewables, hydro, nuclear, and storage

Transport: electrification, clean fuels

Buildings: efficient heating, insulation, heat pumps

Industry: low‑carbon steel, cement, chemicals

Agriculture: improved soil management, methane reduction

2. Carbon removal

For the emissions that remain (e.g., aviation, heavy industry), the economy relies on:

Natural sinks: forests, wetlands, soils

Engineered solutions: carbon capture and storage (CCS), direct air capture

3. Structural economic changes

A net‑zero economy isn’t just about technology. It also involves:

New investment patterns

Updated regulations and standards

Shifts in consumer behavior

Innovation in materials, energy systems, and industrial processes

Why countries pursue it

To limit global warming and climate risks

To modernize infrastructure and energy systems

To stay competitive as global markets shift

To reduce long‑term economic damage from climate impacts

What it doesn’t mean

It doesn’t mean eliminating all emissions

It doesn’t require stopping economic activity

It doesn’t rely solely on offsets — reductions must come first

If you want, we can dig into how Canada specifically plans to reach net‑zero, or how realistic the models are from an economic or physical‑systems perspective.

That was 2020; what is the rallying point now?

The rallying point has shifted away from “net‑zero by 2050” as the central banner and toward something more urgent and more economically grounded.

Across 2024–2026, the dominant unifying theme is now:

➡️ “Climate Resilience + Rapid Decarbonization”

A dual focus: cut emissions fast and adapt economies to unavoidable climate impacts.

This isn’t just rhetoric — it’s the consistent message emerging from global institutions, scientific reports, and economic coalitions.

🌍 Why this is the new rallying point

1. Scientific consensus: impacts are no longer future — they’re here now

Recent global assessments emphasize that the planet’s “vital signs are flashing red,” and climate impacts are already unfolding.   

This has forced a shift from long‑term goals to immediate risk management.

2. UN and COP messaging: resilience + accelerated action

UN climate updates stress that although progress has been made, the world is still heading toward ~3°C of warming — far above safe levels.

They highlight that the “real economy” is aligning with climate goals, but adaptation and resilience must now scale rapidly. 

3. Economic leadership: the “climate economy” is now a growth engine

The World Economic Forum’s climate leaders argue that the climate economy is already delivering returns, and that resilience investments are essential because some impacts are now locked in.   

This reframes climate action as economic modernization, not sacrifice.

4. Geopolitical reality: crises have disrupted the net‑zero narrative

Conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan have diverted attention and resources, forcing climate policy to integrate with energy security and economic stability.

Yet 2025–2026 reports highlight new technological momentum (green hydrogen, CCS, storage) as bright spots. 

🔥 So what is the rallying point now?

“Build resilience while decarbonizing as fast as possible.”

This includes:

Massive clean‑energy build‑out (already >90% of new power capacity globally is renewable) 

Adaptation investments (infrastructure, agriculture, water systems)

Climate‑aligned industrial policy (battery supply chains, hydrogen, critical minerals)

Economic framing: climate action as a driver of returns, resilience, and growth

Risk framing: climate impacts are now a present economic threat, not a future one

🇨🇦 What this means for Canada (and Quebec)

Canada’s climate strategy is increasingly framed around:

Resilient infrastructure (flooding, wildfire, northern permafrost)

Clean‑tech industrial policy (EV supply chain, critical minerals, hydrogen)

Grid expansion + electrification

Economic competitiveness in a world where major economies are decarbonizing fast

For Quebec specifically:

Hydropower gives a structural advantage

Electrification of transport and industry is the core pathway

Climate resilience (flooding, heat, forest fires) is now a major policy driver

If you want, we can go deeper

I can map:

How this shift affects global markets

How Canada’s policies align (or don’t) with the new rallying point

Whether the “resilience + rapid decarbonization” framing is physically and economically plausible

How this changes commodity cycles (metals, energy, carbon markets)

Where would you like to take it?

The US is putting its priorities elsewhere; how is Canada responding? Are we still

keeping an eye on climate concerns?

Canada hasn’t abandoned climate concerns, but the tone and priorities have shifted because of three pressures:

the United States pivoting toward energy security and industrial competition,

domestic affordability concerns,

the physical reality of climate impacts hitting harder each year.

What Canada is doing now is less about grand slogans and more about pragmatic climate‑economy management.

🇨🇦 Canada’s Current Climate Posture (2024–2026)

1. Canada is still committed to climate targets — but the strategy is becoming more flexible

Canada hasn’t walked away from its 2030 or 2050 goals.

But the federal government is now emphasizing:

“practical pathways”

“sector‑by‑sector realism”

“economic competitiveness”

This is a response to the U.S. shifting focus toward industrial policy, energy dominance, and geopolitical priorities.

Canada can’t afford to fall behind economically, so climate policy is being reframed as industrial strategy, not moral mission.

🇨🇦 2. Climate policy is now tied to economic competitiveness

Instead of leading with “net‑zero,” Canada is leading with:

EV and battery supply chains

critical minerals (Quebec is central here)

clean electricity expansion

hydrogen and biofuels

carbon capture for heavy industry

This is Canada’s way of staying aligned with U.S. industrial incentives (like the Inflation Reduction Act) without appearing to “chase” the U.S.

It’s climate action through economic modernization.

🇨🇦 3. Adaptation and resilience have become unavoidable priorities

Canada is experiencing:

record wildfire seasons

severe flooding

heat waves

northern permafrost collapse

So the federal and provincial governments are investing heavily in:

wildfire response

flood‑proofing infrastructure

climate‑resilient agriculture

northern community protection

This is the “resilience” half of the new global rallying point.

🇨🇦 4. Provinces are diverging — but Quebec remains a climate leader

Some provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan) are pushing back on federal climate rules.

Others (BC, Quebec) are accelerating.

Quebec, in particular:

has a clean grid (hydro)

is electrifying transport faster than the rest of Canada

is central to the North American battery supply chain

is investing in climate‑resilient infrastructure

Quebec’s climate posture is stronger than the national average.

🇨🇦 5. Canada is watching the U.S. closely — but not copying it

The U.S. shift toward:

energy dominance

industrial competition

geopolitical focus

…means Canada must protect its own competitiveness.

So Canada is:

matching U.S. incentives where possible

securing supply chains

maintaining climate commitments but with more flexibility

avoiding policies that would put Canadian industry at a disadvantage

This is a balancing act, not a retreat.

⭐ Bottom line

Canada hasn’t dropped climate concerns.

But the approach has evolved into:

“Climate action that protects the economy, strengthens supply chains, and builds resilience.”

It’s less ideological, more pragmatic, and deeply shaped by U.S. behavior.

If you want, we can map:

how this affects Quebec specifically,

whether Canada’s climate strategy is physically plausible,

or how global commodity cycles (metals, energy) shift under this new posture.