• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / 2025 / Archives for September 2025

Archives for September 2025

DOE CWG Report “Moot”?

10 Sep 2025 by Gavin 56 Comments

Somewhat breaking news. A court filing (from 9/4) from DOE has noted that the Climate Working Group has been disbanded (as of 9/3). This was done to make the EDF/UCS lawsuit moot, but it also means that DOE is withdrawing the report, no-one will respond appropriately to the comments submitted, and (possibly) it becomes irrelevant for the EPA reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding.

What a farce.

Update: Via Andy Revkin, the EDF/UCS’s blistering response to the DOE filing. Pass the popcorn.

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate modelling, Climate Science, Featured Story, Instrumental Record, IPCC, Model-Obs Comparisons, Scientific practice

Climate Scientists response to DOE report

2 Sep 2025 by Gavin 61 Comments

As we’ve mentioned, Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp have been coordinating a scientific peer review of the DOW ‘CWG’ Critique of Climate Science. It is now out.

[Read more…] about Climate Scientists response to DOE report

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Carbon cycle, Climate impacts, Climate modelling, Climate Science, Featured Story, Greenhouse gases, Hurricanes, Instrumental Record, IPCC, Model-Obs Comparisons, Scientific practice, Sea level rise, Sun-earth connections Tagged With: CWG, DOE, Endangerment Finding

Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review

2 Sep 2025 by group 59 Comments

Guest commentary by Kerry Emanuel

Executive Summary

Chapter 6 of the draft DOE report examines whether global warming exacerbates extreme weather. It rightly notes that because events such as hurricanes are rare, detecting their response to climate change in short and imperfect historical records is extremely difficult—if not impossible. Yet the authors devote most of the remainder of the chapter to attempting just that. By omitting to frame such efforts in the context of theory and models, they commit three fundamental errors: 1) searching for trends where none were predicted, 2) neglecting important variables for which trends were predicted and 3) overlooking—or failing to acknowledge—that some predicted trends are of a magnitude that is not a priori detectable in existing noisy and short data sets. The draft report also overlooks recent literature on climate change effects on weather extremes, and quotes selectively and misleadingly from the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For these reasons, I find much of Chapter 6 to be of questionable utility. There are at least three climate change-induced trends in hurricane-related hazards that were predicted theoretically, simulated by models, and confirmed by observations:

  1. Hurricanes are producing more rain, causing increased flooding. As water, not wind, is the source of most damage and mortality in hurricanes, this is the most consequential scientific finding.
  2. The proportion of hurricanes that reach high intensity is increasing.
  3. Hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly.

There is no robust scientific finding that hurricane frequency is increasing or expected to increase. Thus, much of Chapter 6 of the DOE report is devoted to refuting a hypothesis unsupported by scientific consensus. The short section on tornadoes does not include other more destructive aspects of severe convective storms, such as hail and damaging straight-line winds, and as with the section on hurricanes, omits inferences from theory and models.

[This commentary is also available as a pdf file]

[Read more…] about Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review

Filed Under: Climate Science, Featured Story, Greenhouse gases, Hurricanes, In the News, Instrumental Record, IPCC Tagged With: CWG, DOE, Endangerment Finding

Unforced Variations: Sep 2025

1 Sep 2025 by group 193 Comments

This month’s open thread. As usual try to remain substantive and avoid insults and personal attacks on other commenters. Any sock-puppetry or abusive comments will just be deleted on sight. Also, please don’t outsource your comments to ChatGPT – cut-and-pastes of long-winded LLM output are tedious and add precisely nothing to the conversation. There are real things happening in climate – please focus on them.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread, Solutions

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • Unforced Variations: Aug 2025

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Ray Ladbury on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • JCM on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Radge Havers on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Ken Towe on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Ken Towe on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Barton Paul Levenson on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Ken Towe on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Barton Paul Levenson on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Barton Paul Levenson on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Ken Towe on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • jgnfld on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Scott on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • BJ Chippindale on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Killian on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Martin Smith on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Killian on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Russell Seitz on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Martin Smith on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Nigelj on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Nigelj on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Nigelj on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • b fagan on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Scott on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,379 posts

11 pages

246,645 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.