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.
The comments are available here, and there is a press release that gives a summary. It has been picked up by some the media already: NY Times, The Guardian, CNN, Axios etc.
This effort brought in 85 scientists (13 times as many as the CWG report – a clear example of Brandolini’s Law!) who cover a much broader range of expertise that the DOE report. One of the quotes from the scientists (not US-based interestingly) is a good summary:
This 2025 DOE report does not evaluate the extensive available evidence in good faith.
One person who commented on the chapter 6 on Extreme events and Tropical Cyclones is Kerry Emanuel, and he has expanded his comments into a post here. (Note if any of the other scientists involved would like to do similarly, just drop us a line).
Note that comments on the EPA proposed ruling are due September 22, 2025.
Andrew is on Mastodon here @andrewdessler@mastodon.worlfor those interested
Quote from blue intro:
Over the 16 years since the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare has continued to grow stronger.
Yet fail they to offer any Policy proscription at all. They fail to define any increase of “danger” post-2009.
If the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare is “stronger” since 2009 then where is the climate scientists’ quantifying a recommendation to strengthen the Regulations or to Ban all Co2/GHG vehicle engine emissions outright?
[Response: You posted two comments, one criticising Emanuel for not talking about energy use in a piece focused on science, and stating that climate scientists shouldn’t be in charge of policy, and then this one, faulting climate scientists for not making policy prescriptions (which you don’t want them to do anyway). Somewhat confused stance there… – gavin]
B: Not at all. Two comments addressing two different comments and aspects. Only your misinterpretation is confused.
Both fail to give any reasons or justification for not rescinding the Endangerment Finding on Motor vehicles. Your climate modelling, commentary, and theory are all irrelevant to that question.
And please do not misrepresent my comment.
“No matter the opinion of Kerry Emanuel, the IPCC or modelling climate scientists they have no Authority to dictate Public Policy or to control the debate.”
Self-evident to the point of being redundant. And correct. I did not say you have no right to make a policy suggestion. I point out you have none to offer in 453 pages or in 4 Real Climate article posts on the topic.
[Response: Yawn. Then why complain that a critique of the science doesn’t offer policy suggestions? Note too that the Endangerment Finding on CO2 is not specific to ‘Motor Vehicles’ – you are confusing the EF with the Proposed Rules (that are downstream of the EF). And again, since this is just another one of your sock-puppet accounts, we are done. – gavin]
Bernhard’s tone and lack of internal consistency seem quite similar to the recently banished trolls. And it seems the rest of us will have to keep on with “troll spotting” as a hobby.
[Response: Indeed. Also from a previously used IP. – gavin]
in Re to John Pollack and gavin, 2 Sep 2025 at 9:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838756
Sirs,
Many thanks for this information.
In view thereof, I propose that posts published under nicks “Roger”, see e.g. 4 Aug 2025 at 8:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-836987
and 4 Aug 2025 at 8:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/are-direct-water-vapor-emissions-endangering-anyone/#comment-836986 ,
or “GilbertD”, see e.g. 4 Aug 2025 at 8:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-836983 ,
could be perhaps worth of a check as well.
They attempted to copy a text of another author and paste it into a different context of another thread under their nicks. They managed to deceive a few other readers successfully, until this malpractice had been exposed by the original authors.
As the initial success (at least with respect to confusion caused) was high, I think there may be a strong temptation to try such attacks again, with a better preparation / under more careful camouflage. That is why I think it could be helpful if we knew that also this deceptive technique has been already tested by the recently exposed saboteur.
Best regards
Tomáš
Why ,in the name of the Disinterested Spirit of New England, can’t RC respond to the Forever Trumpers Red Team by rounding up a jury of twelve true-blue DOE National Laboratory Republicans to deconstruct it?
Dear Russell,
I am aware that you love sarcasm, however, without a proper knowledge of the respective context, I am often quite uncertain with respect to the right meaning of your message.
Your formulation “true-blue Republicans” made me somewhat suspicious. I have a feeling that the Republican colour is traditionally red, isn’t it?
Is it possible that finding twelve Republican DOE National Laboratory experts may be, in fact, a quite difficult task? Or have you rather meant that there will hardly be twelve DOE National Laboratory experts courageous enough to form a “blue” team, determined to oppose the “red team” formed by President’s nominees?
Best regards
Tomáš
Reply to absence of response at the bottom of the Bore Hole
TK,
You are wasting a lot of your own time noodling your brain into a knot.
‘True blue’ is a common figure of speech of long standing, no doubt pun intended, to which I’ll only add that if anyone is actually capable of roundin’ up a posse of true-blue, rooten’-tootin’, deconstructin’, Reepubs it would probably be Russel.
Now go home Tomáš, you’re. drunk.
Radge, I’d defer to Mike MacCracken.
in Re to Radge Havers, 6 Sep 2025 at 10:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838950
Hallo Radge,
Thank you very much for your kind explanation. If Dr. Seitz manages to assemble such a team, it will be a great deed, I think.
I cross my fingers for him.
Best regards
Tomáš
I wish he were. I think it’s more a case of him thinking he’s the center of the universe and not understanding that other people, each and every one of us, exist independently of him (centers of our own universes). He doesn’t realize that we don’t care and won’t follow all his arguments and links.
In Europe, red is the colour of the political left, revolution, the Red Flag and socialism, the workers, and blue – at least in the UK – the colour of the political right, the Conservative {arty (=Republicans), the blue blooded aristocracy
Of course, you will need a miracle for any aspect of reality to gain traction in this Trumpian review process of the DOE’s Climate Working Group report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’.
I see all comment received will be “considered” with the DOE “also intend(ing) to summarize all comments received by topic.” And the purpose is not to allow any revision of their fairy-tale but, bless their budgets, they tell us that the “information received may be used to assist DOE in planning the scope of future research efforts and may be shared with other Federal agencies.”
So the CWG report should be seen as a greatly monumental work already chiselled into stone. The choice of stone is likely not the hardest to chisel. The CWG report was commissioned by a shale gas guy who back in 2019 reportedly “drank fracking fluid to demonstrate that it was not dangerous.” But never fear, he suggests he also has a thirst for knowledge as he says he is well versed in the subject of CO2 emissions.
And I see Jon Christy and Roy Spencer (so 40% of the CWG) are already hard at work, respectively examining Heat Waves and UHI. It seems Roy is well on the way to dismissing the +0.28ºC/decade of US (and Huntsville) AGW as being 60% due to UHI with the nastiest warm extremes not even statistically significant. It’s so reassuring.
Mind, his initial finding refers only to Washington DC but Roy eagerly tells us “I’ll bet most people would not have expected these results if they have been watching the local D.C. TV stations’ weather and news coverage.”
Here’s a thought – What result was Roy expecting?
“Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?” replace Catilina with any of the people who are wasting the time we do not have with anti-science detritus.
Thank you Gavin for posting all the details on the real experts’ response and to all the 85 real experts who reviewed the detritus. It must be exhausting to have to do this, time and time again, so we should be even more grateful for their hard and essential work.
Is there any research being done to explain why we are in this time of utter obscurantism? Why are people educated and working at elite academic institutions part of it? What is deeply wrong with higher education in America?
I suggest a careful reading of this.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Third-Reich-1933-45
O tempora , O mores!
Totally are bores, these.
Either that, or a horror show.
To repay in a small way the scientists who put this together, I am posting some links that gives some basics of a how regulations are made and how lawsuits are used to challenge them to put their scientific work in the political/legal context. Administrative law is the area of law that deals with government agencies and regulations. It is important for public welfare and quality-of-life issues but lacks the high profile of other practice areas.
Two cheat sheets on rulemaking
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IIB014-Rulemaking.pdf
https://www.regulations.gov/learn
A longer, plain-English description
https://uploads.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/09/The-Rulemaking-Process.pdf
Since the proposed repealing will be challenged in the courts, some basics about how that works
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10558
Thank you Joseph for the above information and backing references and also several other recent contributions you’ve made on the legal picture surrounding this hot mess. They’ve been useful.
The role now for climate scientists is to focus on how best to challenge the white house view of climate as perceived by MAGAland.ie it is a legal battle as evidence based facts hold no sway with the Whitehouse. Find the most competent legal brain who has sympathy for the future of the planet while not disrespecting the powerful needs of the fossil fuel lobby.
Here in the UK, we watch with disbelief at the continuing pressure imposed by the president and his ill informed staff.
Dr Raymond Oliver PhD, DEng, FREng, FIChemE
Major problem here: Scientists are not politicians, in general. Not even Oppenheimer level scientists as he so harshly discovered when he attempted political actions.
As well, the techniques of science in general and even more importantly of every single specific research area and subspecialty are very abstract and require many years of education to employ or even to understand when used by others. As a rule of thumb it takes years for even a highly skilled researcher to switch research areas within a field as every subfield is different.
Political actors are not so limited and routinely use many propaganda techniques which are fine for political persuasion but not successful at all for scientific persuasion. Foremost among them are limiting and/or polluting the information flow and flat out bald-faced lies.
We see and have seen both here even in this rather globally not-really-all-that-important setting. We see it far more in political and main stream settings.
FYI, folks at NSIDC put together a response about the (very limited) info on sea ice and ice sheets in the DOE report: https://nsidc.org/news-analyses/news-stories/critical-importance-comprehensive-science-based-epa-and-doe-climate-reports.
Walt Meier
Senior Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder
@Walt Meier
I also noticed the lack of sea ice discussion in the paper. I submitted a very brief public comment on pre-satellite data, which was more focused on issues that the 5 authors would likely be more receptive to.
Here’s the exact wording from the Federal Register, 74 FR 66496, Dec. 15, 2009 (EPA Endangerment Finding):
“The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This endangerment finding applies to emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines.”
Key points:
The Finding explicitly covers mobile sources only. DOH!
It does not automatically apply to stationary sources, industrial emissions, or non-vehicular CO₂.
It forms the legal basis for subsequent EPA regulations of light- and heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.
IPSOFACTO
wrong Again
cite:
74 FR 66496, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” EPA, Dec. 15, 2009.
You better block this too then Gavin.
in Re to Bernhard aka Dharma aka Pedro Prieto aka Sabine aka Ned Kelly aka MultiTroll, 3 Sep 2025 at 10:00 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838839
The skill of a hidden propagandist is in carefully mixing the truth with half-truth and misinterpretations of the truth. Using brazen lies is effective only when the risk of backfire is low.
Unfortunately for you, your camouflage failed. Although you might have corrected Dr. Schmidt’s mistake in this specific case properly, I still think that you, Bernhard the MultiTroll, do not deserve any trust anymore. I hope that publishing your correction was an exception and that you will be banned anyway.
It might not be worth dragging this out, but once an endangerment finding is made under the Clean Air Act (CAA) it does apply to all sources. It’s just a matter of writing it into each part of the Code of Federal Regulations covering each section of the CAA. It’s a formality that does not have any practical implications.
Bernhard, I look here:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a
Under Action, I see two findings, not one. For some reason you only quoted one. Why is that?
“On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles and other sectors.”
The Endangerment Finding was not tied only to vehicle exhausts, the Endangerment Finding classed a group of greenhouse gases as harmful air pollutants in accord with the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision that found that greenhouse emissions were “air pollutants” covered by the Clean Air Act.
So they found endangerment from the pollutant, then they found vehicle emissions “Cause or Contribute” such pollution.
2012 case about it, too, with a PDF you might want to read.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/june-26-2012-us-court-appeals-dc-circuits-decision-uphold-epas-endangerment-finding
b fagan: Note Gavin has ID’d Bernhard as a new name of a multitroll.
Thanks, Susan. When playing whack-a-troll you’ve got to whack them no matter what label they pop up with next time, if only to present the context and actual detail they invariably leave out if they try quoting something they’re flat-out misrepresenting. Nonsense on a science-following blog that doesn’t get rebutted might give new visitors a false impression.
You might enjoy this. Krugman-Mann-Hotez. https://michaelmann.net/events/science-under-siege-a-conversation-with-dr-peter-hotez-dr-michael-mann/
They miss the additional information from Adam Becker’s new book (which I’ve raved about enough elsewhere, More Everything Everywhere, about the extreme egocentrism, religious fervor for their chosen god, extreme ai, and dreams of immortality of the tech bro universe, but are right on point as far as they go. This AI-assisted multitroll business is a new escalation of the denial universe, pretending not to be what it is.
PS. I found a one of your books in my library today (had forgotten) when hunting for something else. Great work!
Better link Krugman-Mann-Hotez mentioned ealier:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/science-under-siege-a-talk-with-peter
Susan, I’ll check out that link, and probably also the Becker book. Regarding “I found one of your books in my library today”: my jokey response is “please send it back when you finish” because I’ve never written any books – other than writing the user guide for a software product developed at a place I worked at many decades ago, which I doubt you possess.
b fagan: sorry, I have two books by Brian Fagan, who is prolific and interesting. I assumed that was you, my mistake, mentioned it because I’d forgotten I owned The Great Warming.
Susan – Ah, that Fagan – I wish I could write his stuff. I have and enjoyed The Long Summer so maybe I’ll look at a few more.
If I’d been less foolish in my foolish youth I’d have gotten a degree in science and technical writing, but the schools that accepted me were good schools and thus expensive (for then)., and a programming job was dangled in front of me instead. I’m not complaining though, it worked out well enough and I still read as much science and tech as I can.
in Re to Joseph O’Sullivan, 4 Sep 2025 at 9:30 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838877
and b fagan, 5 Sep 2025 at 9:36 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/climate-scientists-response-to-doe-report/#comment-838921
Dear Sirs,
Thank you very much for your additional clarification.
So, it appears that Dr. Schmidt was, actually, right and the MultiTroll lied again.
What a surprise :-)
Best regards
Tomáš
“So, it appears that Dr. Schmidt was, actually, right and the MultiTroll lied again.”
Yes, Tomáš, many names, but only one trick: try to get people to believe partial information with a tilt to it.
If you aren’t familiar with his YouTube channel, look at Potholer54 https://www.youtube.com/@potholer54/videos
He always does an outstanding job of picking apart the arguers who lie by leaving things out or by restating things incorrectly. Jordan Peterson is the latest subject.
Just sticking my nose in this thread long enough to say thanks! for the potholer54 link :)
Also, Peter Sinclairs This is Not Cool blog:
https://thinc.blog/
Is there a pdf version of the submitted comment that could please be added?
Finally got the download from Dessler’s site to work. Sorry Gavin for any bother.
Below is the Unions of Concerned Scientists comment dated 09/02/2025 submitted regarding the DOE CR:
.
https://ucs-documents.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/global-warming/comments-doe-climate-working-group-report.pdf
Thanks for posting the UCS response.
Somebody once remarked that Bill McKibben writes faster than they can read: a slight exaggeration. Here’s a recent one outside the paywall: Trump’s Department of Energy Gets Scienced: International climate experts have extensively debunked the D.O.E.’s recent report, but will science win out?
https://archive.ph/qsuDr
The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy’s 2025 Climate Report. A Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025)
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/
Thank you Nigelj for posting the AMS statement. It’s almost humorous that the AMS has to point out such basic constructs to the hapless collection at DOE.
Only have to endure this infliction of madness another 1,233 days :(
Susan, thanks for the link to McKibben’s comment. Your right, he is still writing prolifically. Go man, go. Oh, and to spare writing a separate comment, my thanks for (in UV) introducing me to another way the word “remit” can be properly used. Come to RC for the science, stay for the vocabulary improvements :)
When will the people of the U.S. take full responsibility for its 24% share of cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions — and for the resulting current and future damages to the environment and human welfare worldwide?
And when will they act accordingly by becoming the first nation to transition to a negative-emissions economy? The only credible way to undo the harmful damage being done in the future.
pg 407
Response to 12.1:
Comment: Technical, Editorial
Cumulative U.S. fossil emissions of CO2 (territorial), from 1850 to 2023, show that the
U.S. has emitted 431,683 million tonnes of CO2 during this period. This is more than any
other country’s cumulative fossil CO2 emissions, and equivalent to 23.9% of World fossil
CO2 emissions over this time (Global Carbon Project 2024)
● According to Ritchie et al. (2023), cumulative U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels,
cement, land use, and land use change and forestry combined, from 1850 to 2023, show
the US is the largest emitter of all countries, at 559.32 billion tonnes CO2. This is
equivalent to 21.3% of World cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions during this same
period. Therefore the US has likely contributed more than any other country to ambient
CO2 concentrations and warming experienced to date.
● As per the IPCC (2021), anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1750 through to 2019 have
contributed to an estimated change in Global Mean Surface Temperature of roughly
0.95°C. The vast majority (more than 99.9%) of cumulative anthropogenic CO2
emissions occurred after 1850 (Ritchie et al. 2023). Based on the additionality of
cumulative CO2 emissions, it is reasonable to conclude that the U.S. is responsible for an
equivalent (~21.3%) amount of the warming that has occurred so far (see Evans 2021 for
similar estimates).
● Putting historical emissions aside, the DOE CWG report frames U.S. emissions as
relatively small in a way that downplays the significance of current and future emissions
without regulation. To properly assess the impact of U.S. climate policy, however, one
cannot look only at a single year’s emissions. What matters is how regulation alters the
trajectory of emissions in future years, since the climate impacts of CO2 depend on
cumulative emissions.
‘When hell freezes over’ is an appropriate response, especially given the likelihood of anything cooling off in the next few thousand years.
The US has been constructing/policing global trade routes and overthrowing democratically elected governments around the world for approximately a century. It’s not just 25% of fossil fuel, it’s 25% of everything being consumed in the US by 5% of the world’s population.
The expanding American waistline is analogous if not a direct result of this consumption.
Global warming will revoke that privilege soon enough at the rate things are going. Nations with a strong trade imbalance will lose prominence as climate change dismantles the industrial infrastructure.
Think of it as divine intervention.
Another possibility is that everyone will play nice and save the planet together. Place your bets now for best rate of return on investment.
Agreed, at least as far as the prospect of the US becoming “the first nation to transition to a negative-emissions economy.” It’ll happen in China before it happens here, on present form–and I severely doubt it will happen in China first.
Section 3.3 of the peer review critiques the CWG’s claims on urbanization. That cogent section is written by Dr. John M. Wallace and Dr. Chan-Pang Ng, starting on page 91:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PwAR8I9YYmPhbQ6CRekHkroJGMbjbX7l/view
Dr. Judith Curry, one of the CWG authors, wrote this in reply:
That is a non-substantive reply. It also conflicts with Dr. Curry’s previous endorsement of ERA5, and her use of the Berkeley Earth analysis to address urbanization:
Dr. Curry is thus rejecting evidence she previously used. This justifies Dr. Dessler’s concerns about the absence of a review editor:
I think we can take it as written that 1) if they did, they would be, er, “carefully chosen’ (maybe by Chris de Freitas?), 2) since they aren’t bothering, they aren’t being very particular about providing fig leaves– that is, they don’t care what actual scientists think.
I suppose that’s not a surprise. They just need folks who can play a scientist on Fox.
Related comments from Dr. John Kennedy:
many observers note about Dr. John Kennedy’s style from the posts, talks, and interviews, he communicates calmly and precisely, often emphasizing uncertainty and nuance rather than making alarmist statements.
His tone is analytical, careful, and measured, contrasting with some US-based climate scientists who can come across as more confrontational, assertive, or rhetorically aggressive in defending consensus positions.
The British style of public scientific communication often leans toward understatement and dry humor, which Kennedy’s writing and interviews exemplify — “less agro,” less personal confrontation, more focus on data and method.
This aligns with his criticism or commentary (like in DiagramMonkey or WMO reports) is about methodology and uncertainty, not about attacking others’ motives or framing or personalities. I appreciate that kind of approach.
eg “It’s a way to avoid seeing the forest by a very careful study of all the individual trees.”
I just skimmed through both the DOE report and the Dessler response. My own view is that both reports were educational and worthwhile, with each emphasizing the weaknesses of the other side. My main concern was the Dessler section on sea level change. The DOE report copied a NOAA graph, with sea level rising at roughly a constant rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Strangely, there is no evidence of any impact from the warming of the atmosphere. The Dessler response added satellite data to the local tidal measurements. By adding this satellite data they were able to produce an upward curve. In my view, that is bad science. One does not mix two different data sources, especially when the satellite data covers only a fraction time period. Especially when the tidal data is a complete set. The other weakness with the Dessler plot is that it cut off all data before 1970. Rather shameful in my view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBG2IIbwbA
https://zacklabe.com/climate-change-indicators/
One could go on. You have to be buried deep in delusion to believe there is no warming.
The NOAA cherry-picked graph is of San Francisco only. This is not a representation of global mean sea level (GMSL) or sea level rise in other locations that are much greater The ocean isn’t a bathtub. There is abundant evidence of impacts from warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions. If you did your homework, you would know that sea level rise has been accelerating. In the satellite era alone, sea level has risen from 2.1 mm/year in 1993 to ~4.5 mm/year in 2023 (Hamlington et al. 2024) written by my former colleague. From 1880 to 1935, GMSL rose 1.1 ± 0.7 mm year−1 and from 1936 to the end of the record the trend is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm year−1 until the 1960s. In the late 60s sea level accelerated again. I suggest reading Church and White’s research.
Actually, the DOE report showed data from several locations around the US,, including the Battery in NYC. You can check it out yourself by going to the NOA web site: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
In Australia there is definite evidence from the tides of an increasing rate. But not around the US. Check on the web site NYC, Florida, California, Hawaii, etc. They are all fit rather well by straight lines. Those plots we have seen of an increasing rate of rise are almost always due to an improper mixing starting with tidal data, which measures the quantity of interest, and then switching to satellite data which requires lots of data massaging.
I’ve checked all of that out. Those locations are cherry-picked. Here’s Bangkok: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=600-041. Here’s Manila: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=660-011. I’ve also been involved with a number of satellites that measure GMSL, including Jason – 1, Jason-2, Jason-3, and Sentinel -6 Michael Freilich. Stop being so gullible–or perhaps I should just ask you to stop lying. If you understood climate data at all, you would know that all data needs to be adjusted to remove artificial bias that is unrelated to climate.
Perhaps I am sometimes “gullible”. But you have not pointed out any error in my posts, so I don’t think I can be accused of lying.
In the NOAA web site, none of the sea level measurements along the U.S. coastlines are adjusted. It is the raw and final data. And I did not “cherry pick”. I have looked at the tidal data all along both coasts, and almost all can be fit with straight lines. With various slopes because of differences in continental motion. Except for a few cities that are sinking. There is some hint of recent upward curving in the data, but it will probably have to be about another five years for it to clearly rise out of the noise. This linear rise in sea level is puzzling. But that is the actual data, without adjustments. Adding in satellite data, which has various weaknesses is unnecessary and just bad science.
I stand by my original post that both the DOE report and the Dessler response were overall worthwhile and educational. In my view, the weakest part of the DOE report is their ignoring the fact that for the past 30 years the average U.S. air temperature has been rising at a rate of 5 F/century. Not a small number. And with the continued increase in CO2, it is reasonable to expect that the net rise this century will be significantly more than 5 F. I don’t think any of us can predict the detailed impact of this warming on the environment, but it has to be very harmful. The next weakest part of the DOE report was their Chapter One, which notes that increasing CO2 increased crop growth. Perhaps a small increase in CO2 is on net a positive thing. But they neglect to consider the downside of a larger increase in CO2. Thus their overall claim that we should adapt to the temperature increase, rather than try to prevent it, is basically unjustified and in my view wrong. In various talks, Koonin has claimed that we can easily adapt to a further increase of 1.3 C (2.1F) over this century. But the current rate of rise is already faster than what he is assuming. His optimism is inconsistent with the data.
The strongest parts of the DOE report were its demolishing of the global circulation models, by showing the wide spread in their results, and their inconsistency with some other data. However the DOE Reprot seemed unaware of the fundamental reason for this failure of the computer models: the very large ratio of horizontal to vertical grid size. The other strong part of the DOE report was the puzzling result that sea level along the US coast shows no evidence of an increase due to global warming, if one looks at the raw measured data of actual sea level rise. Puzzling to me, but it is the actual data.
Local sea-level height (SLH) measurements show lots of variation. Consider the locations on the Gulf of Bothia, between Sweden and Finland, which all show an obviously trending decrease in SLH, attributed (by consensus) to glacial rebound. Consider this chart from Ratan, Sweden
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/88.png
Truly, the first order of business in any of the sea-level analysis should be accounting for all forms of natural variation. No one has ever done something like this AFAICT, but for the majority of the long time-span sites around the world, the seemingly erratic interannual variations are straighforwardly analyzable via an enhanced non-linear tidal model (which extends the conventional tidal model used in tidal prediction charts).
https://geoenergymath.com/2025/09/03/simpler-models-can-outperform-deep-learning-at-climate-prediction/
https://geoenergymath.com/2025/09/10/simpler-models-examples/
I’m not completely alone in this, in that a Chinese research group is also revising the conventional tidal harmonic analysis described here : “Observing ENSO-modulated tides from space”
https://geoenergymath.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/202412PO.pdf
The difference between their analysis and mine, is that I apply tidal cycle in their most elemental form to independently model both climate indices such as ENSO as well as local SLH, whereas they only apply an ENSO correction to SLH. So my approach is more foundational geophysics.
The bottom-line is that once the erratic natural variation is modeled comprehensively, then the longer term trends can be better isolated.
Steve B: – “Those plots we have seen of an increasing rate of rise are almost always due to an improper mixing starting with tidal data, which measures the quantity of interest, and then switching to satellite data which requires lots of data massaging.”
Satellite altimetry provides more accurate, nearly global, and consistent sea-level data for measuring long-term planetary trends and sea-level changes than tide gauges, which offer only sparse, point-based, and often inconsistent long-term records. The modern era of accurate, continuous ocean topography measurements began with the launch of the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite in 1992.
Satellites can measure sea levels across the entire planet, providing a comprehensive view of global and regional sea-level changes. Satellite altimetry can achieve accuracies of several centimetres or even millimetres when data is averaged globally. Combined with tide gauges, satellite data reveals accelerating sea level rise and provides critical data for understanding global and regional changes.
According to the IPCC’s AR6 WGI, the average rate of global mean sea level rise (SLR) was 1.3 mm/year between the period 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 mm/year between 1971 and 2006.
Global mean SLR is increasing in an exponential-like manner. Per the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report titled State of the Global Climate 2023, in Figure 6, the global mean rate of SLR using satellite altimetry data was:
* 2.13 mm/year decadal average for the period Jan 1993 to Dec 2002;
* 3.33 mm/year decadal average for the period Jan 2003 to Dec 2012;
* 4.77 mm/year decadal average for the period Jan 2014 to Dec 2023.
That suggests the doubling time for the global mean rate of SLR, since satellite altimetry measurements began in 1993, has been about 18 years.
Glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland,
said:
“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.”
https://youtu.be/8jpPXcqNXpE?t=110
I would not be at all surprised to see the rate of global mean sea level rise (SLR) accelerate further, from 5.9 mm/year in 2024 to 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s, and double further to 20 mm/year before 2050. That likely equates to 40 to 50 cm of SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline by 2050, and multi-metre (i.e. ≥2 m) SLR before 2100.
One metre of SLR would be catastrophic for many coastal cities, including in the US. I think 1 m of global mean SLR is plausible as early as in the 2060s.
The Earth System is already committed to more than 20 m SLR. On 22 August 2022, at the Cryosphere 2022 Symposium at the Harpa Conference Centre Reykjavik, Iceland, glaciologist Professor Jason Box said:
“And at this level of CO₂, this rough approximation suggests that we’ve committed already to more than 20 metres of sea level rise. So, obviously it would help to remove a hell-of-a-lot of CO₂ from the atmosphere, and I don’t hear that conversation very much, because we’re still adding 35 gigatonnes per year.”
https://youtu.be/iE6QIDJIcUQ?t=927
We/humanity will need to cool down Earth to save our coastlines.
I thank Paul and Geoff for their detailed responses. But it still seems to me that if one wants to know how much flooding there will be in the future in New York, or San Diego, or Honolulu, or other U.S. cities, then one should just use the actual tidal gauges at those locations. Those cities, and many others along the US coasts, just don’t yet show any definite acceleration due to the warming of the air. Almost certainly they eventually will show the impact of that warming, but not yet. The sea level has been rising at a constant rate since about 1900. That seems to imply that the melting of glaciers is still dominated by surface soot from industry that increases sun absorption. At Honolulu, the sea level is still rising at the constant rate of a mere 1.56 mm/year. At San Diego it is still 2.22 mm/year.
With satellite data, one has to correct for changes in radar speed through the variable ionosphere, and for variable speeds from changing humidity in the air. And correct for long-term satellite drifts. I know, there are ways of correcting, but those compensations will have errors. As I understand it, the radar from the satellite also takes an average over a few square miles of ocean surface, although there are very recent methods that may substantially reduce that size. Corrections have to somehow be made for local variations in wave height within the reflected area. This is just not a good way of measuring the sea level down to the millimeter or even centimeter level at the places of interest: the coastal cities.
In the Dresser response to the DOE report, for the Battery in NYC, they overlaid satellite data on about the latter half of the tidal data. The data combination, tides plus satellite, could be fit with an upward curve even though the pure tidal data did not need that upward curve. To me, that discrepancy is clear evidence that the satellite data is inferior and should not be used. Certainly one should never, never switch from one source of measurement to another, especially not in the middle of a single graph, unless there is a long-enough overlap to ensure the transition is reliable. I think that is a general view for how plotting should be done in all of science. That is why I remain shocked that Dessler used those sea level plots for NYC, etc.
Steve B (at 11 Sep 2025 at 2:17 PM): – “But it still seems to me that if one wants to know how much flooding there will be in the future in New York, or San Diego, or Honolulu, or other U.S. cities, then one should just use the actual tidal gauges at those locations.”
The oceans don’t behave like water in a bathtub does. Some areas are rising at lower rates and other areas are rising at higher rates compared with the global mean rate. See Potholer54 (aka Peter Hadfield) highlighting this phenomenon in his YouTube video:
“Yes, I know, if you do your own research in a bathtub, ocean water should rise at exactly the same rate everywhere. In the science world, even if you believe the rate of rise ought to be evenly distributed you still have to measure it, and find out. And when all the measurements are collected all over the world, this is the picture that emerges. The areas in red are where sea level is rising fastest; in blue it’s rising slowest.”
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE
Cherry-picking a few tidal gauge locations around the US, particularly ones that appear to be at rates lower than the global mean (i.e. Honolulu, San Diego), then I’d suggest you are not seeing the full picture. Perhaps that’s your objective?
I think there’s an acceleration in the graph for The Battery, New York, particularly after 2010. But that’s just my opinion.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
Ice mass losses are accelerating. See glaciologist Professor Jason Box presenting graphs of:
* Greenland’s ice mass losses: https://youtu.be/0TL0dxTFIyk?t=62
* Antarctica’s ice mass losses: https://youtu.be/0TL0dxTFIyk?t=110
Professor Jason Box then presents a graph showing sea level rise contributions from Antarctica, Iceland, Norway-Sweden, Russian High Arctic, Arctic-Canada, Alaska, & Greenland at: https://youtu.be/0TL0dxTFIyk?t=165
These graphs show accelerations. The ice melt needs to go somewhere!
Then there’s thermal expansion as the oceans warm.
https://arctic-council.org/news/4-facts-about-sea-level-rise/
NOAA published their report in 2022 titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and
Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines.
https://earth.gov/sealevel/us/resources/2022-sea-level-rise-technical-report/
But why heed the scientists that may well spend decades doing research in these issues and published their results in peer-reviewed scientific publications, when one can do one’s own research in a matter of minutes, aye Steve B?
Steve B @ 11 Sep 2025 at 2:17 PM said: “The sea level has been rising at a constant rate since about 1900. That seems to imply that the melting of glaciers is still dominated by surface soot from industry that increases sun absorption. At Honolulu, the sea level is still rising at the constant rate of a mere 1.56 mm/year. At San Diego it is still 2.22 mm/year.”
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions just eye balling trends that soot is the dominant cause of glacier melt. You would have to calculate the effect of the soot. I do recall such calculations mean soot is a large part of the melting in the Himalaya’s due to their proximity to sources of soot and wind patterns, but the Antarctic glaciers are also melting at a significant rate particularly in western antarctica, and there’s almost no soot there. So I’m not sure that soot is necessarily the dominant cause of glaciers melting in an overall global sense.
The real cause for concern with glaciers is not so much direct melting from warmer air and oceans although this is bad enough. The warmer oceans and air could eventually cause the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers to physically destabilise so they start collapsing at the face or sliding into the oceans faster and this is when we could see a very substantial acceleration pushing SLR well above one metre per century. We don’t want to trigger that sort of tipping point.
Im inclined to think global SLR has already accelerated but thats another issue.
Steve – you said: “Actually, the DOE report showed data from several locations around the US,, including the Battery in NYC. You can check it out yourself by going to the NOA web site: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750”
That default tab shows the trend calculated over the span of gauge observations at The Battery, and shows sea-level rise at a rate of 2.94 millimeters a year. And it shows a straight line beause it’s averaged the rate over the entire span from the 1850s through now.
Please take the extra step at that link, and click on the “Variation of 50-year RSL trends”
The most recent 50-year linear trend is by far the highest one, at 3.95 mm/yr, that’s 34% faster than the full, long-term trend. The default trend charts they show cover the full span, but the 50-year show how variable things are within a gauge’s overall history.
And, of course, every gauge shows motion whether its the ocean or the ground moving, or both. There are a lot of factors that can affect any individual tide gauge.
The following research letter, published in 2016 in Geophysical Research Letters, is available online and even if you just read the introduction, you’ll get a hint of how complex it is to figure out what true sea level is doing, versus what factors might be moving the land and the water intersecting at a gauge, and what pitfalls there are when picking and choosing which gauges to base a claim on.
“Are long tide gauge records in the wrong place to measure global mean sea level rise?
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/49840
The National Academies are releasing their report with a webinar tomorrow (Wed 17th) – anyone interested:
Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare
Report Release Webinar
September 17, 2025 | 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM ET
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine invites you to a public webinar to discuss its new report, Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare. This study reviews the latest scientific evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare in the United States.
The report will be posted online at 12:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, September 17, 2025. The public briefing will be held at 1:00 p.m. EDT. Members of the report’s authoring committee will share the major conclusions of the report, followed by a Q&A.
This event will be held in a virtual setting, available to attend online on the event webpage. Please register today to receive email updates as they become available. If you are unable to attend, the video recording will be posted in the days following the brief.
https://events.nationalacademies.org/45701_09-2025_public-release-effects-of-human-caused-greenhouse-gases-on-u-s-climate-health
Thanks for the info & the link!!
You’re welcome!
Anyone interested in checking out the recording of the release, the link seems to have changed after the event (partly by them shuffling where “event” is in the URL – the joy of web browsing)
https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/45701_09-2025_public-release-effects-of-human-caused-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare
Oh boy. The NASEM is a congressionally chartered non-profit organization — just like the United States Institute of Peace, which Trump shuttered.
I’m hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
”House panels charge U.S. National Academies with producing partisan studies
Pending spending bill urges agencies to find other sources of scientific advice”
16 Sep 2025, 3:25 pm ET By Jeffrey Mervis
.
https://www.science.org/content/article/house-panels-charge-u-s-national-academies-producing-partisan-studies
.
No words…