A new paper undermines totally inaccurate claims in the DOE report.
Readers will recall the litany of cherry picks, misrepresentations and evasions in the DOE “Climate Working Group” (CWG) report that we discussed multiple times last year. In particular, we highlighted an egregiously bad presentation by Steve Koonin at UT Austin. In that presentation, there was a figure presented (around 29:00) providing (it seemed) evidence that CMIP6 climate models were missing out on a massive warming of the tropical lower stratosphere and that the models had (quote) “a fundamental misunderstanding … of how the atmosphere warms”.
This was not just an overstatement based on a biased comparison, but rather, it was totally wrong. Notably, while the DOE report made similar claims, it did not include this figure – which has not been published anywhere else either.
The new paper (Santer et al., 2026) demonstrates the errors clearly. First, they use the CMIP6 data for the 2020-2025 tropical MSU/SSU diagnostics (similar to the comparisons that we update every year) and compare that data to the satellite temperature data at multiple reported levels (LT, TT, LS, and SSU1-3) (note that TT is TMT corrected for the lower-stratospheric influence).
The recent cooling of the stratosphere is clearly visible in both the models and the observations (very consistently), as is the warming in the troposphere, and in both cases there is a significant offset from the control run trends (indicating that there is a clear forced trend). The only level where there isn’t a clear departure from the control run trends, is the lower stratosphere, but there the observations and models (historical and control) are still indistinguishable.
Very clearly, the observed trends in the tropical lower stratosphere are within ±0.1ºC/decade and the signals are expected to be small compared to the noise. On the other hand, the observed trends shown in Koonin’s (unpublished) figure are on average ~0.27ºC/dec (range of 0.1 to 0.33ºC/dec). These two calculations cannot both be correct. And indeed, John Christy confirmed (in the paper’s acknowledgements) that the data in Koonin’s graph was just wrong (though it’s not exactly obvious how).
Thus Koonin’s claims are not only based on cherry-picks but also on fundamentally incorrect comparisons. LOL.
The point here (and in the new paper) is not merely to correct the record, but rather to illustrate why assessments are done the way they are. Relying on half-baked bespoke calculations that have not been peer-reviewed (or even sanity-checked) is just a recipe for embarrassment. Assessments (like the NCA or the IPCC reports) have got better over the years at trying to minimise this kind of error and are now quite good at it (by relying only on published references and extensive peer review at all stages). The cos-playing being done by the CWG simply recapitulates all the pitfalls that led to the modern assessment process in the first place, making the case (again) that these efforts have to be serious to avoid wasting everyone’s time.
References
- B.D. Santer, S. Solomon, D.W.J. Thompson, Q. Fu, and A.E. Dessler, "Misrepresentation of Human Climate Fingerprint in DOE Report", Earth's Future, vol. 14, 2026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2026EF008831
…. that Steve Koonin again…. Don’t get me started!
“Relying on half-baked bespoke calculations that have not been peer-reviewed (or even sanity-checked) is just a recipe for embarrassment.”
No, embarrassment would only apply if Koonin’s efforts at calculation were genuine attempts to contribute to understanding of climate, rather than contribute to misunderstanding of it. Whatever’s driving him, he’s not going to blush when shown to be wrong about earth science no matter how often that happens. At this point, he might feel more ashamed if people hear him out and they exit the interaction with their understanding of reality still intact.
The RC article in a nutshell:
Koonin presented a figure showing tropical lower stratosphere warming of ~0.27°C/decade (2020-2025).
Santer et al. (2026) say that’s wrong—observed trends are within ±0.1°C/decade and indistinguishable from noise.
John Christy (of all people!) confirmed Koonin’s data was wrong in the acknowledgements.
RC’s conclusion: Koonin’s claims are based on “cherry-picks,” “fundamentally incorrect comparisons,” and “half-baked bespoke calculations.” The DOE report is amateur hour. Assessments like IPCC are better because they use peer review.
What this means
They’re using a correction of one specific data error to dismiss everything Koonin has ever said, while simultaneously:
1. Ignoring the broader pattern of model failures in recent years (rapid heating acceleration, 2023-2026 warmth and skyrocketing SSTs, ENSO behavior, aerosol forcing, EEI, aerosol and Albedo changes, Himalayan glacier collapse, European heatwaves and wildfires etc.)
2. Treating peer review as a magic talisman when we all know the IPCC process has its own gatekeeping and groupthink problems
3. Mocking Koonin (“LOL Stratosphere”) with the same smugness they accuse him of, while giving him far more credit and limelight than due.
4. Missing the forest for the trees—even if that one figure was wrong, the question Koonin was raising (are models properly capturing stratospheric processes?) is legitimate, his work remains solidly scientific- because perfection or being first are NOT the defining Yardsticks for good science.
The hypocrisy of climate scientists contributing to misunderstanding?
That’s the bitter pill. They’ve built a priesthood around “the science” while actively suppressing dissent, marginalizing heretics, and treating uncertainty as a threat rather than an invitation to deeper inquiry. The irony is that in their zeal to defend the consensus, they’ve become the very thing they claim to oppose: dogmatic, closed, and hostile to critical thinking.
The Carlin connection:
“They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5JVk_y7U
RC readers (and many climate scientists) have become obedient believers in a system that demands they accept the consensus without question. Koonin is asking them to think—and they’re punishing him for it with mockery. That’s the core performative tribalism being played out-and that isn’t science.
They’re the ones parroting consensus without examination—without reflection—the very “obedient workers” Carlin was talking about, just in lab coats instead of hard hats.
The real question:
If Santer et al. have corrected one data point, what about the other points Koonin raised? What about the broader failure of models to predict recent warmth? What about the aerosol forcing uncertainties? What about the energy imbalance?
Those questions don’t go away because one figure was wrong.
Still waiting for the credible scientific explanations as to why no one saw the 2023-2024 heating spike occurred as promised on RC all those years ago. And what “they” decided to do about those fundamental egregious errors back then?
I expect nothing more than Crickets. Their constant unspoken denial of any responsibility.
KM: That’s the bitter pill. They’ve built a priesthood around “the science” while actively suppressing dissent, marginalizing heretics, and treating uncertainty as a threat rather than an invitation to deeper inquiry. The irony is that in their zeal to defend the consensus, they’ve become the very thing they claim to oppose: dogmatic, closed, and hostile to critical thinking.
BPL:
10 Climate science is a religion blah blah blah consensus isn’t science blah blah blah brave heretics blah blah blah Galileo blah blah blah orthodox dogma blah blah blah…
20 goto 10
BPL, it’s the same nonsense said by other science denialists, like HIV/AIDS deniers. They are to virology what KM is to climatology. KM (clearly another sockpuppet account) probably thinks they’re being original and insightful, when they’re just doing the same paranoid ranting any flat Earther or other charlatan could do. ‘The evil round Earth dogma with its priesthood suppressing dissent and marginalizing heretics who challenge the consensus!!’
How did this not find its way into the borehole? This has got to be the absolute dumbest thing I’ve read on the Internet this week–and that includes a summary of a Pete Hegseth press conference.
Your entire comment consists of evidence-free assertions and calumny, along with long-debunked denialist talking points.
KM, you mask has slipped entirely off. Nice to know that I can safely ignore anything you write from now on. It’ll save me time. You are dismissed. Pick up the ashes of what little credibility you had left at the exit. They’ll be inside the matchbox.
KOnayashim Multitroll (KM) , “summarizing” the RC post:
KM: “ John Christy (of all people!) confirmed Koonin’s data was wrong in the acknowledgements.”
Your ” attempt at irony *”John Christy (of all people)” – would hold water ONLY if RC authors couldn’t prove their point, and therefore had to resort to the criticism by the Koonin’s fellow denier, John Christy,
As everybody can see from the opening post – the reality is the opposite – Santer et al, 2026 proved unequivocally that Koonin’s figure crucial to his claim – was wrong, so the mention of John Christy just illustrates how far Koonin is gone – when even his fellow travellers like Christy – admit the figure, being the basis of Koonin’s claim, is WRONG.
KM: “ at this means They’re using a correction of one specific data error to dismiss everything Koonin has ever said,”
Dishonest again – the above is just the LATEST example of the Koonin’s scientific integrity, adding to his long list of his deniers half-truths and manipulations and inability to own up to his false claims, not a solitary innocent mistake, used by the IPCC establishment to discredit the otherwise stellar body of research and integrity, as you try to spin it.
So your reaction to this post – does not say anything about the credibility of its authors – but a lot about you. And the fact that you going to bat to defend the deniers, from the current examples –
– defending Koonan, Trump’s climate denier , or
– in concurrent El Nino thread – defending Nabil Swedan (being on record claiming that James Hansen work uses “incorrect physics”, “violates the laws of thermodynamics'”, “the so-called greenhouse effect is a fiction” and that it is IPCC where he got his claims that Watts/m2 are not units “of power, but of energy”) – and blaming Swedan’s ignorance and hutzpah – on the …. IPCC
confirms that Les extrêmes se touchent – that to the fanatics like you – the main enemy is NOT the opposite extreme – but those skeptical of your extremist claims.
Life unexamined is not worth living, you know. Glad I could help.
KM: “They’re using a correction of one specific data error to dismiss everything Koonin has ever said, while simultaneously:
His comments are literally delusional. The article makes no mention of Koonins other studies or dismisses those, or attacks him in a general sense because of one error.
However lets say someone has history of REPEATED climate science lunacy, and some denialists certainly fit that category, like “Lord” Christopher Moncton, and I think Steve Koonin might be flirting with that same affliction, I think the chances of them eventually saying something useful are too small to bother reading their material unless its shoved right under my nose.
KM: “That’s the bitter pill. They’ve built a priesthood around “the science” while actively suppressing dissent, marginalizing heretics,…”
Another delusional comment. He says this when the article has actually given Koonin publicity! Multi troll isn’t the sharpest knife in the draw is he!
KM: “Still waiting for the credible scientific explanations as to why no one saw the 2023-2024 heating spike occurred as promised on RC all those years ago. And what “they” decided to do about those fundamental egregious errors back then?
Because scientists dont have perfect knowledge about everything? Isnt that the obvious explanation? Occams Razor? Why make it into something more complicated?
Still waiting for KM to acknowledge the many things scientists HAVE accurately predicted. But no all you ever get from him are endless silly attacks on the following: warmist scientists, their models, renewable energy, and endless sympathy for denialists, Russia. China, and Trump.
I get that maybe he feels sympathy for the under dog and outcast being an underdog himself on this website, but he takes it way too far to the point its become pathological and it feeds the denialists, and so is destructive to efforts to fix the climate. But as a doomer that fits his agenda.
I find his comments quite fascinating. Its like a train wreck its hard to look away, like with Killians views on things.
Merci pour vos explications, je trouve également un peu excessif la manière dont Koonin est ridiculisé sur ce groupe, si toutefois, il peut être ridiculisé dans ses propos scientifiques.
Il serait intéressant de voir une réponse de Steve Koonin, s’il a connaissance de cette moquerie gratuite…
Le GIEC fait des affirmations et des projections en revendiquant parfois un “haut degré de confiance”. Si ce terme a une signification précise en science, il a été transformé en outil rhétorique vide de sens par le GIEC et ses “pendants”. On ne peut pas donner un “haut degré de confiance” à des scénarios de modèles climatiques.
Le climat est un sujet interdisciplinaire qui requiert des connaissances dans de nombreux domaines. Et très peu de “climatologues” ou autoproclamés tels, maîtrisent plus d’une ou deux de ces disciplines. Et je suis donc d’accord avec les scientifiques climato-réalistes (et non sceptiques), qui disent que les incertitudes fondamentales proviennent de l’insuffisance des données d’observations empiriques, des désaccords sur l’interprétation des données, et sur la “paramétrisation” des modèles climatiques.
Reply to Jean-Pierre Demol
Merci mon ami.
partial translation:
One cannot assign a ‘high degree of confidence’ to climate model scenarios. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject that requires knowledge in many fields. And very few ‘climatologists,’ or those self-proclaimed as such, master more than one or two of these disciplines. I therefore agree with climate-realist (and not skeptic) scientists, who state that fundamental uncertainties stem from the insufficiency of empirical observational data, disagreements over data interpretation, and the ‘parameterization’ of climate models.
So one person could follow the content without any trouble, and comprehend it as written.
And they were French, aka LOTE.
L’incertitude ne joue pas nécessairement en votre faveur. Au lieu d’être meilleures que ce que prévoyaient les simulations, les choses pourraient être pires. Vous ne le savez pas.
It is often said that language shapes perception. French appears to test this theory by making idiocy sound distinguished, sophisticated, and possibly peer-reviewed.
Your reasoning is obviously fallacious, such your whataboutism, goalpost moves, tone trolling, nirvana fallacy regarding peer review, and ‘just asking questions’ (i.e. JAQing off). Fact remains that Koonin was wrong on the topic the paper was about, no matter how much you try to deflect to other topics. The burden is on Koonin to support his claims, not on other people to address random questions you ask about a source who has already been shown to be unreliable.
Re: “If Santer et al. have corrected one data point, what about the other points Koonin raised? What about the broader failure of models to predict recent warmth?“
Models did fine. You’re just engaged in denialism, whataboutism, and JAQing, while you fail to cite evidence:
Koonin has no clue on model-based warming projections, as explained before. 21st century warming exceeds the ~0.36°F/decade trend he claimed counted as “sharply” warming. And Koonin incorrectly claimed 21st century warming slowed down in a manner that conflicted with climate model projections:
Koonin conveniently dropped this topic, likely to avoid admitting that ‘sharp’ warming continues as projected by climate models. A defense attorney would likewise be interested in promoting DNA evidence when they think it exonerates their client, but conveniently ignore DNA evidence when they think it incriminates their client. This, along with other examples, illustrates how Koonin acts like a defense attorney for a predetermined narrative, instead of as an investigator trying to figure out what’s most likely to be true. Andrew Dessler made that point before about Koonin.
Il faut quand même sortir du registre du « LOL » et revenir à la méthode scientifique.
Si la figure présentée par Steve Koonin comporte une erreur dans le calcul ou dans le choix des données satellitaires, alors il faut la corriger, ou proposer à Koonin de le faire ou de s’expliquer. Une erreur de calcul n’est pas un argument à défendre parce qu’elle vient d’un scientifique dont on partage certaines positions. Sur ce point, la publication de Santer et al. apporte une critique sérieuse : avec les jeux de données qu’ils considèrent comme corrects, ils ne retrouvent pas le fort réchauffement de la basse stratosphère tropicale présenté par Koonin.
Mais cela ne justifie absolument pas les conclusions rhétoriques de RealClimate.
D’abord, il faut distinguer une figure erronée de la question scientifique qu’elle cherchait à examiner. Santer et al. montrent que, avec leurs données, les tendances observées de la stratosphère sont davantage compatibles avec les simulations CMIP6 et avec le schéma attendu de réchauffement de la troposphère et de refroidissement de la stratosphère. Très bien. C’est une information importante.
Mais cela ne signifie pas que l’on vient de démontrer que les modèles climatiques sont « validés » dans leur ensemble, ni que toutes les interrogations de Koonin sur la représentation de l’atmosphère sont invalidées.
C’est précisément là qu’il faut être rigoureux : une réfutation doit porter sur ce qui a réellement été démontré, pas davantage.
Santer et ses collègues montrent notamment que le « fingerprint » anthropique — réchauffement de la troposphère accompagné d’un refroidissement de la stratosphère — peut être identifié dans les observations et qu’il est cohérent avec les simulations.
Mais un « fingerprint » statistiquement identifiable n’est pas la même chose qu’une démonstration que les modèles représentent correctement tous les mécanismes physiques, ni qu’ils reproduisent correctement toutes les tendances à toutes les échelles de temps et dans toutes les régions.
D’ailleurs, l’article de Santer reconnaît lui-même que la basse stratosphère tropicale est une zone particulièrement délicate : les variations internes, notamment celles liées à l’ENSO, y compliquent la détection du signal anthropique.
Et c’est précisément pourquoi une comparaison sur une période aussi courte que 2020-2025 mérite de la prudence.
Enfin, il y a quelque chose d’assez révélateur dans cette affaire : la réponse scientifique de Santer et al. est beaucoup plus intéressante que le titre de RealClimate. Le papier confronte des données, des modèles, des tendances et des rapports signal/bruit. C’est ainsi qu’un désaccord scientifique doit être traité. Le titre « Koonin’s Temperature of the LOL Stratosphere » et les expressions moqueuses du texte n’ajoutent absolument rien à la démonstration scientifique.
Donc, personnellement, je ne défendrais pas la figure de Koonin si elle est effectivement incorrecte.
Je défendrais quelque chose de beaucoup plus simple :
Corrigez l’erreur, fournissez les données, montrez les calculs et discutons ensuite de ce que les résultats permettent réellement de conclure. C’est cela, la démarche scientifique.
Ce qui serait beaucoup moins scientifique serait de transformer une erreur dans une analyse particulière en argument d’autorité contre l’ensemble des critiques formulées par Koonin, puis de remplacer la discussion scientifique par des sarcasmes.
En science, avoir tort sur un calcul ne signifie pas avoir tort sur toutes les questions que l’on pose. Et inversement, montrer qu’une observation est compatible avec les modèles ne signifie pas que les modèles sont démontrés exacts dans tous leurs mécanismes. Souvenez vous des calculs d’Arrhenius, il a aussi dû les corriger en son temps.
Le débat devrait donc porter sur les données, les incertitudes, les méthodes de calcul et la capacité prédictive des modèles — pas sur le fait de savoir qui mérite le plus de « LOL ».
Reply to Jean-Pierre Demol
Hear hear … closing translation extract>
I would defend something much simpler:
Correct the error, provide the data, show the calculations, and then discuss what conclusions can actually be drawn from the results. That is the scientific process.
What would be far less scientific is turning an error in one specific analysis into an argument to dismiss *all* of Koonin’s criticisms, and then replacing scientific discussion with sarcasm.
In science, getting a calculation wrong doesn’t mean you are wrong about every question you raise. Conversely, showing that an observation is consistent with models doesn’t prove that the models are accurate in every single mechanism. Just look at Arrhenius’s calculations; even he had to correct them back in his day.
The debate should therefore focus on data, uncertainties, calculation methods, and the predictive power of models—not on who deserves the most “LOLs.”
[the end]
That’s nice, tone troll.
Philosophical skepticism and speculative uncertainty do not belong in the realm of true science; they only obscure it. Genuine scientific structure is absolute and binary within calculated measurement error margins: a physical law or calculation is either entirely correct or it is false, with no intermediate states in between.
[Response: What nonsense. All of science consists of models of reality, and we all know that all models are wrong. The only discriminator is how useful the science/model is. The history of science is simply (!) the discovery and application of ever more useful models. Your deification of ‘true science’ is merely a smokescreen for the rejection of any criticism towards your pet ‘theories’. They are as convincing as Anne Elk’s theory (but not as funny). – gavin]
Nabil Swedan, This is absolute, utter twaddle! Scientific belief is inherently probabilistic. We can never assign absolute certainty to any proposition precisely because doing so introduces a potential divergence when we update the degree of belief based on new evidence. Even if we take a frequentist view of probability, an inductive enterprise such as science can never reach 100% certainty.
Dude, learn how science works.
in Re to Nabil Swedan, 8 Sep 2026 at 1:54 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/koonins-temperature-of-the-lol-stratosphere/#comment-850956
Dear Nabil,
I would like to remind you that in the parallel forum “This new El Niño is different”, you completely failed to respond to objections repeatedly showing fundamental flaws in your wannabe “scientific” articles. These basic errors were further discussed in “Unforced Variations: Sep 2026”.
You had lot of opportunities to recognize and admit your ignorance, as well as fatal failures of the editors who approved your articles for publication. Could you clarify why you, instead, moved to this forum and try to teach how the right science looks like?
Best regards
Tomáš
Enough discussion, Tomáš Kalisz!
Let my work be subjected to the test of time, and if it is found to be wrong, that is ok. It will remain within the realm of science and will have served a purpose.
Damages to the climate science come from skeptical scientists, like those who prepared the DOE report.
Better respond in the PubPeer forum, as otherwise your paper is in danger of being retracted.
Nabil Swedan: “Enough discussion, Tomáš Kalisz! Let my work be subjected to the test of time”
Time by itself does not test ANYTHING. It’s only influence is to provide the time for discussion, and it is the discussion that tests, that separates valid research from deluded garbage.
And you have opened this door when you brought yourself and your “research” to this forum – after you couldn’t defend your claims now it is too late to try to shut down the discussion:
if you can’t defend your claims, the passing time won’t do it for you.
Thanks to your foray onto this forum – you have proved to the world who you are – showing
your ARROGANCE based on your staggering ignorance when trying to discredit James Hansen’s work:
“ Again, the work presented in [Hansen’s] paper is based on a climate computer model that
has incorrect physics. The energy balance of these climate models is based on the
radiative forcing approach of the so called greenhouse gas effect. This effect is a fiction
and the radiative approach violates the laws of thermodynamics.” Nabil Swedan
Therefore, Nabil Swedan, the time already tested you – showed your arrogance, founded on your staggering ignorance, your inability to understand what you read, your inability to admit of being wrong and issue a retraction of all your papers you based on your ignorant assumptions.
And the time has shown, Nabil Swedan, that your place is among anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, 9-11 truthers, climate change deniers, moon-landing skeptics and other deluded.
And the journals that accepted and published your production – like “Entropy”. (Swedan, N. (2022). “Thermodynamic Analysis of Climate Change.” Published in Entropy, 25(1), 72.) –
and its publisher; the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). According to AI:
“many academics view MDPI as a “pay-to-publish” or borderline predatory publisher with fast turnaround times and variable peer review quality,”
Given the peer review MDPI did not NOTICED even one of the many major booboos of Nabil
Swedan – his beliefs that:
1. [W/m2] is not a power term, it is an energy term”
2. “the so-called greenhouse effect is a fiction”
3. CO2 does not absorb, or radiates, any LW radiation (consistent with N.Swedan lecturing James Hansen that “the radiative approach violates the laws of thermodynamics “)
4. the only source of heat in the atmosphere is the heat of oxidation of C to Co2
5. all extra heat of oxidation of human CO2 emissions FROM THE LAST 250 years is still there – which implies that either the Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong, or that none of the extra radiation from the warmer Earth over the last 250 years was able to make it into space.
6. and if none of the Earth energy can leave as LW radiation into space – also no solar radiation can be absorbed by Earth (otherwise 240 W/m2 of solar energy not reflected back into space and not radiated as LW radiation into space, would have boiled the Earth oceans long time ago)
saying that MDPI has “variable peer review quality” seems to be an understatement of the century.
On Thermodynamics of GHE: If you take two perfect blackbody surfaces at the same T, they will emit the flux densities (F) of the same value; if they face each other, they will each absorb the other’s emitted flux. The flux densities in both directions are equal so there is no net flux between them (net flux density = 0). If one is warmer than the other, there will be a net flux density from the warmer blackbody surfaces to the colder blackbody surface, but this is the difference between two opposing gross flux densities of unequal magnitude. You may think of these gross flux densities as being analogous to the forward and reverse rates of reaction in a chemical reaction; generally neither is 0.
GHGs make the atmosphere appear as a colored incandescently-glowing fog in colorized heat vision; their effects are equivalent to a cloud of tiny blackbody particles with orthographically-projected areas (absorption cross sections σ_a) but with a size that is strongly dependent on wavenumber (hence the color; flux densities are thus best understood by considering spectral flux densities F_ν (= integrated spectral radiance L_ν · cos(angle from vertical) over solid angle) and then integrating over wavenumber or wavelength … or photon energy or however you measured the spectral intervals). Cloud particles obviously also have σ_a values. With T generally decreasing with height, the downward LW flux density LW F↓ is generally smaller than the upward LW flux density LW F↑, but it reduces the net upward LW flux density. As seen from Space looking down, the LW emission from the surface (sfc) is, in much of the spectrum, least partially hidden/blocked by the atmosphere’s opaqueness, replaced by the generally cooler, dimmer emissions of said atmosphere; the height range of the source of that emission (ie how far down you can see into the atmosphere; a flux-weighted emission weighting function (flux-weighted EWF, or FEWF) varies over the spectrum and with cloud cover.
(thermal radiation emitted by the atmosphere and sfc is nearly entirely in the LW part of the spectrum, whereas solar heating is mainly SW (cutoff ~ 4 µm = 2500 cm¯¹ or maybe a bit longer/lower); this is primary spectral bandwidth categorization relevant to climate science.)
The GHE has the effect of producing an overall upward vertical displacement of where LW cooling to Space (CTS) occurs
(note where this occurs in terms of W/m² per mb or W/kg is modulated by the T distribution within the FEWF seen from Space, but the location/distribution of the FEWF is very important in this).
Relative to the distribution of solar heating (last I checked ~ 2/3 of solar heating occurs at/within sfc material).
Thus a flux internal to the climate system, from the later to the former, is necessary to achieve balance, and so the temperature at the sfc and lower atmosphere must be generally/effectively warmer than the effective T value of the FEWF(seen from Space) in order to drive that flux.
In the case of Earth in near present conditions, the T distribution required to drive this internal flux as a purely LW flux (equilibrium climate = PRE) would be unstable to convection, so instead we have a troposphere within which that internal flux has a convective and radiative component (equilibrium climate = RCE). The actual climate system is more completely described as 4+-dimensional, with horizontal, diurnal and seasonal variations in forced solar heating as well as internal variability (weather, ENSO, etc.), so an equilibrium climate could be described as *RCASE*, with various fluxes and conversion rates of energy (heat, kinetic energy) and momentum and mass (conversions of H2O among phases) which are not always spatially balanced (nonzero storage terms) but the fluxes and imbalances form a pattern/texture characteristic of that climate state, and the storage terms tending to 0 in the time average.
A change in forcing introduces an (additional) imbalance in the system and equilibration will involve a response that makes that imbalance decay. (said imbalance could be 0 in the global time average but still have important effects – consider orbital cycles (not exactly 0 but my understanding is the main importance comes from their regional and seasonally-varied forcing).
A radiant/radiative forcing** is conveniently described in terms of the imbalance, eg, the TOA value of W/m² change in the outgoing LW flux, or the solar heating.
Note the later is modulated by clouds, snow cover, etc., and the former by temperature distribution as well as clouds and humidity, etc, so the forcing by a change in Earth’s orbit or atmospheric CO2 amount will depend on the climate, which means it is possible for the same imposed change in forcing agent to have a different W/m² value when reversed from a changed climate after equilibration to some initial ‘forward change’ but, assuming no hysteresis, this will be made up for by a change in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)…
Anyway, if a forcing has some W/m² value, the climate will respond to restore balance, but we can regard the forcing as still being in place; ie, the climate response is a W/m² flux change that approaches the W/m² forcing over time. So the forcing since 1750 CE minus the climate response to that forcing is the heating rate.
**(forcings could also involve changes in the topography of the sfc, the Coriolis effect, or gravity (hypothetically, although the 1st two do change over geologic time) (Some things that in shorter time periods would be considered as boundary conditions and thus potentially agents of forcing, become interactive with climate over longer time periods, eg. ice sheets, erosion rates.)
– corrections/clarifications:
(Did I get this part right? It’s more complicated than it needed to be to respond to Nabil Swedan):
In the case where the global time-average (eg annual average, or long enough to characterize a climate state), radiative forcing ((gta-)RF) is an important measure of the forcing, then the remaining global time-average flux imbalance (=forcing – response) is an an important measure of the climate disequilibrium, ie the difference between the equilibrium climate (for the given forcing) and the present climate. In this case that imbalance decays toward 0; given some approximations and simplifications this would tend to be an exponential decay with a time scale proportional to (I think it may be equal to, actually) the ECS and the effective heat capacity; complications to that involve long time scales of some feedbacks and the availability of said heat capacity (ie./eg. ice sheet dynamics, deep ocean overturning, etc.) and I believe maybe also the distinctions between IRF, SARF, and ERF (parts of the atmosphere respond faster, but will respond again to other changes).
For regional time-average RF, imbalances would have to decay but that could include changing horizontal transports of heat (vertical fluxes by themselves can remain unbalanced); for a cycled RF there would tend to be a remaining imbalance cycle because of a phase-lag in the response. I’m not prepared to generalize how the climate evolves in response to other types of forcings, though sizable changes in mountain ranges or especially the Coriolis effect are so slow that we can approximately assume the climate is equilibrated to them.
—
If they both take place entirely on an infinitely thin surface, then the GHE is eliminated (not including any surface emissivity limitations (ie LW albedo) as part of the GHE). Even if the two distributions match, however, any thickness … well, the lowest solar heating still needs an upward flux to balance it… consider the difference between CTS and FEWF(seen from Space)… okay, I’m not sure offhand.
It’s interesting to consider the case where that FEWF is below the solar heating but I’ll not go there here. One can consider a GHE within solid or liquid material ie. solar heating within a frozen ice layer with CTS taking place closer to the sfc, heating driving geyser activity, on a cold moon of the outer-solar system.
—
PRE, RCE, ‘RCASE’:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850105 :
(… https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850147 …)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850181 :
… time scale proportional to (I think it may be equal to, actually) the product of the ECS and the effective heat capacity; …
If arguments could stop the more or less open climate ignorants (“sceptics”), they would surely have disappeared long time ago. But the contrary is obviously the case, and with the heroic efforts of artificial “intelligence”, we can only expect endless multiplications of the same nonsense. I think the endless repetitions of these “discussions” – you can’t have a discussion when only one part is arguing seriously – is without any value concerning the serious matters: the accelerating climatic destabilization and it’s catastrophic consequences for life on this planet, now seen in Nepal, Europe etc., but only to be stupidly sentimentalized and in fact downplayed and hastily buried in nonsense by the more and more silently Trump-normalizing media-/entertainment-industry, which is in fact sneaking fascism and barbarism upon us, controlled as it is by the fossil and tech oligarchs. The bitter facts are, that we are losing to the barbarians, they have all the power and in the public sphere most humans obviously only wants to bury the science and be lied to. Cheap crap is all.
I no more see any realistic way out of this hell. Homo sapiens has no future, The psychopaths and the mad are about to gain control of everything of importance, and nothing in sight can stop them, there is no will, only talk, talk, talk about the same, marching backwards, beating around the bush all the time. We seem to have reached a time when the second-best thing is to be dead, and the best thing is never to have been born. Experience has no meaning, when nobody is listening. The consequence is the triumph of fascism in the form of runaway A”I” mega-/MAGAlomaniacs hiding their plan for the end solution to the human question behind the facade of programming competition “in the marketplace” etc.