By David Wojick
The DOE science report saying the impact of CO2 on climate is exaggerated was quickly followed by a massive alarmist report. The alarmist report claimed to refute the DOE report, and the press dutifully reported it doing that.
On close inspection, I find this claim to be not even close to true. In fact, it looks laughable. Mind you, this is a preliminary finding, as the two reports together run about 600 pages. I just took what is arguably the key DOE chapter and compared the two reports on that.
This is the chapter on CO2 sensitivity, which is how much warming will occur (in theory) if the atmospheric concentration doubled. It is a convenient metric that is widely used to assess the potential adverse impact, if any, of increasing CO2.
I first looked at the DOE report, then at the alarmist report, anxious to see how they claimed to falsify the DOE version. What I found instead was that they did not disagree with a single thing the DOE report said. No falsification, no refutation, not even a simple disagreement. Nothing! I could not stop laughing.
On reflection, this is not surprising, because what the DOE report says is simple and well known. They point out that the range of sensitivity estimates is getting bigger, not smaller; that some of the models have gotten so hot that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no longer accepts their results; that observation-based estimates are a lot lower than the model estimates; and that sensitivity could be lower than the IPCC suggests.
There is lots of criticism in the alarmist report to be sure, but it is all editorial, not scientific. Basically, the alarmists wish the DOE report said something else — which is no surprise. They say the report “misrepresents” the science (because it is not alarmist), even though everything it says is true.
They list six specific criticisms. These six are scientifically irrelevant, but some are actually wrong. For example, they say the DOE report ignores that there are multiple lines of evidence, when in fact the chapter begins with a discussion of that very fact.
More deeply, they say the report ignores Transient Sensitivity (decades) in favor of Equilibrium Sensitivity (centuries). This is astoundingly wrong, because the chapter finishes with a section making the point that Transient Sensitivity is both better and much lower than Equilibrium Sensitivity. It is a primary point of the chapter.
In both cases, “ignores” is their word, not mine, and clearly wrong. Conversely, they also attribute claims to the DOE report that are not made. Assuming things not stated is a common tendency among those who disagree.
The alarmist report is grandly titled “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report” and is available here – https://sites.google.com/tamu.edu/doeresponse/home
The DOE report – “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” – to be found here. https://www.energy.gov/topics/climate
The alarmist site proudly lists some of the ridiculous press coverage it received. For example:
“85 climate scientists refute Trump administration report downplaying climate change” (The Hill)
“‘Not scientifically credible’: Scientists repudiate Trump administration climate report” (LA Times)
“Climate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change” (CNN)
This is alarmist nonsense personified, a perfect example of why the EPA Endangerment Finding should be revoked. It’s all hype.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People don’t like to appear foolish by being wrong. For forty years now reporters, politicians, academics, and ego driven activists have loudly pontificated and scolded about anthropic global warming. Most of them will never back down and admit that they were wrong. It is doubtful for example that we will ever see Al Gore or the Great Greta admit that they were mistaken about global warming. It is going to take a generation change before this particular superstition disappears.
They won’t admit to being wrong mainly because if they do they will lose their jobs. Only retired people can afford to go against the herd.
Actually many of them have already lost or are in the process of losing their jobs. One of the most ridiculous climatology institutions, GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies), was shut down in May of this year with its funding terminated and its Manhattan office lease ended. The wails and howls now heard on various parts of the internet are from those now threatened with unemployment. The upcoming UNFCCC meeting in Brazil this year looks to be a complete flop. The latest IPCC Assessment report #7 has been mostly ignored.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”― Mark Twain
People like to be fooled with stories, because it is much more sugar-coated/user-friendly than stark reality.
Which is why humans invented religion, IMHO.
I’m currently reading a new biography of Twain by Ron Chernow. It’s over 1,000 pages! I highly recommend it.
They really believe their nonsense. Zealots always do. For reasons they don’t even understand they want a global warming apocalypse to be true. They’re living in a fantasy world and when you’re dedicated to pursuing a fantasy, reality is your enemy. They are immune to reason.
How double dare you. When AI is more true than reality:
I knew AI would finally find a useful function. 🙂
It gives them a reason to believe that their wasted lives actually have meaning.
It’s a lot like how people cling to various myths.
Some people hunt for big foot. Some people hunt for Atlantis. Others try to convince onthers that CO2 is going to kill us all.
The working group had promised to respond to all comments (although I think this was limited to comments made during the official comment period). Now that the group is disbanded due to lawfare, does that mean comments (official or otherwise) will not be responded to? Will the lack of response be used to declare victory and try to declare the report invalid? Sounds like a pretty standard church of climastrology tactic.
They say they are considering responding.
They only became a federal advisory committee due to a minor procedural error, one member not filing some form or other. DOE chose not to make that simple point, a mistake I think.
From what I hear, they didn’t even make the mistake. The paper work was filed, but it was slow walked to the point that deadlines were missed.
It is all such a mess right now. It will be interesting to see what the EPA writes as it will surely finalize the rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. At least I hope so.
The National Academies is working up a report too, but not as a response to the DOE report. Will it shine any new light on the issue? Unlikely. I’m guessing it will be more of the same-old-same-old.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/anthropogenic-greenhouse-gases-and-us-climate-evidence-and-impacts
That’s a great link and looking at the committee (and perhaps more importantly the bogus Academy Members who aren’t on the committee), I have hope that it might not be more of the same old (insert noun of choice).
Academies report release is Sept 17:
https://mailchi.mp/nationalacademies/new-study-announced-on-greenhouse-gas-impacts-47fj2f1f4s-4867299?e=c3c03e3b28
Definitely fast. Alarmism ho!
Should be fun punching this big bag of green stuff.
Thanks for that update! I’ll be downloading their report as soon as it is available. I had made two contributions to their request for input material, and one submission to their “project feedback” page. I’m sure they will take my points seriously/jk.
Looking forward to your comments David(s).
After taking a quick look, I conclude the NASEM report is the same old stuff pushing the rock uphill. No acknowledgement even of the upward trend in reported values of absorbed solar radiation and the declining trend in cloud cover. And in 3.7, they talk about “Hydroclimate whiplash.” Sheesh.
Mainstream climate scientists claim they have a good understanding of the earth’s climate system as a whole, and of how anthropogenic carbon emissions affect the earth’s climate system. Not perfect, certainly, but good enough to inform public policy decision making. Or so they say.
Climate alarmists say that America’s leadership in reaching Net Zero by 2050 is key to convincing China, India, and the developing nations to adopt their own Net Zero targets, and to work diligently towards achieving those targets.
Here is what the US-DOE should do next. Issue an RFP to the mainstream climate science community for a government-funded climate modeling effort which includes these modeling elements:
— Assume that the United States reaches Net Zero emissions by 2050, and that the entire world reaches Net Zero emissions by 2075.
— For atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane: Develop and fully document a model, or a set of models if necessary, which produce a decadal estimate of what the atmospheric ppm concentrations of CO2 and methane will be at the end of each decade of the century-long period between the year 2050 and the year 2150.
— For global mean temperature: Develop and fully document a model, or a set of models if necessary, which produce a decadal estimate of what global mean temperature will be at the end of each decade of the century-long period between the year 2050 and the year 2150.
— Describe and document each of the physical assumptions made in each model in detail. Assess the uncertainties associated with each physical assumption, including the impacts these associated uncertainties have on the final predictions of each model. Assess the uncertainties of the model results as a whole.
— For each and every model run, document the revision of the modeling code, the modeling software itself, the associated physical assumptions being made, the input data and the output data, and the final results and conclusions from each model run.
— Document and archive the assessment analysis process for the modeling effort as a whole, and place a description of each step of the analysis process into a publicly available archive.
If no one in the mainstream climate science community takes the DOE up on its offer, that in itself would be an indication of just how much we can trust these people to be honest and transparent in producing their climate science conclusions.
“Mainstream climate scientists claim they have a good understanding of the earth’s climate system as a whole, and of how anthropogenic carbon emissions affect the earth’s climate system. Not perfect, certainly, but good enough to inform public policy decision making. Or so they say.”
They couldn’t be more wrong. There is no evidence that CO2 emissions affect the Earth’s climate system so it is not possible for them to understand something that doesn’t exist. All they have is speculation and assumptions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate system, none of which is established science. This is not good enough to inform Public Opinion.
”lines of evidence”
Don’t make me laugh! There is no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
That’s the bottom line. And it’s true. No Climate Alarmist will jump into this conversation with proof because there is no proof. Watch and see, and learn from this example. The Climate Alarmists have no evidence.
Major El Nino events provide basically all the warming in the UAH data.
Climate models do not and can not predict major El Nino events.
So there is absolutely no way the climate models can possibly predict anything to do with future climates.
I think you misunderstand the comment. It is about the CLAIM. The proof is allegedly in the construct of the system in which they assert (theorize) that CO2 is basically the control knob/ thermostat of temperature (outside of water vapour). They use the idea of energy (im) balance and the role of CO2 as enforcer as proof. Now, i consider this an unproven hypothesis and a misconstruction. Nonetheless, it forms the basis of their ‘science’ and the institutions support it.
But if you ask people like W Happer he can make a case for CO2 to have at least some effect even though it is tiny. Others disagree completely.
The point is: there IS disagreement in this regard so there IS uncertainty and speculation. Imo THAT should be highlighted plus the idea of risk management, a la Curry. The system is such that noone can provide definite proof that others will accept.
So, you can hammer on about proof all you like, this will get you nowhere. Debate will get you nowhere. Doubt is the only real weapon. Sow it where you can..
More opinion, and worthless.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. End of story.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
Just a nit. CO2 has a specific heat capacity (Cp) that is different than air.
For reference: Specific heat capacity defines the temperature rise of a mol of gas with the input of 1 J of thermal energy. Specific heat capacity varies with temperature and pressure in accordance with the ideal gas law.
Adding CO2 changes the specific hear capacity of the atmosphere.
There is a trivial, insignificant rise in temperature that is not zero.
Extra CO2 increases the dry lapse rate by a tiny immeasurable amount.
This increased the vertical temperature difference, so increases the cooling rate.
There is trivial, insignificant increase in the adiabatic cooling rate..
There is no doubt in the democrat political platform or leftist worldwide thought. They are true believers.
They believe that Anthropogenic global warming is catastrophic and must be fought.
Sowing doubt with true believers doesn’t work either. The only real weapon is to stop electing true believers since it is elected people that approve policy.
Politicians love nothing better than to have something to ‘fight’ for or against. It gives them a sense of purpose and self-importance. And opportunities for rhetorical flourishes.
And media coverage as well as the means to sway voters (aka public opinion).
Will Happer works in the radiative field, where there may be some tiny theoretical effect..
But any theoretical tiny radiative slowing effect is totally dwarfed by bulk air movement.
The equivalent of a flea on an elephant’s behind.
snip
So many times that the moderators have marked it as “harassment”.
snip
because it is.
Thus proving my point.. well done. 🙂
Asking for evidence is called “harassment”. !
“ There is no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.”
Deserves repeating.. in bold.
Which proves the alarmists are nuts.
There is really only one legitimate arbiter of whether CO2 is the “control knob” of climatic behaviors, and that is –
properly measured observations of all alleged climate ‘meltdown’ allegations, complete with error bars, that show SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS of 0.0001 increase in CO2 residency in the air.
The simple fact that the range of the sensitivity is increasing just proves that the modellers do not have a clue. That sensitive is much smaller than the IPCC holy value of 2C or higher. It is more like 0.5C which they would have known if they knew how to calculate it from basic atmospheric absorption data, which they don’t because they never read the relevant literature.
I think they take the direct sensitivity to be around 1 degree with the rest coming from two speculative positive feedbacks — water vapor and clouds. Some models went nuts in the last round with sensitivity over 5 degrees thanks to a hot new cloud feedback algorithm. Even the IPCC balked at these hot numbers.
Hey David,
You can run Modtran, UChicago version yourself. Start at 400 ppm CO2…specify a ground temp offset of say .01 degrees or some minor amount so that you can select “fixed RH” which will automatically do the water vapor IR calcs….then change to 800 ppm CO2 and manually change ground temp offset until the “difference” for your “locality” is zero. Following is for clear sky, equatorial…so worst case warming under the hot sun…hmmm, you get 1.21 degrees. Try some interpolation between “localities” that give you 240 W/m^2, more like the average planet, and you will find, IIRC, about 0.7 degrees of warming for that CO2 doubling….
In the real world, until shown otherwise, it still continues to be indistinguishable from zero.
real science looks like the following: the mass of a proton: 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms
There is no range about it. When “the science” can give us the climate sensitivity to the same accuracy as the mass of a proton, we can say it’s now a real science.
When people are furious with a journal paper or a report, and go about writing a refutation, they often have trouble seeing what is actually written or they can’t remember it. Such is wrath.
There certainly seems to be an element of that in this alarmist report.
And not one journalist attempted to verify and validate the claims before publication.
The alarmist report is 450 technical pages long so they wrote from the press release.
As I have said a few times, the DoE5 report is just the actual science..
.. with all the baseless alarmist rhetoric removed.
There is no climate crisis.
There is no evidence of CO2 causing measurable warming over the last 45 years of relatively consistent satellite measurements.
Very nice David, well done. The other side has no proper science to support their claims. It sounds like their report could be used as evidence against them if they were foolish enough to show up in court.
If you can’t beat them with facts, baffle them with BS.
That’s the way the alarmists operate. It’s all nonsense from start to finish but they think that putting in lots of indignant, eloquent sounding words makes a solid case. GIGO.
Why work to produce a quality report when nobody is going to read it anyway? Its entire purpose is to generate headlines.
Ed Zuiderwijk said above: “The simple fact that the range of the sensitivity is increasing just proves that the modellers do not have a clue. That sensitive is much smaller than the IPCC holy value of 2C or higher. It is more like 0.5C which they would have known if they knew how to calculate it from basic atmospheric absorption data, which they don’t because they never read the relevant literature.”
David Wojick said in reply: “I think they take the direct sensitivity to be around 1 degree with the rest coming from two speculative positive feedbacks — water vapor and clouds. Some models went nuts in the last round with sensitivity over 5 degrees thanks to a hot new cloud feedback algorithm. Even the IPCC balked at these hot numbers.”
———————-
As I understand the situation with the water vapor feedbacks and with the cloud feedbacks, it is not possible at the current state of science to directly observe these processes operating in real time inside the earth’s atmosphere. Their presence must be inferred from other kinds of observations.
Now here is a most interesting point.
If I understand the situation correctly as it regards the two postulated feedbacks, water vapor and clouds, the postulated higher-level physics of these alleged positive feedback mechanisms are not included directly in the algorithms of the coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation modeling codes, the GCMs .
Rather, the model outputs are being used as if they were direct physical observations of the atmosphere, with the postulated water vapor feedback mechanisms and the postulated cloud feedback mechanisms being used as explanations for the behavior of the models.
These models use some number of assumed parameters as substitutes for detailed knowledge of the low-level physical processes operating inside the earth’s atmosphere in real time.
So I ask this question …. If this is actually the situation, is it not so that for the most important sources of uncertainty in the modeling codes, the use of assumed parameterized estimates of the effects of assumed low-level physical processes are now being used to postulate the presence of higher-level physical processes in the form of water vapor feedback and cloud feedback mechanisms?
Two feedback mechanisms which are not possible, at the current state of science, to directly observe operating in real time inside the earth’s real atmosphere.
So what we see here is a form of circular reasoning justifying the presence of water vapor feedbacks and cloud feedbacks — postulated feedback mechanisms driven by paramaterized assumptions concerning low-level physical processes rather than by direct physical observations of higher-level atmospheric processes occurring in real time inside the earth’s actual atmosphere.
National Academies fast track CO2 is bad study release is Sept 17 (USA):
https://mailchi.mp/nationalacademies/new-study-announced-on-greenhouse-gas-impacts-47fj2f1f4s-4867299?e=c3c03e3b28
Definitely fast. Alarmism ho!
Should be fun punching this big bag of green stuff.
This video was created in support of this project. It features some of the authors.
https://app.screencast.com/xgTItkw2KwSuk
It highlights just how much work we need to do. The people behind the climate change hoax know it is a hoax, and they aren’t the type of people that one should count on doing what is right.
one hundred scientists against Einstein100 years later and they appear to have pressed therepeatbutton. it only takes one if you are correctThis is just symbolic of the neomarxists policy based science struggle with reality? And it’s widespread in the Western civilization Culture on many struggles they have with us? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/09/15/attack-on-doe-climate-report-is-a-comedy-of-criticism/#comment-4112303
The massive climate change hoax/grift is coming to an end.
Those that have profited and been employed by the grift are fighting tooth and nail to keep the money flowing.
They can keep the grift going for a bit longer, but it will eventually collapse. I look forward to new Starbucks barristas with their ‘climatology’ degrees.