Kim Reid

Screenshot of an ESS Open Archive preprint page. A green “Download PDF” button sits at top left. The title reads “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report.” Below are subject tags “Atmospheric Sciences” and “Climate Science,” followed by two listed authors. A “Preprint timeline” box shows “Submitted to ESS Open Archive” on 24 Sep 2025 and “Published in ESS Open Archive” on 29 Sep 2025. A citation block includes the DOI 10.22541/essoar.175745244.41950365/v2 and notes version v2 (processing). A right-side box says “Non-exclusive” and “No reuse.” A yellow banner at the bottom states: “This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.”

Our comment to the DOE and EPA about the DOE Climate Working Group report is now posted on ESSOAR preprint server. It has a DOI and can now be cited!

essopenarchive.org/users/260056...

Tell me how you really feel about my crafting skills 😳

I wasn't expecting them to be perfect but that's a little rude

Excuse me

On behalf of our 85+ experts, @andrewdessler.com and I submitted a minor update to the experts’ review as a comment on EPA’s proposed repeal of the Endangerment Finding. This version includes a new cover letter that walks through all the science EPA gets wrong.

and kangaroo!

For all those folk in Vic, you might be interested to know that the wild winds we've had last few days has resulted in the lowest 24hr period of brown coal generation on record 🎉

When scientists engage in data driven, but purposeful and meaningful activism it can have IMMEDIATE results. Climate scientists did an amazing job of pushing back on the DOE's nonsense and we're already seeing results from that effort. I need y'all to do MORE of this please! It is EFFECTIVE!

The merchants of doubt are back But this time, it's the U.S. government pushing doubt

On The Climate Brink, I write about the DOE report and our response.

It was a pleasure to be involved in this. Not a pleasure that it was necessary, but seeing around 80 scientists come together to defend scientific integrity, led brilliantly by Andrew, filled me with pride.

Was great to participate in this. Scientists were arguing up to the deadline about individual sentences, showing the difference in rigor when you care about accuracy, and how non-orthodoxy the “mainstream” actually is. But when comments are open for just 30 days it’s designed to be difficult.

DOE CWG STATEMENT (second paragraph of section 2.1.1, page 3): “Piao et al. (2020) noted that greening was even observable in the Arctic.” COMMENT: This statement implies that the Arctic greening signal was caused by elevated CO2 , however that is not the scientific consensus. Piao et al. (2020) attribute the greening trend in the Arctic predominantly to growing season length driven by warmer temperatures (see also Y. Zhang et al., 2022). Piao et al. (2020) also note that this positive impact of increasing temperatures appears to have weakened over the past four decades, “suggesting a possible saturation of future greening in response to warmer temperature” (see also comment on greenness trends related to Section 2.1.1, first sentence of Page 4). It is also important to put Arctic greening more broadly into the context of the carbon cycle and other impacts. While above-ground plants may have displayed more leaf area over the past decades, rising temperatures also thaw permafrost and drive accelerated decomposition in highly carbon rich soils (Turetsky et al., 2020), a process which is expected to accelerate as climate continues to warm (Miner et al., 2022). Thus even with Arctic greening, high latitude terrestrial systems may become net carbon sources to the atmosphere, causing an amplifying feedback (Braghiere et al., 2023). Other risks to the Arctic linked to higher CO2 levels and rising temperatures are not mentioned in this report (Virkkala et al., 2025). The Arctic is warming at a rate of 2 to 3 times the global average, leading to thawing of permanently frozen soils (permafrost), with downstream impacts including loss of structural support for buildings and subsidence, threatening communities, roads, runways, and other assets across Alaska (Manos et al., 2025; University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Northern Engineering US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District & Laboratory, 2019).

Our comment on the DOE CWG report is done. It tips the scales at 439 pages, approx. 3x longer than the DOE report.
This is related to Brandolini's law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

Example: refuting one sentence.

Media Relations Manager (World Weather Attribution and Grantham Institute) at Imperial College London Explore professional services job openings, including the Media Relations Manager (World Weather Attribution and Grantham Institute) position, on jobs.ac.uk. Apply today and discover more about this r...

One of the best climate science comms jobs around, helping journalists explain how climate change has influenced extreme weather events, working with a top bunch of scientists at @wwattribution.bsky.social including @frediotto.bsky.social. London based, closes 5 Sep

Screenshot showing how the AI generated caption thinks this is a map of Georgia, USA. It is in fact a map of New South Wales, Australia

Geographic biases in the AI alt text generator in Powerpoint
#AIfails

Instead of regurgitating the bromide that LLMs are just "autocomplete on steroids" (even by people who know better), maybe we can actually engage in some public education. The problem with genAI is better expressed through a classic computer science concept, known as SYMBOL GROUNDING. 🧵

A global effort by climate scientists to respond to the scientific flaws of the DOE climate report, which Andrew is leading. A couple of Aussies involved.

We’re doing a special episode of Totally Cooked!

Is there anything about the weather or climate you really want to know or aren’t sure about?

Send us YOUR questions for us to answer.

comment here, send a DM or to totallycooked@21centuryweather.org.au

let us know if you want to be anonymous.

I'd like list a couple pet peeves of mine that regular folks & professional mets have done this #hurricane season that is poor form:

(1) Naming storms before they are actually named.

(2) Sharing deterministic model forecasts (including AI models) beyond 5-7 days.

Allow me a mini-rant to explain:🧵

DOE climate report response form We are collecting names to assemble a writing team to respond to the DOE climate working group report. If you'd like to contribute, enter your info below. At this point, there is no guarantee what we'll do (if anything), but we want to keep our options open by collecting names. If you have any further questions, feel free to email me. We are primarily looking for Ph.D. scientists at universities or government labs in appropriate fields. I realize that this will exclude some qualified people and I apologize, but we felt this was necessary for a variety of reasons.

🚨 If you're interested in working on a coordinated response to the DOE climate report, please enter your info on this google form 🚨

Please RT this so as many people see it as possible.

forms.gle/BL9xUAfRxA...

oooh does that make freezing rain a possibility?

Chaos in Perth CBD

Radar image of a long storm over Perth, Australia

Appreciating the irony of flash flooding in Perth during the #ClimateAdaptation2025 conference. Look at the length of that storm! The drains in the CBD did not cope.

🔍 AMOS is looking for a new Social Media Officer

If you are an ECR keen about science communication get in touch with us at comms@amos.org.au

There has been a strange shift away from "climate change" that I don't understand. I wrote an article for a respectable news org, and the editor changed all my uses of 'climate change' to 'global heating'. Scientists still call in climate change.

But yes, if humans were logical beings, the risk of collapse should be enough to invoke change 🥲

but studies that identify collapses or tipping points get published in big journals like PNAS and Nature and make news headlines, so there is a tendency to overstate results without properly assessing all the evidence, which becomes ammo for denialists.

Within a long-term trend, there are fluctuations over shorter time-scales i.e global temps are rising but every year isn't always hotter than the last, which is why we use 20 or 30 years of data to separate trends from short-term fluctuations.

11-years of data is hardly enough to be throwing words like collapse and reversal around.
I hate journals that treat the methods as supplementary. If you're making big claims, I should be able to see exactly how the results were obtained.

🔥 🔥 Episode 4 of Totally Cooked is out! 🔥 🔥

Listen to Iain Strachan and I talk about fires, droughts & climate change, with a few fun digressions in between :D

Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts.

Spotify Link lnkd.in/gfftsVtA

Nasa astronaut on ISS, caught this sprite over Mexico and the US this morning. Sprites are TLEs or Transient Luminous Events, that happen above the clouds and are triggered by intense electrical activity in the thunderstorms below. Source: NASA Astronaut Nichole Ayers