Sabitlenmiş Tweet
🚨 Three-time @IPCC_CH Lead Author
Dr. Kevin Trenberth @NSF @NCAR_Science
just called our new paper “ABSOLUTE NONSENSE”
in the activist publication
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
WE COULDN'T BE MORE EXCITED!
Dr. Trenberth:
You once called the inability to close the Earth’s energy budget a “travesty.”
What changed?
Should we have a real scientific debate on the foundations? Or just call things “absolute nonsense”?
YOUR words over the years:
• 2009 ClimateGate email:
“... we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
• 2010 Science paper (w/ John Fasullo @jfasullo):
“missing energy” in the climate system that could not be properly accounted for.
• 2014 Journal of Climate paper (w/ Fasullo):
“...state-of-the-art observations and basic analysis are unable to completely account for recent energy variability at interannual time scales, since they provide either an incoherent narrative or imply error bars too large to make the products useful.”
Our new paper Cohler et al. 2026
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…
finishes what you started, Kevin,
using basic physics anyone can understand.
A few key points:
Temperature: NOT the same thing as energy. It is an “intensive property.” When you average temperatures from thousands of drifting Argo floats, whose exact underwater paths are unknown, the result is just a number. It is not a real measure of total energy stored in the ocean.
Uncertainty: We prove the real uncertainty is at least ±1 W/m² (more than 5x larger than what your IPCC and recent papers claim). That means today’s official “Earth’s energy imbalance” numbers are scientifically no different from zero.
Satellites: The NASA CERES satellite data is quietly adjusted to match these invalid ocean-based calculations.
English
