Bill Mc, it's a big question. When empowered entities produce documents – they come with a sense of authority. Users and members of the general public are expected to have great trust on them. Documents as such of specialized nature – are supposed to be scientifically thorough and sound. But it doesn't mean their methods and conclusions are universally valid and beyond the purview of questions.
But, any such questioning are expected to come from other experts in the same fields. What about some smart questions from the curious mind of rational thinkers. How to value them? Users can only hope that what they are using – are acceptable and defensible for their purpose.
* * *
And, in context, thanks for your reference of the Climate_Experts_Review_DOE_CWG Report. I haven't seen such an expert level passionate arguments and counter-arguments on climate change issues before. They are quite interesting and thought-provoking. I see such interactions healthy and productive.
There are many one can highlight – but for the sake of brevity and my interest as in: 6. The Sun-Earth System – Entropy and Energy Balance of Warming Climate and Entropy, here is something I picked from the CWG Report (July 23, 2025) and the expert response to it (August 30, 2025).
DOE: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, CWG.
On Page 11: 3 HUMAN INFLUENCES ON THE CLIMATE
. . . The IPCC has downplayed the role of the sun in climate change but there are plausible solar irradiance reconstructions that imply it contributed to recent warming . . .
Climate Experts' Review of the DOE CWG Report, response:
On Page 60: . . . The report unjustifiably downplays human impact on warming, overstating solar influence and falsely suggesting human emissions are merely additive to natural variability . . .
I wasn't expecting the word 'downplay' from both sides – yet it is there. Why not saying 'as-it-is' instead . . . What is wrong with saying that 'human emissions are merely additive to natural variability'. Why it's a false suggestion?
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D
Website Links and Profile
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2025 12:22 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Will Atlas 15 be Scientifically Sound?
Those of us who use NOAA's Atlas 14 for regional precipitation frequency design information were alarmed when the present Administration paused work on its successor, Atlas 15. Then we were relieved when they announced resumption of work. We need updated guidance reflecting climate changes that have occurred in the past 40 years and reasonably predicting the next 50 years under the several climate change scenarios projected by the National Research Council and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I am discouraged by the news that independent scientists have denounced a recent Department of Energy climate report for "cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics." (see link) If this an example of how Atlas 15 is to be completed, I fear our future stormwater designs will be faulty.
Climate_Experts_Review_of_DOE_CWG_Report.pdf
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D.
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------