Scientists dispute DOE climate report’s use of atmospheric data
Benjamin Santer and co-authors say a U.S. Energy Department report misread evidence for a human fingerprint in climate change.
By Priya Raghavan · Science Reporter
3 min read
A group of climate scientists says a U.S. Department of Energy report drew the wrong conclusion from research on human-driven warming. Their peer-reviewed analysis matters because the DOE report has been cited in federal debate over rules that allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases.
The new paper, published in AGU Advances, was written by Benjamin Santer of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Susan Solomon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Thompson of UEA and Colorado State University, and Qiang Fu of the University of Washington, according to UEA.
UEA said Santer was among the early researchers to identify a human “fingerprint” in the climate system. His work contributed to the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which UEA said was the first IPCC assessment to find enough evidence for a discernible human influence on global climate.
Dispute over atmospheric evidence
According to UEA, the DOE report released in July 2025 cited Santer’s work while reaching a conclusion he and his co-authors reject. The scientists argue that satellite records and climate models support the same broad signal: warming in the troposphere, the lowest atmospheric layer, and cooling in the stratosphere above it.
Santer said in UEA’s release that changes in the vertical pattern of atmospheric temperature are a key fingerprint of human influence on climate. He said the pattern is mainly linked to human-caused increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The researchers say in their AGU Advances paper that observed stratospheric temperature changes are consistent with model estimates of human-caused climate change. UEA said the authors contend that the DOE report is not a reliable reference for decisions involving climate regulations.
Santer said the DOE report’s contrary claim is “factually incorrect,” according to UEA. He also said correcting the record in peer-reviewed literature is needed when official reports contain scientific claims the authors consider wrong.
Regulatory stakes
UEA said the DOE report appeared the same day the EPA proposed rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding. That finding gives the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources, according to UEA.
UEA said the Trump administration later moved forward with revoking the finding, prompting concern about effects on public health, greenhouse gas reductions and other U.S. environmental protections. The university also said the DOE report was cited 16 times in the EPA proposal.
The authors note that other scientists have raised concerns about additional sections of the DOE report, including its handling of climate change detection and attribution, according to UEA. UEA said a team that wrote the DOE report was dissolved in early September after a lawsuit alleged the department had failed to follow required Federal Advisory Committee procedures.
UEA said the report has not been withdrawn or corrected and remains available on the DOE website. Santer said in the university’s release that Energy Secretary Wright continues to cite it publicly as a credible source on climate science, a characterization Santer rejects.
This story draws on original reporting from ScienceDaily.