scott denning
-===
hhmnn
Climatewire
How Chris Wright recruited a team to upend climate science
By Benjamin Storrow | 08/11/2025 06:15 AM EDT
The Energy secretary handpicked climate contrarians to write a report that EPA is using to undermine U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright addresses members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee during a May 21 hearing.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright addresses members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee during a May 21 hearing. Mark Schiefelbein/AP
It started with a call from Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
In late March, a little over a month into his job leading the Department of Energy, Wright phoned a research scientist named Roy Spencer at his home. Wright wanted to know if Spencer, a former NASA scientist, would be interested in contributing to a climate study.
Spencer said yes.
Advertisement
Other scientists received similar calls from Wright. They included Judith Curry, a climatologist and professor emerita at the Georgia Institute of Technology; John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville; and Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP who also served as an undersecretary at the Energy Department during the Obama administration.
All the researchers had one thing in common: Each had spent years questioning the mainstream consensus around climate science. Most have worked with conservative activists and fossil fuel interests to cast doubt over the dangers of a warming planet.
“He had been following my research for many years,” Spencer said, recalling his conversation with Wright in a recent blog post.
The end result of Wright’s hand-picked team was a 141-page DOE report released last month that questioned the basic tenets of climate science, including the accuracy of climate models, the threats posed by sea-level rise and the links between extreme weather events and humanity’s use of fossil fuels.
The document could serve as a legal battering ram for President Donald Trump’s efforts to eliminate climate regulations; EPA cited the study 16 times when it released a proposal last month to rescind the legal designation underpinning climate regulations.
The study also represents a personal triumph for Wright, a former executive at fracking services company who has spent years arguing that the benefits of burning fossil fuels outweigh the costs. In an interview on CNN, Wright said the study was intended to promote “a real debate and discussion about climate change, and get away from the cancel culture.”
He told a Wall Street Journal podcast that “these claims of disaster and impending meltdowns, they’re just at odds with the actual facts.”
Such assertions have attracted fierce criticism from many climate scientists, with some going as far to label the study “fossil fuel propaganda” and accusing its authors of cherry-picking scientific evidence to suit their narrative.
John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist and a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, struck a less strident tone.
Advocates and opponents of climate policy are both prone to making exaggerated claims about the science. But climate science itself is sound while the dangers posed by a warming planet are real, he said.
“There’s a risk that has real consequences in lives and property if society as a whole ignores the changes that are taking place,” Nielsen-Gammon said.
A priority for Wright
Vice President JD Vance (left) listens to Energy Secretary Chris Wright speak during a March 28 visit to the U.S. military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland.
Vice President JD Vance (left) listens to Energy Secretary Chris Wright speak during a March 28 visit to the U.S. military’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland. | Pool photo by Jim Watson
Just how much Wright personally invested in DOE’s study has become clear in his media appearances over the last week and in public comments by the report’s authors.
“Only one of the executive-level appointees in the Administration had the background knowledge and interest to invest in making this science report happen: Energy Secretary Chris Wright,” Spencer wrote on his blog.
In an email, Curry said she spoke with Wright three times, once when he invited her to participate, once regarding the White House vetting process and a third time with the wider group.
“He invited me because he regarded me as objective, and willing to listen to and consider a broad range of perspectives,” she wrote.
Wright also tapped Travis Fisher, an energy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, to coordinate the study.
“The secretary’s plan was simple,” Fisher wrote in a blog post on Cato’s website. “We would reorient the debate about climate science and climate policy by confronting the gatekeepers head-on.”
Fisher and Spencer did not respond to requests for comment.
DOE’s study comes at a time when the Trump administration has launched an attack on climate science, pulling down the National Climate Assessment from its government webpage, proposing deep cuts in scientific research and exploring a plan to end the mission of a pair of satellite’s used to measure carbon dioxide levels around the world.
DOE did not respond to a request to interview Wright or a list of written questions. But Wright told the Wall Street Journal he was seeking “honest, true scientists” who were “really driven by the data” to lead the study. In a forward to the study, Wright wrote that he had sought “a diverse team of independent experts” to review climate science.
“I exerted no control over their conclusions,” he wrote.
Yet all the researchers he selected were well known as outliers in the field of climate science with a reputation for questioning the dangers of a warming planet.
In 2017, when then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed the idea of pitting climate contrarians against their mainstream counterparts in a “red team, blue team” exercise, the conservative Heartland Institute sent EPA a list of skeptics who could fill out the red team.
Four of the DOE study’s authors — Christy, Curry, Koonin and Spencer — were on it. The work of the fifth DOE researcher, the Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick, is cited on that list, but his name wasn’t put forth by Heartland for a red team position.
The decision to select a handful of scientists known for their skepticism of climate science fit a pattern for Wright, who over the years has pressed the idea that fossil fuels are key to human prosperity and that efforts to curtail their use is harmful.
Liberty Energy, the fracking services company Wright ran until becoming Energy secretary, released a report last year that argued climate policy threatened to slow human progress unleashed by fossil fuels. It listed 10 key takeaways.
No. 9 read, “Climate change is a global challenge but is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life.”
No. 10 said, “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.”
The forward Wright penned to DOE’s study hits on those same points.
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity,” it reads. “That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.”
Critics: It’s about advancing an agenda
(From left) Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pose for a photo with the Trans-Alaska pipeline in the background after a June 2 news conference in Alaska.
(From left) Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pose for a photo with the Trans-Alaska pipeline in the background after a June 2 news conference in Alaska. | Jenny Kane/AP
Scott Denning, a climate scientist who recently retired from Colorado State University and who debated Wright on a Denver television show in 2015, said he recognized many of Wright’s talking points.
It is telling that the secretary had personally phoned the report’s authors and asked them to conduct a study, he said.
“He has this shtick about how fossil fuels have made the world much better,” said Denning, who then paraphrased what he sees as Wright’s viewpoint: “Everything uses fossil fuels. If we don’t have fossil fuels, we’re going back to pre-modern times.”
But Denning said, “I think that’s just such a false choice.”
Nielsen-Gammon said there is “sensitivity” within the community of climate scientists about publishing results that might be viewed negatively.
But he said that feeling is counteracted by the sheer amount of scrutiny climate science receives and the “extraordinary process” used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “where international communities of scientists get together regularly and hash through the evidence and figure out what’s well supported and what isn’t.”
Nielsen-Gammon said he disagreed with the DOE report’s finding that extreme rainfall events were not increasing in frequency and intensity — his area of expertise — noting that the report did not cite a number of studies on the subject, including one he published last year.
Others have been even more strident in their criticism.
In a recent Substack post, the climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the DOE study incorrectly cited his 2019 paper on the performance of climate models. That study compared climate models’ past emissions projections to observed emissions. DOE used it to bolster a claim that climate models had tended to overestimate emissions.
The only problem: the paper concluded just the opposite, Hausfather wrote.
“They scoured my paper on the performance of climate models to find the one figure (deep in the supplementary materials) to reinforce the point they were trying to make, and never actually referred to the broader conclusion of the paper that old models had by-and-large performed quite well,” he said.
The study’s authors largely have dismissed such criticisms. In an interview on the Heartland Institute’s ”The Climate Realism Show,” Curry called such critiques ”petty.”
“If we’re going to reference their paper, they would have liked us to make a different point,” she said, referring specifically to Hausfather. “Well, no, that’s not the point we’re making, but we do think that your graph is particularly informative, and we’re going to use that as part of our narrative.”
In her email, Curry called the cherry-picking claim “rather bizarre.”
“All of the issues that we supposedly ‘cherry picked’ were somehow not included in previous assessment reports (which were also arguably cherry picked),” she wrote.
Several prominent climate researchers argue the goal of DOE’s climate study is not to advance a scientific debate. Rather, it’s about advancing the Trump administration’s political agenda.
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, wrote on X that the study “should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide.”
The study figures prominently in EPA’s recent proposal to revoke the endangerment finding, the legal designation obligating the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
DOE sent the study to EPA on May 27, after which it was reviewed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as part of his deliberations over whether to repeal the endangerment finding, according to a copy of the proposal posted in the Federal Register.
EPA’s proposal cites DOE’s study 16 times, according to a review by POLITICO’s E&E News, using its conclusion to bolster the agency’s case that the endangerment finding should be repealed.
They include claims that “recent data and analyses suggest that aggregate sea level rise has been minimal,” that climate models “may be based on inaccurate assumptions, and that attributing anthropogenic emissions to extreme weather events “is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis.”
In the Heartland interview, Curry said the DOE researchers were aware EPA was interested in their study. She said the report was completed in May, but its publication was delayed to coincide with the release of EPA’s proposal.
But she added: “We were not, you know, instructed in any way to deal with endangerment finding related issues. We figured these were on the table, but we didn’t focus on that at all.”
This story also appears in Energywire.
did a talk at 350 denver
- June 2011, Sixth, Washington DC. Non-fringe climate scientist Scott Denning gave an excellent talk, pointing out that "climate will change a lot in the next generation and policy will be enacted" and yet "the political right has been AWOL in proposing effective solutions". He challenged his audience not to shirk their responsibility: "we need effective solutions...only a free market can bring this kind of change about...who will advocate for these solutions? If free market advocates shirk their responsibility, others will dictate the policy."[43] [44]
6/11 desmog
Wake up and smell the fossil fuel funding. That’s right, it’s that time of year again: the Heartland Institute is hosting its Sixth(annual?*) International Conference on Climate Change over the next two days in Washington D.C.
DeSmogBlog already revealed some of the oily sponsors behind the event. Now it’s time to take a look at the so-called scientists Heartland has rounded up to accomplish this year’s theme of “Restoring the Scientific Method.”
As in past years, Heartland’s speakers list is dominated by economists, engineers, TV weathermen, and representatives from right wing think-tanks. DeSmogBlog has researched the speakers at this year’s event:
- Tim Ball - Ph.D In Geography.
- Joseph Bast - Studied Economics (did not complete degree).
- Bob Carter - Ph.D in palaeontology and holds a B.Sc in geology.
- Paul Chesser - Opinion writer, accountant.
- Tom Harris - B. Eng, M. Eng.
- Christopher Horner - Lawyer.
- Patrick J. Michaels - S.M. Biology.
- Marc Morano - Think Tank Blogger.
- S. Fred Singer - B.E.E. (Electrical Engineering), A.M. and Ph.D.(Physics).
- Harrison Schmitt - Ph.D. in geology.
- Willie Soon - Ph.D. in aerospace engineering.
- Roy Spencer - Ph.D. in meteorology. “Scientific Advisor” to the ISA.
DeSmogBlog also added new names to the disinformation database this year (some long overdue):
- Anthony Watts - Electrical Engineer, former TV Weatherman.
- Craig Idso - Ph.D in Geography.
- Alan Carlin - Ph.D in Economics, B.S. in Physics.
- James Inhofe - B.A. in Economics.**
- Robert Mendelsohn - Ph.D in Economics.
- James Taylor - B.A.
- David Tuerck - Ph.D in Economics.
- Steve Goreham - M.S. in Electrical Engineering, MBA.
- Barry Brill - New Zealand barrister and solicitor.
- Ken Haapala - MS, Economics.
- John Nothdurft - B.A., Political Science.
- Nicola Scafetta - Ph.D, Physics.
- Larry Bell - Architect.
- David Schnare - Ph.D Environmental Management. JD, George Mason University.
Scott Denning, who also spoke at last year’s Heartland Conference, is notably absent from this list. The reason being that Denning actually acknowledges man-made global warming:{(}
Why then, you might ask, has the Heartland Institute not only invited Denning back this year, but also featured him prominently on the ICCC6 home page? Apparently Heartland actually scheduleda debate between Denning and Roy Spencer.
Whether he recognizes it or not, Denning serves as a false stamp of legitimacy for this non-scientific conference.
Brian Angliss over at Scholars & Rogues has more to say about the dearth of actual climate scientists attending Denial-a-Palooza this year.
*This will be Heartland’s sixth conference in the past four years: the first was in March 2008, the second in March 2009, third in June 2009, fourth in May 2010, fifth in October 2010, and now the sixth in June 2011.
** Senator James Inhofe, who was set to be the opening key note speaker, sent his regrets this morning claiming he is “under the weather.” Perhaps he was referring to the brutal drought conditions affecting his constituents back in Oklahoma, as Joe Romm from ClimateProgress postulates.
==
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
https://www.sourcewatch.org › index.php › Heartland_Institute
1.
Eric Steig on Twitter: "I honestly would like to know why the ...
https://twitter.com › ericsteig › status
1.
:{:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:
The latest travesty in 'consensus enforcement' | Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com › 2019/08/14 › the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enf...
1.
Roy Spencer Heartland Institute International Conference — VACA
https://www.rosefloristvacaville.com › blog › roy-spencer-heartland-institute...
Apr 21, 2019 - Heartland's 9th International Conference on Climate Change: A .. ... think of Dr Roy Spencer, former ... DeSmog. Roy Spencer | DeSmogBlog ... An Inside Look at the World's Largest Climate Denial Conference - EcoWatch .... "Climate scientist Dr. Scott Denning thanks The Heartland Institute for inviting him ...
Josh's Open letter to Heartland -vs- the original, now with extra karma ...
https://wattsupwiththat.com › 2012/02/18 › joshs-open-letter
1.
Most speakers at the 6th International Conference on Climate Change ...
https://scholarsandrogues.com › 2011/06/29
1.
He has also, on occasion, gone to Heartland Institute conference to defend the scientific consensus on global warming. In this interview he shares his story and experiences of going to these Heartland Institute conferences and tackling climate science denial head on.
Sources
- Scott Denning v. Roy Spencer Debate ICCC6
- Scott Denning ICCC6
- Scott Denning ICCC4
- Scott Denning Speaks at International Conference on Climate Change
Media resources
Interviews filmed in collaboration with University of Queensland and Skeptical Science. Full interviews available April 2015 in ‘Making Sense of Climate Science Denial‘.
Camera B interview footage provided by Peter Sinclair of Climate Denial Crock of the Week and Yale Climate Connections.
...
Scott Denning – Into The Heartland Of Climate Science Denial - Real ...
https://www.realskeptic.com › video › scott-denning-into-the-heartland-of-...
1.
Denial-a-Palooza: Where Are All the Scientists That Deniers Love To ...
https://www.desmogblog.com › denial-palooza-where-are-all-scientists-den...
1.
Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss - Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com › scott-denning-reaching-across-abyss-iccc6-hea...
Aug 21, 2011 - One of the few highlights was the talk given by Scott Denning (video), who, by walking into the skeptic lion's den, deserves great credit for his ...
Scott Denning - Into The Heartland Of Climate Science Denial : skeptic
https://www.reddit.com › skeptic › comments › scott_denning_into_the_hear...
Click this link to Read the Rules. Want to help out? Click here to apply to be a moderator. And remember the golden rule of /r/skeptic. "If this type of content ...
CSU Atmospheric Science Professor Scott Denning to Talk about ...
https://publicrelations.colostate.edu › 2010/10/06 › csu-atmospheric-scienc...
1.
https://theconversation.com/amazon-fires-are-destructive-but-they-arent-depleting-earths-oxygen-supply-122369
Fires in the Amazon rainforest have captured attention worldwide in recent days. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who took office in 2019, pledged in his campaign to reduce environmental protection and increase agricultural development in the Amazon, and he appears to have followed through on that promise.
The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80%following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.
Some media accounts have suggested that fires in the Amazon also threaten the atmospheric oxygen that we breathe. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted on Aug. 22 that “the Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire.”
The oft-repeated claim that the Amazon rainforest produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen is based on a misunderstanding. In fact nearly all of Earth’s breathable oxygen originated in the oceans, and there is enough of it to last for millions of years. There are many reasons to be appalled by this year’s Amazon fires, but depleting Earth’s oxygen supply is not one of them[astro tweet pix]
As anatmospheric scientist, much of my work focuses on exchanges of various gases between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Many elements, including oxygen, constantly cycle between land-based ecosystems, the oceans and the atmosphere in ways that can be measured and quantified.
Nearly all free oxygen in the air is produced by plants through photosynthesis. About one-third of land photosynthesis occurs in tropical forests, the largest of which is located in the Amazon Basin.
But virtually all of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis each year is consumed by living organisms and fires. Trees constantly shed dead leaves, twigs, roots and other litter, which feeds a rich ecosystem of organisms, mostly insects and microbes. The microbes consume oxygen in that process.
Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero.
There are four main reservoirs of oxygen on Earth: the terrestrial biosphere (green), marine biosphere (blue), lithosphere (Earth’s crust, brown), and atmosphere (grey). Colored arrows show fluxes between these reservoirs. Burial of organic material causes a net increase in atmospheric oxygen, and reactions with minerals in rocks cause a net decrease. Pengxiao Xu/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
Oxygen production in the oceans
For oxygen to accumulate in the air, some of the organic matter that plants produce through photosynthesis must be removed from circulation before it can be consumed. Usually this happens when it is rapidly buried in places without oxygen – most commonly in deep sea mud, under waters that have already been depleted of oxygen.
This happens in areas of the ocean where high levels of nutrients fertilize large blooms of algae. Dead algae and other detritus sink into dark waters, where microbes feed on it. Like their counterparts on land, they consume oxygen to do this, depleting it from the water around them.
Below depths where microbes have stripped waters of oxygen, leftover organic matter falls to the ocean floor and is buried there. Oxygen that the algae produced at the surface as it grew remains in the air because it is not consumed by decomposers
[purty nasa vid]
tiny phytoplankton in the ocean generate half of the oxygen produced on Earth.
This buried plant matter at the bottom of the ocean is the source of oil and gas. A smaller amount of plant matter gets buried in oxygen-free conditions on land, mostly in peat bogs where the water table prevents microbial decomposition. This is the source material for coal.
Only a tiny fraction – perhaps 0.0001% – of global photosynthesis is diverted by burial in this way, and thus adds to atmospheric oxygen. But over millions of years, the residual oxygen left by this tiny imbalance between growth and decomposition has accumulated to form the reservoir of breathable oxygen on which all animal life depends. It has hovered around 21% of the volume of the atmosphere for millions of years.
Some of this oxygen returns to the planet’s surface through chemical reactions with metals, sulfur and other compounds in Earth’s crust. For example, when iron is exposed to air in the presence of water, it reacts with oxygen in the air to form iron oxide, a compound commonly known as rust. This process, which is called oxidation, helps regulate oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
Don’t hold your breath
Even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1% of the world’s oxygen would be consumed.
In sum, Brazil’s reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure. There’s enough oxygen in the air to last for millions of years, and the amount is set by geology rather than land use. The fact that this upsurge in deforestation threatens some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes on Earth is reason enough to oppose it.
Journal list menu M Peng, L Qiang, Y Xu, C Li, T Li, J Wang Navigation 286 (6) | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
100 Years of Earth System Model Development DA Randall, CM Bitz, G Danabasoglu, AS Denning, PR Gent, A Gettelman, ... Meteorological Monographs 59, 12.1-12.66 | 2019 | |
Implications of jet stream and monsoon flow patterns on regional atmospheric inversions of CO2 fluxes over North America T Lauvaux, S Feng, S Pal, A Samaddar, KJ Davis, AE Schuh, S Basu, ... AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts | 2018 | |
Frontal Gradients of CO2 as sampled by ACT-America Flights and a Box Model IT Baker, AS Denning, S Feng, S Pal, KJ Davis AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts | 2018 | |
Combustion to Concentration to Warming: What Do Climate Targets Mean for Emissions? Climate Change and the Global Carbon Cycle AS Denning | Combustion to Concentration to Warming: What Do Climate Targets Mean for Emissions? Climate Change and the Global Carbon Cycle AS Denning | Combustion to Concentration to Warming: What Do Climate Targets Mean for Emissions? Climate Change and the Global Carbon Cycle AS Denning |
==
Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems DS Schimel, JI House, KA Hibbard, P Bousquet, P Ciais, P Peylin, ... Nature 414 (6860), 169 | 1489 | 2001 |
|---|---|---|
Modeling the exchanges of energy, water, and carbon between continents and the atmosphere PJ Sellers, RE Dickinson, DA Randall, AK Betts, FG Hall, JA Berry, ... Science 275 (5299), 502-509 | 1418 | 1997 |
Towards robust regional estimates of CO2 sources and sinks using atmospheric transport models KR Gurney, RM Law, AS Denning, PJ Rayner, D Baker, P Bousquet, ... Nature 415 (6872), 626 | 1088 | 2002 |
The common land model Y Dai, X Zeng, RE Dickinson, I Baker, GB Bonan, MG Bosilovich, ... Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84 (8), 1013-1024 | 1035 | 2003 |
Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2 BB Stephens, KR Gurney, PP Tans, C Sweeney, W Peters, L Bruhwiler, ... Science 316 (5832), 1732-1735 | 701 | 2007 |
Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: influence on weather and climate RA Pielke, RI Avissar, M Raupach, AJ Dolman, X Zeng, AS Denning Global change biology 4 (5), 461-475 | 628 | 1998 |
Latitudinal gradient of atmospheric CO2 due to seasonal exchange with land biota AS Denning, IY Fung, D Randall Nature 376 (6537), 240 | 444 | 1995 |
TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003 DF Baker, RM Law, KR Gurney, P Rayner, P Peylin, AS Denning, ... Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20 (1) | 399 | 2006 |
TransCom 3 CO2 inversion intercomparison: 1. Annual mean control results and sensitivity to transport and prior flux information KR Gurney, RM Law, AS Denning, PJ Rayner, D Baker, P Bousquet, ... Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology 55 (2), 555-579 | 300 | 2003 |
A three‐dimensional synthesis study of δ18O in atmospheric CO2: 1. Surface fluxes P Ciais, AS Denning, PP Tans, JA Berry, DA Randall, GJ Collatz, ... Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 102 (D5), 5857-5872 | 291* | 1997 |
Transcom 3 inversion intercomparison: Model mean results for the estimation of seasonal carbon sources and sinks KR Gurney, RM Law, AS Denning, PJ Rayner, BC Pak, D Baker, ... | Transcom 3 inversion intercomparison: Model mean results for the estimation of seasonal carbon sources and sinks KR Gurney, RM Law, AS Denning, PJ Rayner, BC Pak, D Baker, ... | Transcom 3 inversion intercomparison: Model mean results for the estimation of seasonal carbon sources and sinks KR Gurney, RM Law, AS Denning, PJ Rayner, BC Pak, D Baker, ... |
==