Enrique Sánchez
LightNews LightNews
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez
@esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
190 followers 270 following 28 posts
Earth physics. Science. UCLM Professor, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Basketball. Bruce. Saramago. ÚltimodelaFila. A hombros de gigantes
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · 23d
Contentos, tras un pequeño periodo sin regularizar los datos tras el apagón de abril, de tener las estadísticas de torre meteorológica del grupo de investigación @grupomomac.bsky.social @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es, para docencia, investigación y divulgación en #fabricadearmas #toledo.
grupomomac.bsky.social grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · 23d
Observaciones #torremeteo #verano #2025 #fabricadearmas #toledo #ambioqfisuclm #cienciastoledo @uclm.es #interMET_es. Tras unas semanas sin datos, tenemos de nuevo mediciones: los 3 últimos meses. Sin lluvia, temperaturas claramente sobre la media climática durante gran parte de la estación.
2 4
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
grupomomac.bsky.social
grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · 20d
Muy ilusionados con #heroesanónimos el domingo en #cmmmedia. #cambioclimático: retos, oportunidades y soluciones (cmmedia.es/tv/heroes-an...), visibilizando al grupo investigador @grupomomac.bsky.social #ambioqfisuclm #cienciastoledo @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es, junto con otros expertos.
3 3
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
grupomomac.bsky.social
grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · 23d
Observaciones #torremeteo #verano #2025 #fabricadearmas #toledo #ambioqfisuclm #cienciastoledo @uclm.es #interMET_es. Tras unas semanas sin datos, tenemos de nuevo mediciones: los 3 últimos meses. Sin lluvia, temperaturas claramente sobre la media climática durante gran parte de la estación.
1 1 3
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · 23d
Contentos, tras un pequeño periodo sin regularizar los datos tras el apagón de abril, de tener las estadísticas de torre meteorológica del grupo de investigación @grupomomac.bsky.social @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es, para docencia, investigación y divulgación en #fabricadearmas #toledo.
grupomomac.bsky.social grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · 23d
Observaciones #torremeteo #verano #2025 #fabricadearmas #toledo #ambioqfisuclm #cienciastoledo @uclm.es #interMET_es. Tras unas semanas sin datos, tenemos de nuevo mediciones: los 3 últimos meses. Sin lluvia, temperaturas claramente sobre la media climática durante gran parte de la estación.
2 4
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · 23d
Contentos, tras un pequeño periodo sin regularizar los datos tras el apagón de abril, de tener las estadísticas de torre meteorológica del grupo de investigación @grupomomac.bsky.social @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es, para docencia, investigación y divulgación en #fabricadearmas #toledo.
grupomomac.bsky.social grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · 23d
Observaciones #torremeteo #verano #2025 #fabricadearmas #toledo #ambioqfisuclm #cienciastoledo @uclm.es #interMET_es. Tras unas semanas sin datos, tenemos de nuevo mediciones: los 3 últimos meses. Sin lluvia, temperaturas claramente sobre la media climática durante gran parte de la estación.
2 4
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Sep 10
I've been getting requests from reporters about the disbanding of the DOE Climate Working Group. Here are some comments. More to come on my Substack (www.theclimatebrink.com).
The DOE Climate Working Group report was an absolute disaster from the beginning. It was created in secret with a hand-picked group of contrarians who do not represent any legitimate scientific position. The report ignored 99% of the scientific literature while employing selective data presentation, misrepresentation of scientific studies, misinterpretation of established science, speculative reasoning, and unsupported assumptions. Additionally, the group was clearly unprepared to meaningfully address the substantive critiques raised during the comment period. This disastrous episode should put to rest proposals for adversarial "red team-blue team" exercises in climate science. The field already undergoes extraordinary scrutiny and replication, making it among the most thoroughly validated scientific disciplines. While uncertainties exist in climate science, they are well-characterized and constrained—and these remaining uncertainties do not undermine the core findings that climate
5 43 130
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
uclmdivulga.bsky.social
UCLMdivulga @uclmdivulga.bsky.social · Sep 6
Turno para otra de nuestras investigadoras, María José Ruiz García, con “El azul de Prusia es más que un color”.
1 1 2
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Sep 4
On The Climate Brink: More about the DOE Climate Working Group report.

The Fix Is In: Without independent review editors, their “peer review” process is a sham. Science and humanity deserves better.
The fix is in
Judy Curry unwittingly spills the beans
www.theclimatebrink.com
4 30 69
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Sep 4
Muy agradecidos a #juliancano @cmm-es.extwitter.link por dar visibilidad y ayudar a hacer #divulgacion de #ciencia #cambioclimatico y sus impactos desde #mambioqfisuclm @uclm.es @uclmdivulga.bsky.social, con la contribución de nuestro grupo de investigación @grupomomac.bsky.social.
1 3
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Sep 3
Infinite thanks, Andrew, for such an effort and leadership. Climate science is indebted to you for this superb work.
1 2
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
npr.org
NPR @npr.org · Sep 2
More than 85 scientists say that a recent U.S. Department of Energy report is full of errors and misrepresents climate science.
Dozens of scientists find errors in a new Energy Department climate report
More than 85 scientists say that a recent U.S. Department of Energy report is full of errors and misrepresents climate science.
n.pr
350 3.8K 8.2K
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Sep 2
Our 400+ page comment on the DOE climate working group report is now out.

Our conclusion: The merchants of doubt are back, and they're coming for climate science.
DOEresponseSite
On July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report from its Climate Working Group (CWG). This report features prominently in the EPA's reconsideration of its 2009 Endangerment Finding. In response, over 85 scientists have come together to write a comprehensive review, which is
sites.google.com
17 230 460
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Sep 3
very nice article by @afreedma.bsky.social at @cnn.com about our comment on the DOE report
www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/c...
Climate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change | CNN
More than 85 veteran climate scientists have pushed back against a Trump administration report downplaying the severity of climate change, submitting more than 400 pages in public comments to the Ener...
www.cnn.com
1 25 69
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
benmsanderson.bsky.social
Ben Sanderson @benmsanderson.bsky.social · Aug 28
I never thought I would be spending my time explaining the scientific method to one of the most well funded research institutions in the history of humanity, but here we are.

But it was so uplifting to see so many brilliant scientists provide context to every point in this thing. You guys rock.
andrewdessler.com Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
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.
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).
2 16 70
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
ametsoc.org
American Meteorological Society @ametsoc.org · Aug 28
New AMS statement outlines five foundational flaws that make the Department of Energy's Climate Synthesis Report "inconsistent with scientific principles and practices."

Read the full statement: https://bit.ly/3UQRC82
The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report
Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025
bit.ly
5 82 130
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
it's starting
www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-am...
The Practice and Assessment of Science: Five Foundational Flaws in the Department of Energy's 2025 Climate Report
Adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council on 27 August 2025
www.ametsoc.org
1 22 69
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Jul 30
I've been getting a lot of requests for comments on the DOE report "A critical review of the impact of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. climate". Here are some initial thoughts. More will come later.
This DOE report is best understood through the lens of a well-known saying: “process is product.” In other words, the final document reflects the process that created it — including, most importantly, who was selected to write it. The authors of this report are widely recognized contrarians who don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus. If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different. The only way to get this report was to pick these authors. The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide. Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2’s innocence. This is a fundamental departure from the norms of science. A lawyer is expected to represent their client zealously and selectively, presenting only the information that strengthens their case and leaving it to the opposing counsel to present the other side. In fact, a lawyer who stood up in court and gave equal weight to both sides of a case would be considered professionally negligent, possibly even disbarred. In science, the standard is the opposite. Scientists are obligated to engage with the full range of evidence, especially that which might contradict their hypotheses. Ignoring contrary data is not just bad practice, in some cases it can rise to the level of scientific misconduct. Scientific credibility depends on a willingness to base conclusions on all of the evidence. When scientists cherry-pick data or misrepresent the balance of evidence, they are violating a core principle of the discipline. In this report, the authors are firmly in lawyer mode. They sift through data to find the few examples that support their narrative while systematically ignoring the much larger body of evidence that contradicts it. In conclusion, this report does not appear to be a fair assessment of the state of climate science.
9 65 150
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Aug 28
Very proud of being able to modestly add to this needed and wonderful scientific collaborative work. Thanks Andrew and all the people involved.
andrewdessler.com Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
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.
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).
2 4
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Aug 28
Very proud of being able to modestly add to this needed and wonderful scientific collaborative work. Thanks Andrew and all the people involved.
andrewdessler.com Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
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.
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).
2 4
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
ccolose.bsky.social
Chris Colose @ccolose.bsky.social · Aug 28
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.
andrewdessler.com Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
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.
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).
14 43
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
andrewdessler.com
Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 28
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.
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).
11 140 370
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Aug 13
En medio de la enorme #oladecalor #heatwave de #agosto 2025 en la #peninsulaiberica, me han vuelto a preguntar en @bbcnews-uk-rss.bsky.social, y hablar de la estracha conexión con el #cambioclimatico #climatechange www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3z0... (4h18') @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es
3 5
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
aemet.es
AEMET @aemet.es · Aug 24
📈🧵La reciente ola de calor ha sido la más intensa desde que hay registros en España.

→ Con datos provisionales, tuvo una anomalía de 4.6 °C y supera a la de julio de 2022, la más intensa hasta ahora con 4.5 °C de anomalía.
17 750 870
esanchezsanchez.bsky.social
Enrique Sánchez @esanchezsanchez.bsky.social · Aug 13
En medio de la enorme #oladecalor #heatwave de #agosto 2025 en la #peninsulaiberica, me han vuelto a preguntar en @bbcnews-uk-rss.bsky.social, y hablar de la estracha conexión con el #cambioclimatico #climatechange www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3z0... (4h18') @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es
3 5
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
grupomomac.bsky.social
grupomomac.bsky.social @grupomomac.bsky.social · Aug 8
Mucho calor en #fabricadearmas #toledo #ambioqfisuclm @uclmdivulga.bsky.social @uclm.es estos días, plena #oladecalor, como informa @aemet.es. Ya 6 días de temperaturas máximas > 40ºC, y mínimas > 21ºC (noches tropicales), y las que quedan...
1 1
Reposted by Enrique Sánchez
drxeo.eu
Dr. Dominic Royé @drxeo.eu · Aug 8
Un comentario breve sobre #olasdecalor No importa cuántas olas de calor haya, sino cuántos días vivimos bajo temperaturas extremas. Las olas son cada vez más largas, y eso tiene más impacto en salud, energía y ecosistemas. Contemos días, no eventos. #CambioClimático #CalorExtremo
3 11