Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Alaska's Quietest Big Decision Is Due July 9
Alaska Statehouse Notebook June 30, 2026

Alaska's Quietest Big Decision Is Due July 9

A campaign finance bill cleared its final hurdles while no one was looking — and now the governor has eleven days to decide its fate.

Bill
HB 16 — Campaign Finance; Contribution Limits; APOC
DUE BACK 7/9/26

While Governor Dunleavy was making headlines vetoing nine bills in a single dramatic week — covering everything from civil rights to corporate taxes — a campaign finance bill with much bigger stakes for how Alaska elections work was moving through its final steps almost unnoticed.

House Bill 16 would reimpose limits on campaign contributions in Alaska for the first time since 2021, when a federal court struck down the state's old caps. Since then, Alaska has run two full election cycles with no limit at all on what an individual can give a candidate. HB 16 would cap individual contributions at $2,000 per candidate per election cycle, among other provisions.

"It just kind of got buried in everything else."

Here's what makes the timing notable. The bill almost died from neglect — one senator who revived it admitted as much, saying it had nearly fallen through the cracks before a late vote brought it back. It passed the Senate 12–8 and the House 21–19, was enrolled on June 22, and is now sitting on the governor's desk with a deadline of July 9 for him to sign it, veto it, or let it become law without his signature.

Unlike the nine bills he vetoed with detailed public explanations on June 18, there's been no public signal yet on where Dunleavy stands on HB 16 — even the bill's own sponsors say they hadn't spoken with him about it as of late May.

The stakes are real either way. If he signs it, the bill cancels a separate ballot initiative that would otherwise put the same question directly to voters in November — a measure expected to pass by a wide margin based on Alaska's history with similar measures. If he vetoes it, that initiative goes back on the ballot instead.

Either way, the decision lands in the next week and a half — with almost none of the attention that followed his other June vetoes.

Filed under: Campaign Finance, Alaska Legislature 11 days to decision

Monday, June 29, 2026

The Standard They Never Applied — Thomas A. Lamb
Alaska Division of Elections  ·  2026 Senate Ballot Hafner: Unquestioned  ·  Sullivan: Investigated
Subject
Selective enforcement of ballot access
Filed by
Thomas A. Lamb, pro se
Status
For public record
Date
June 2026

The Standard They Never Applied

Carol Hafner is on the 2026 ballot right now. The Division never asked her a single question. Daniel Sullivan got an inquisition.

Carol Hafner is on Alaska's 2026 U.S. Senate ballot right now — filed from South Dakota, mother of a man currently serving a federal prison sentence for threatening public officials. The Division of Elections never filed a complaint against her, never opened an inquiry, never asked a single question about her motives. Compare that to what happened to Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., an actual Alaska resident, in the very same election cycle.

Exhibit One: Carol Hafner, 2026 — Right Now

Carol “Kitty” Hafner has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska in 2026. She filed from South Dakota. She is the mother of Eric Hafner, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence in New York for threatening public officials, and who is separately running again for Alaska’s U.S. House seat — campaigning, as before, from his cell. Between the two of them, Alaska voters are looking at a Senate candidate who lives in South Dakota and a House candidate who lives in federal prison, both seeking to represent a state neither one has ever called home.

The Division of Elections has filed no complaint against her candidacy. It has opened no inquiry into her motives. It has not asked whether her run is in “good faith.” She simply qualified, under the bare constitutional minimum, and her name sits on the same 2026 ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. — the man the Division spent two weeks investigating and ultimately tried to disqualify.

Exhibit Two: Eric Hafner, 2024

This is not a new pattern. In 2024, Eric Hafner finished sixth in Alaska’s U.S. House primary — with 0.4% of the vote — while serving a 20-year federal prison sentence. He had never lived in Alaska. When two higher-finishing Republicans withdrew, Hafner was elevated to the general election ballot under the Division’s own reading of the law.

The Alaska Democratic Party sued to remove him, arguing the U.S. Constitution requires a House member to be an inhabitant of the state “when elected” — something Hafner, with a release date of 2036, could not possibly satisfy. The Division’s own director, Carol Beecher, did not invoke a “good faith” standard to keep him off. She defended his right to stay on. And when the question came up again two years later, the Division’s own attorney admitted under oath exactly how little scrutiny Hafner ever received.

“In the Hafner case, there was no complaint filed prior to the primary on Hafner’s candidacy.” — Chris Murray, attorney for the Alaska Division of Elections, June 25, 2026

No complaint. No investigation. No “good faith” review of a man calling in to campaign from a prison phone. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, 4–1, in Alaska Democratic Party v. Beecher, and the Superior Court below said the quiet part out loud: ranked-choice voting neutralizes any claim of harm, because every voter can simply rank the candidates they actually want.

Exhibit Three: Daniel Sullivan, 2026

Compare that to what happened to a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. — an actual Alaska resident, properly filed, constitutionally qualified in every respect — was investigated by the Division within weeks of filing, after complaints from the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Director Beecher determined his candidacy was not filed in “good faith” and disqualified him — a standard that appears nowhere in Alaska statute, nowhere in regulation, and nowhere in the Alaska Constitution.

Sullivan’s own attorney drew the comparison directly to the court’s face:

“When would there be a better time… to question the motives of someone’s intent to run for office than a convicted felon living out of state who has no potential to come [to Alaska] and serve?” — Jeffrey Robinson, attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, June 29, 2026
Same Election Cycle · Same Division · Opposite Standards
Hafner
2026 U.S. Senate candidate · on ballot now
Residence on file
South Dakota
Family circumstance
Son serving federal sentence, campaigning from prison for the same election cycle
Complaint filed
None on record
“Good faith” review
Never opened
Result: On the ballot, unquestioned
Sullivan
Division of Elections v. Sullivan, S-19935
Residence on file
Petersburg, Alaska
Background
Retired schoolteacher, lifelong Alaskan
Complaint filed
Alaska GOP & NRSC, within weeks
“Good faith” review
Opened, disqualified, litigated
Result: Disqualified, then reinstated by courts

The Pattern

This isn’t a comparison across different years or different administrations. Carol Hafner and Daniel Sullivan are running in the same election, on the same ballot, reviewed by the same Division, in the same matter of weeks. One candidate lives in South Dakota and has a son campaigning from a federal prison cell. The other is a retired Alaska schoolteacher who has lived in Petersburg for years. The Division investigated, disqualified, and fought in court to keep the Alaskan off. It never lifted a finger against the South Dakotan.

The Division’s own attorney admitted there was no complaint, no inquiry, nothing resembling scrutiny in the Hafner case — not in 2024, and not now. Sullivan’s attorney asked the obvious question out loud in front of the Alaska Supreme Court: if “good faith” review is ever appropriate, why does it appear only when the candidate is an actual Alaskan, and never when the candidate is filing from out of state with a felon for a son?

Order · June 29, 2026

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling directing the Division to include Sullivan on the ballot, rejecting the “good faith” standard as unsupported by Alaska law.

The Point

A standard that only appears when it’s convenient isn’t a standard. It’s a tool. Alaska voters deserve an elections division that applies the same rule to everyone — whether the candidate is a stranger to the state calling in from a prison phone, or a neighbor down the road whose name happens to match someone already in office. The Constitution sets the bar. It is not the Division’s place to raise it for some candidates and lower it for others depending on who they’d rather see on the ballot.

Thomas A. Lamb · Alaskan Voter & Former Candidate, Alaska State Senate District D (2020) · Wasilla, AK
From Fort Sumter to the Supreme Court: The 160-Year Fight to Count Military Ballots
American Democracy · Election Law
The Ballot & The Battlefield

Breaking · June 29, 2026

From Fort Sumter to the Supreme Court: The 160-Year Fight to Count Military Ballots

Today's ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee settled a question that has shadowed American democracy since the Civil War: when a soldier mails a ballot from a battlefield, does it count if it arrives late?

In 1864, Union soldiers lined up at makeshift polling stations in Georgia and cast their ballots for president. Commanding officers sealed those ballots in envelopes, forwarded them north by whatever transport was available, and states counted them when they arrived — sometimes days or weeks after Election Day. Abraham Lincoln won re-election in part because of those votes. Seventy-eight percent of soldier ballots went to him.

One hundred and sixty-two years later, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether that tradition was ever legal in the first place.

Today, in a 5–4 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court said it was — and still is.

Today's Decision · Watson v. Republican National Committee · No. 24-1260
States may count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day even if they arrive afterward. Federal election-day statutes set the deadline for casting a vote — not for receiving one.
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority: "The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose."
Majority (5): Barrett · Roberts · Sotomayor · Kagan · Jackson  ·  Dissent (4): Alito · Thomas · Gorsuch · Kavanaugh

What Was at Stake

Mississippi law allows absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted up to five business days later. The Republican National Committee sued in 2024, arguing that federal statutes establishing a single, uniform Election Day require ballots to be in election officials' hands by that date — not just in a mailbox.

On its face, it sounded like a narrow procedural dispute about one state's deadline. It was not. Roughly 30 states count at least some absentee ballots received after Election Day. And one group of voters depended on those grace periods more than any other: active-duty military personnel and Americans living overseas.

Rate at which military & overseas ballots were rejected for lateness vs. domestic mail ballots in 2024
47% Of all UOCAVA ballot rejections in 2024 were due to late arrival — the single most common reason
30 States with grace periods for military & overseas ballots that were now protected by today's ruling

A Problem Born in the Civil War

To understand why today's ruling matters, you have to go back to 1864 — because that is where this story begins.

Before the Civil War, voting was simple in one sense: you showed up. Nearly all voting occurred in person at polling places, so Election Day was by definition the day every ballot was collected. There was no concept of a ballot arriving "late" because there was no mechanism for a ballot to travel.

The war changed everything. With over a million men under arms — hundreds of miles from their home counties — nineteen Union states scrambled to create systems for soldiers to vote in the field. Some dispatched election officials to military camps with portable ballot boxes. Some allowed unit commanders to supervise voting and forward tallies to county officials. Some allowed soldiers to mail ballots home.

All of these systems shared one feature: the ballots arrived after Election Day. States knew this and built grace periods into their laws from the very beginning.

"They marked their ballot, stuck it in an envelope, mailed it back to whatever county they were from. Then county officials dropped it into the ballot box with all the rest and counted them like all the rest."

— Historian Donald S. Inbody, describing Minnesota's 1864 soldier ballot system

The RNC's argument before the Court rested heavily on historical practice — claiming that the original meaning of "election day" required ballots to be received by that date. The military amicus brief demolished that argument with the historical record the RNC was trying to invoke. The very first absentee voting systems, created contemporaneously with the federal election-day statutes, assumed and required that ballots would arrive after Election Day.

The Long Arc Toward Federal Protection

1864
Nineteen Union states allow soldiers to vote in the field. Twelve count soldier ballots separately from civilian votes. 78% of soldier ballots go to Lincoln, helping secure his re-election.
1896
Vermont becomes the first state to allow civilian absentee voting. By 1938, 42 states have civilian absentee laws. Only about 2% of voters use them.
1942–1944
Congress passes absentee voting laws for World War II soldiers, but they are tangled in states' rights disputes and largely ineffective. A messy patchwork persists for decades.
1986
President Reagan signs UOCAVA — the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act — creating a uniform federal framework requiring all states to allow military and overseas absentee voting.
2009
The MOVE Act strengthens UOCAVA, requiring states to send blank ballots to overseas military voters at least 45 days before federal elections.
2024
The RNC files suit against Mississippi's five-day grace period. The Fifth Circuit rules against Mississippi. The question reaches the Supreme Court.
June 29, 2026
The Supreme Court rules 5–4 in Watson v. RNC. Grace periods survive. Military and overseas voting is protected.

Why the 45-Day Rule Wasn't Enough

The MOVE Act's 45-day requirement was Congress's attempt to solve the transit problem. If states send blank ballots six weeks before the election, surely voters have enough time to mark and return them, right?

In theory, yes. In practice, the transit problem is not solved by fixing the outbound leg. A ballot dispatched from a forward operating base in eastern Europe, routed through an Army Post Office, a foreign postal system, and a domestic mail hub before reaching a county election office in, say, rural Mississippi, does not travel on a schedule anyone can guarantee.

"For many of them, voting is not a walk to the corner precinct. It is a ballot moving through a ship, a base mailroom, an Army Post Office, a foreign postal system, and an election office back home."

— Chamberlain Network amicus brief, Watson v. RNC

Researchers studying more than a decade of Election Assistance Commission data reached a clear conclusion: late arrival has been the dominant cause of UOCAVA ballot rejection, year after year. The 45-day window helps. It is not sufficient. Grace periods convert a nominal statutory guarantee into an operational one.

Alaska: The Extreme Case

If you want to understand what this case was actually about on the ground, look at Alaska.

Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas. Hundreds of its communities have no road access at all. Mail travels by bush plane, boat, or snowmachine — and weather can halt all three for days at a time. The village of Platinum on the Bering Sea, population under 50, has no post office. Residents travel in pairs by snowmachine to the neighboring community of Goodnews Bay to retrieve their mail.

In the 2022 general election, between 55% and 78% of absentee ballots from certain Alaska state House districts arrived at election offices after Election Day. Statewide, about 20% of all absentee ballots were received late — even with Alaska's existing 10-day grace period, some never arrived in time to be counted.

Alaska filed an amicus brief in this case taking neither side, but clearly explaining the stakes. Senator Lisa Murkowski put it plainly: "I think there's probably no other state where this ruling could have a more detrimental impact than ours."

Today's ruling preserves Alaska's 10-day grace period — the longest in the nation — and protects a voting system built entirely around the physical reality of moving paper ballots across some of the most remote terrain on earth by bush plane.

Who Filed Amicus Briefs — and the Unusual Alliances

The amicus brief landscape in this case was revealing. On the pro-Mississippi side, an ideologically improbable coalition formed: Senate Democrats stood alongside retired generals, military family organizations, Native American tribes, civil rights groups, and veterans' advocates.

✓ Supporting Mississippi (Grace Periods)

  • 14 U.S. Senators led by Ron Wyden & Alex Padilla
  • Blue Star Families
  • Veterans for All Voters
  • Chamberlain Network
  • Secure Families Initiative
  • U.S. Vote Foundation
  • National Defense Committee
  • Alaska Federation of Natives
  • National Congress of American Indians
  • NAACP Legal Defense Fund
  • League of Women Voters
  • 50+ retired military leaders & diplomats
  • Brennan Center for Justice
  • District of Columbia & allied states

✗ Supporting the RNC

  • Trump Administration (Solicitor General)
  • ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
  • Citizens United
  • National Republican Congressional Committee
  • Montana & Republican-led states
  • Claremont Institute
  • Wisconsin Voter Alliance
  • Honest Elections Project
  • Center for Election Confidence

The National Defense Committee — a conservative, military-focused organization — filed on Mississippi's side. So did the Chamberlain Network, which represents veterans and military families. This was not a left-right divide. It was a military-realism divide: those who understood the logistical realities of overseas deployment on one side, and those prioritizing an abstract rule about calendar dates on the other.

The Deeper Irony

Justice Sotomayor captured the central absurdity during oral argument. When the RNC's lawyer argued that ballots must be received by Election Day, she pressed him on what that meant for military and overseas voters — and then added: "Maybe we should have another president now, because wasn't it in Florida that they were counting military votes after receipt?"

She was referring to the 2000 election, when overseas military ballots arriving after Election Day in Florida were counted — by both parties, without controversy. The same RNC that now argued those ballots were always illegal had never objected when the counting went in their favor.

The deeper irony is historical. The entire institution of absentee voting in America was created for soldiers. The Civil War forced the invention of a system for people serving their country to have their votes counted even when they couldn't come home. Every subsequent expansion — to civilians traveling for work, to the disabled, to overseas citizens, to the modern all-mail systems in Oregon and Washington — grew from that original act of democratic commitment to the men in uniform.

The RNC's argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would have made the original Civil War soldier ballot system unconstitutional. The six Union states that built grace periods into their 1862 and 1864 soldier voting laws — contemporaneously with the very federal statutes the RNC was citing — would have been in violation of federal law from the moment those laws were passed.

Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, was unpersuaded by the historical argument. She noted that statutes do not "trap in amber" every contemporary practice, and that the federal election-day laws say nothing about ballot receipt. Congress set the day by which votes must be cast. States retain authority over when they must be received.

What Happens Next

Today's ruling protects existing grace periods in 14 states and D.C. for all voters, and in 30 states for military and overseas voters. It does not require any state to have a grace period — it simply holds that the federal election-day statutes don't prohibit them.

That means individual state legislatures can still eliminate their own grace periods if they choose. Mississippi's Republican Attorney General Lynn Fitch has already urged the state legislature to do exactly that. The political fight moves from the courts to the statehouses.

President Trump, meanwhile, called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would impose strict new federal voting requirements including the elimination of mail ballots (with limited exceptions). Today's ruling makes those provisions harder to justify constitutionally — but it doesn't stop Congress from trying.

For the hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform serving abroad, and for the voters in Alaska's bush communities who rely on bush planes and snowmachines to move their ballots, today is a good day. The Court declined to make them choose between serving their country and having their vote counted.

That is not a small thing. It is, in fact, the same thing the six Union states of 1862 were trying to protect when they built the first grace periods into American law — for soldiers fighting in a very different war, on a very different frontier.

"Sailors are not less American because they're harder to reach. They have not surrendered their voice at the ballot box because their country sent them somewhere where voting is inconvenient."

— Alberto Ramos, CEO, Veterans for All Voters
Sources & Further Reading:
Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260 (U.S. June 29, 2026) · Smithsonian Magazine, "The Debate Over Mail-In Voting Dates Back to the Civil War" · MIT Election Lab, "Voting by Mail and Absentee Voting" (updated June 2026) · Bipartisan Policy Center, "What Could the Supreme Court's Decision in Watson v. RNC Mean for Mail Voting?" · U.S. Vote Foundation, "Extended Absentee Ballot Receipt Deadlines: Watson v. RNC" · Alaska Public Radio / KYUK, "How a Change to Mail-In Voting Could Impact Alaska's Most Rural Voters" (June 2026) · PBS NewsHour, "The Ability to Vote Isn't Always Guaranteed in Alaska's Far-Flung Native Villages" · Overseas Vote Foundation, "Marked and Missed: Military Vote" · Voting Rights Lab, "150 Years of Military and Overseas Voting Now Under Threat" · Brennan Center for Justice, Watson v. RNC amicus brief (Jan. 2026) · Chamberlain Network, Watson v. RNC amicus brief (Jan. 2026)

Saturday, June 27, 2026

Thomas Lamb  ·  June 26, 2026  ·  Convergence Series Update

The Data Void:
Why Ocean Models Cannot See What Is Coming — And What That Means for the La Niña Forecast

From the NGM era of the 1980s to the ECMWF of 2026 — the same structural failure, the same systematic bias, and the same consequence: models that cannot see the subsurface cannot forecast what the ocean will do next. The La Niña projection for 2027 is built on a void.

The NGM Pattern — A Forecaster's Perspective

I began my meteorological career in the era of the Nested Grid Model. The NGM was state of the art operational guidance in the 1980s — sophisticated physics, careful construction, the best tool available. And it failed systematically in the same direction whenever the observational input was inadequate. Not randomly wrong. Consistently wrong. Always in the same direction. Because the model could only forecast what it could see — and what it could not see, it could not forecast.

Experienced forecasters learned to read the gaps. Ship synoptic reports were sparse across the open ocean. Radiosonde coverage was uneven. When a major cyclogenesis event was loading over a data-sparse region, the NGM would underperform consistently — and the skilled forecaster would add what the model couldn't see, applying meteorological instinct built from pattern recognition that the model had not yet developed.

The pattern I am describing in 2026 is structurally identical. The model has changed — the ECMWF is the NGM's vastly more sophisticated descendant. But the fundamental dependency is the same: observations in, physics applied, forecast out. Degrade the observations and the forecast degrades regardless of how good the physics is. The Argo float network is the ocean's radiosonde network — vertical profiles through the water column rather than atmospheric soundings, but the same foundational role. Real-time subsurface data initialising the model so it knows what is actually in the ocean before it tries to forecast what will happen next.

The Argo network is degrading. I documented this in detail on June 26 — US funding cuts reducing float replacement below attrition rates, biogeochemical Argo ending, Southern Ocean coverage thinning, the Kerguelen Plateau region where Big Ben has been erupting for 14 years having one monitoring instrument that last reported in 1992. The subsurface data feeding the ECMWF and every other operational model is less complete than it should be at the moment it is needed most.

The consequence is now visible and confirmed. On June 27, meteorologist David Schlotthauer noted that even the ECMWF has been underestimating this El Niño — and forecasts for July are expected to come in higher still. Eric Webb noted that the ECMWF seasonal forecast dismissed by many for its warm bias actually underestimated reality. The best model on Earth, revised upward at every cycle, still behind the observations.

This is not random error. This is a systematic observational gap expressing as a consistent bias — exactly the NGM pattern I recognised forty years ago. When a model is consistently wrong in the same direction, the answer is not in the physics. It is in what the model cannot see.

What the model cannot see is the subsurface heat. The second Kelvin wave loading near Indonesia — visible on the NOAA CPC equatorial upper ocean heat chart — is a subsurface signal propagating through the water column. Without adequate Argo coverage in the western Pacific initialising the model correctly, that heat reservoir is underrepresented in the model state. The model forecasts less El Niño than is actually developing. It gets revised higher every cycle because the observations keep showing more than the model expected.

The La Niña projections for 2027 are built on this same underestimated baseline. Models that cannot fully see the subsurface heat loading now will not correctly forecast when that heat dissipates — or whether it dissipates at all. The La Niña forecast is the NGM pattern applied to the Pacific decadal cycle. And my forecaster's instinct, built on forty years of reading what models miss, says the La Niña is not coming when the models expect it.

On June 8 we documented the western Pacific warm pool — fed from below by the most tectonically active convergence zone on Earth — as the heat source for what is now confirmed as a record-onset El Niño. June 2026 anomalies are already exceeding what was observed in June 1997 and June 2015, both years of Super El Niño. The Niño 3.4 index stands at +1.74°C. The eastern Pacific Niño 1+2 region is at +2.97°C — beyond any analog in the modern record at this stage of development.

Today the picture extends further — and my meteorologist's instinct says this is the development that changes the long-range outlook fundamentally.

A Second Kelvin Wave Is Already Loading

NOAA Climate Prediction Center equatorial upper ocean heat data now shows a new warm Kelvin wave generating near Indonesia — the same heat source region identified in the original June 8 framework. This second pulse is loading at source while the first delivery is still at peak in the eastern Pacific. The pipeline is being refilled before it has finished delivering.

The first Kelvin wave — carrying subsurface temperatures 7.5°C above average in parts of the deep ocean — has already arrived at the South American coast, shutting down cold upwelling and driving the record surface anomalies now visible across the equatorial Pacific. A second warm pulse is expected to arrive in the eastern Pacific around August 2026, on top of what is already there.

The Forecast: La Niña May Not Occur — Or Will Be Short-Lived

Climate models are currently projecting a La Niña transition for 2027. My forecast, based on the Kelvin wave picture and the heat source dynamics documented in this series, is that this transition may not occur — or if it does, it will be significantly abbreviated and weaker than models currently indicate.

The mechanism is straightforward. The normal El Niño to La Niña sequence requires:

Eastern Pacific heat dissipates → trade winds reestablish → upwelling Kelvin wave flushes the warm anomaly → western Pacific cool anomaly develops → La Niña locks in.

A second warm Kelvin wave recharging at source before the first has dissipated disrupts this sequence at the first step. The western Pacific warm pool — already being recharged from below by sustained volcanic and hydrothermal activity along the Indonesian and Philippine arc — does not get the recovery window needed. The trade wind reversal that initiates La Niña cannot establish cleanly. The system stays loaded.

What Every Previous Super El Niño Did — And Why 2026 May Be Different

The 1997-98 Super El Niño was followed by one of the strongest La Niña events on record — 1998-99. The 2015-16 event was followed by a moderate La Niña. The pattern has been consistent: the bigger the El Niño, the sharper the rebound cooling.

But those events did not have a second Kelvin wave loading at the Indonesian source region during peak. They did not occur against a background of 14 years of continuous submarine volcanic activity at Heard Island adding heat to the Southern Ocean. They did not begin with onset anomalies that exceeded their own analogs before the event had even peaked.

The question marks that Brazilian meteorologist Bruno Capucin placed on his June 2026 comparison panel — against 1997, 2015, and 2023 — are appropriate. This event is already in territory those analogs do not cover.

The Implications If the Forecast Is Correct

A suppressed or absent La Niña means:

  • No relief for drought-affected regions that depend on La Niña rainfall — Australia, Southeast Asia, southern Africa, parts of South America
  • Sustained elevated global temperatures through 2027 with no La Niña cooling offset
  • Continued suppression of Atlantic hurricane activity followed by potential explosive rebound if the system eventually flips
  • Extended stress on food production systems already operating under the fertilizer crisis documented June 8
  • The 318 million people in crisis-level hunger before El Niño peaked — facing a second year without La Niña recovery

Alaska — The State That Cannot Afford a Missing La Niña

Of all the regions affected by this forecast, Alaska carries a specific and compounding vulnerability that the standard El Niño impact summaries do not fully capture.

Alaska is the state most directly influenced by El Niño's modification of large-scale Pacific atmospheric circulation. The summer signal is stronger here than anywhere else in the United States — even weak El Niño summers have averaged roughly one degree above normal statewide. The two largest wildfire years in Alaska's recorded history — 2004 and 2015 — both occurred during El Niño summers. A record-strength event in 2026, followed by no La Niña recovery, means Alaska faces back-to-back anomalously warm years with no cooling interval between them.

The Bering Sea and Norton Sound are already expressing the stress. A striking cold SST anomaly is currently concentrated in Norton Sound — not from atmospheric cooling, but from Arctic meltwater routed south through the Bering Strait and trapped by the Sound's semi-enclosed geometry. That cold freshwater pool is sitting against anomalously warm surrounding water. The thermal contrast is sharp. Without La Niña recovery to cool the broader Bering Sea system, that gradient sharpens further — driving more volatile weather along Alaska's western coast and disrupting the marine environment that coastal communities depend on.

The infrastructure implications are direct. Permafrost integrity, river ice timing, coastal access windows, and tailings containment in mining operations are all built on assumptions of periodic cooling cycles. La Niña has historically provided that reset. If the reset does not come in 2027, systems designed for cyclical stress — not compounding continuous warming — face a different kind of load than they were engineered to carry.

Salmon runs, already under pressure from marine heatwaves and shifting prey distribution, depend on Bering Sea temperature recovery between El Niño cycles. Subsistence communities along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Norton Sound coast — communities with no economic buffer against failed runs — are in the most direct exposure path of what a suppressed La Niña means on the ground.

Alaska does not experience El Niño and La Niña as abstract climate indices. It experiences them as ice, fire, fish, and ground stability. A missing La Niña is not a statistical anomaly. It is a second consecutive year of the same pressure on systems that were already at their limits.

My meteorological background includes Alaska. I am writing this section not as an abstraction but as a documented forecast with direct human consequences in a region I know. The July checkpoint will bring the first data confirming or challenging the La Niña suppression forecast. Alaska will be watching that data as closely as I will.

On the Record — June 26, 2026

This forecast is documented here on June 26, 2026, ahead of the July checkpoint established in earlier posts in this series. The data that will confirm or deny it is already in motion — the second Kelvin wave is generating now, the eastern Pacific anomalies are already beyond analog, and the La Niña model projections for 2027 will either verify or diverge against what I am forecasting today.

My meteorologist's instinct, built on the framework first published in 2004 and tracked through this convergence series, says the La Niña is not coming when the models expect it — and may not come at all in meaningful form.

The ocean has a furnace underneath it. It is still burning.

THOMAS LAMB  ·  JUNE 26, 2026
CONVERGENCE SERIES — UPDATE IV
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE: CLAUDE, ANTHROPIC

Thomas Lamb  ·  June 26, 2026  ·  Convergence Series — Chapter V

The Hottest Water on Earth:
Why the Western Mediterranean Is the Answer to a Question I Asked in 2004

On June 24, 2026, Spanish meteorologists confirmed that the western Mediterranean and waters bathing the Iberian Peninsula have the greatest positive thermal anomaly of all seas and oceans on the planet. This is not a coincidence. It is a documented answer.

In March 2004 I published a framework arguing that the greatest concentration of volcanic and hydrothermal activity on Earth sits directly beneath the ocean region showing the most persistent sea surface temperature anomaly in the modern record — and that this was not a coincidence to be waved away. The establishment did not answer. The data has been answering ever since.

Today that framework has a second case study. Not the western Pacific. The western Mediterranean — a semi-enclosed basin sitting directly above one of the most tectonically active collision zones on Earth, where the African plate is driving northward into Europe at a centimetre per year, generating hydrothermal systems, volcanic arcs, and documented geothermal heating of the deep water column. As of June 24, 2026, that basin has the largest positive SST anomaly of any ocean on Earth.

This is also where I forecasted a cyclonic system would develop by July. It was visible on satellite imagery recently, west of Lisbon, driven by warm SST pressing against the Iberian coast along the SW-NE axis I identified June 14. The anomaly and the forecast are connected. The question is why the anomaly exists at all — and why it is the largest on the planet.

The Six Causation Layers

The western Mediterranean anomaly is not explained by a single mechanism. Six documented causation layers are operating simultaneously in a basin with only one exit — the Strait of Gibraltar. Each is individually documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Together they produce what we are now observing.

Layer 1 — Atmospheric blocking, wind reduction:
The main synoptic trigger for Mediterranean marine heatwaves is persistent subtropical anticyclonic ridges combined with weakening of prevailing wind systems. Reduced wind speeds cause substantial reduction in latent heat loss — heat that would normally escape the ocean surface stays in the water. The blocking high currently positioned over the region is doing exactly this, while generating the PVA cells on its backside that are producing the convective development over Spain today.

Layer 2 — Internal heat redistribution since 2023:
Following strong ocean heat uptake during summer 2023, the Mediterranean entered a prolonged phase of reduced ocean-to-atmosphere heat loss that maintained SSTs well above climatology through autumn 2023 and into 2024 and 2025. Crucially, the Frontiers analysis of 2024 Mediterranean warming identified a shift — from externally driven warming to internally dominated mechanisms. The basin is no longer primarily being heated from above by the atmosphere. It is redistributing heat it has already accumulated internally. That shift began in 2023 and has not reversed.

Layer 3 — The 2005 deep water shift still expressing:
In winter 2004-05, an abrupt event fundamentally changed the western Mediterranean. Deep water temperature and salinity began increasing at twice the rate of the previous 43 years. Warmer, saltier, denser water masses than ever recorded formed and began filling the deep basin — the Western Mediterranean Transition. That heat has been working upward through the water column ever since. New deep waters are now outflowing through Gibraltar into the North Atlantic, carrying that thermal and salinity signal into open ocean circulation. The 2005 shift did not end. It is still propagating.

Layer 4 — Deep warming rate exceeds the global ocean:
The warming rate of the western Mediterranean deep layers is higher than the estimated warming rate for the upper 2,000 metres of the global ocean in recent decades. This is the finding that the establishment has struggled to explain through atmospheric forcing alone. The peer-reviewed analysis explicitly acknowledges that geothermal heating has a non-negligible contribution that has not been fully accounted for. When the deep layers of a semi-enclosed basin warm faster than the open global ocean — and when that rate cannot be fully explained by the atmosphere — the answer must include what is happening below.

Layer 5 — Geothermal convection directly observed at depth:
High-resolution moored temperature observations at 2,480 metres depth in the deep western Mediterranean confirm geothermal convection turbulence driven from below — general heat flux through the Earth's crust, not related to volcanic vents, reaching approximately 100 metres above the seafloor and matching deep-sea turbulence dissipation rates. This is not inferred. It is directly observed and published. The Mediterranean seafloor is leaking heat continuously into the overlying water column.

Layer 6 — Active subduction and a new tectonic boundary initiating:
The Mediterranean hydrothermalism that produces this geothermal heating results directly from the African-European plate collision. Heat flow below the Aegean and Calabrian volcanic arcs is two to three times greater than the rest of the marine Mediterranean. The African plate has been moving northward into Europe for millions of years. The previous subduction zone exhausted available oceanic plate material — leaving continental rocks too light to subduct. But the plates have continued to converge, building stress. Recent earthquake analysis suggests a new subduction zone may be initiating — this time with Europe beginning to dive under Africa in the western Mediterranean. A new subduction initiation would mean new magma generation, new hydrothermal activity, and a fresh heat source entering the base of a basin that already cannot dissipate the heat it has accumulated.

The Semi-Enclosed Basin Problem

Each of these six layers operates in a basin with one exit. The Strait of Gibraltar — 14 kilometres wide at its narrowest, 300 metres deep — is all that connects the western Mediterranean to the open Atlantic. Heat that enters from above cannot easily leave. Heat that enters from below through geothermal flux rises into a water column that is already anomalously warm and increasingly stratified. The stratification traps the heat. The heat intensifies the stratification. The anomaly compounds.

This is the same structural dynamic I identified in the western Pacific in 2004 — a semi-enclosed basin above the most tectonically active zone on Earth, accumulating heat it cannot disperse. The Pacific warm pool is larger. The Mediterranean is more enclosed. Both are producing the most persistent positive SST anomalies in their respective hemispheres.

The Norton Sound Mirror

Today's global SST map shows two striking anomalies that are structurally identical in mechanism — but thermally opposite in expression.

The western Mediterranean: warm anomaly, the largest positive thermal departure on Earth, concentrated in a semi-enclosed basin with one exit, heat entering from above and below simultaneously, outflowing warm salty water through Gibraltar into the North Atlantic.

Norton Sound, Alaska: cold anomaly, a striking negative thermal departure concentrated in a semi-enclosed basin connected to the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait, cold Arctic meltwater routed south through documented seafloor channels and trapped by the Sound's geometry, expressing as a coherent cold pool against anomalously warm surrounding Bering Sea water.

Both are semi-enclosed basins injecting anomalous water into adjacent open ocean systems. One warm, one cold. The western Mediterranean outflows warm salty water through Gibraltar — contributing to the North Atlantic cold pool visible on the June 23 SST map, where anomalous dense water disrupts normal circulation. Norton Sound exports cold freshwater signal into the Bering Sea, creating a sharp thermal gradient against warm surrounding water. Same class of mechanism. Different thermal sign. Both expressing simultaneously on today's global SST map.

What This Means Downstream

The western Mediterranean anomaly is not staying in the Mediterranean. Warm salty outflow through Gibraltar is already entering the North Atlantic — documented since the 2005 deep water transition. That outflow is anomalously warm and salty compared to pre-2005 conditions. It is entering the North Atlantic at depth, modifying circulation, and contributing to the complex SST field that includes the North Atlantic cold pool visible today.

The warm SST pressed against the Iberian coast — the anomaly AMETSE identified as the largest on Earth on June 24 — is also the SST field I identified on June 14 as the forcing mechanism for a cyclonic system near the Iberian Peninsula. That system is visible on satellite today. The anomaly drove the forecast. The forecast verified. The anomaly has not gone away.

With El Niño now confirmed at record-onset strength — itself generated by a heat source near Indonesia that I documented June 8 — and a second Kelvin wave already loading at source, the atmospheric circulation pattern that produced the blocking high over the Mediterranean, the warm SST axis, and the cyclonic development near Iberia is not a transient feature. It is embedded in a global SST state that will persist through the summer and into autumn.

The Mediterranean will continue to warm. The outflow through Gibraltar will continue. The Iberian coast will remain anomalously warm. The conditions for explosive convective development — DANA events, flash flooding, medicanes — will remain favourable through the peak El Niño period.

The 2004 Question — Now With Two Answers

In 2004 I asked whether the greatest concentration of volcanic and hydrothermal activity on Earth sitting directly beneath the most persistent SST anomaly was coincidence. I asked it about the western Pacific. No serious answer came back.

In 2026 the same question has a second address. The western Mediterranean — African plate subducting under Europe, hydrothermal systems throughout the basin, geothermal convection directly observed at 2,480 metres depth, deep water warming faster than the global ocean, a possible new subduction zone initiating — is now producing the largest positive SST anomaly on Earth.

Two semi-enclosed basins. Two active subduction systems. Two record SST anomalies. One framework. Twenty-two years of unanswered questions now answering themselves in the data.

The ocean has a furnace underneath it. We have been watching only the smoke. The western Mediterranean is showing us the fire — and it is the brightest thermal signal on Earth today.

THOMAS LAMB  ·  JUNE 26, 2026
CONVERGENCE SERIES — CHAPTER V
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE: CLAUDE, ANTHROPIC
ORIGINAL FRAMEWORK: CLIMATE SCIENCE REVISITED, MARCH 2004

Thomas Lamb  ·  June 26, 2026  ·  Convergence Series — Alaska

When the Reset Doesn't Come:
Alaska, the Bering Sea Warning, and the La Niña That May Not Arrive

Norton Sound. Arctic meltwater. A record El Niño with no recovery in sight. This is the convergence nobody is talking about.

I have been writing about the convergence of tectonic, oceanic, and atmospheric systems since 2004. Today I am writing specifically about Alaska — because the picture developing in the North Pacific and Bering Sea is the one that concerns me most, and it is the one receiving the least attention.

My meteorological background includes Alaska. What follows is not abstraction. It is a documented forecast with direct human consequences in a region I know.

The Signal Nobody Expected: Norton Sound

Looking at the current global SST anomaly map — UKMO OSTIA, 28-day average through June 25, 2026 — the North Pacific tells a story in two parts. The western Pacific is running anomalously warm, feeding the El Niño now confirmed at record-onset strength. But in the Bering Sea and Norton Sound, a striking cold anomaly sits in sharp contrast to the warm water surrounding it.

This is not a routine seasonal cooling signal. The structure is too coherent, too spatially defined, and running too strongly against the seasonal trend for late June. My read: this is Arctic meltwater — cold, fresh, routed south through the Bering Strait and captured by Norton Sound's semi-enclosed geometry.

The mechanism is documented in the oceanographic literature. The Bering Strait is the sole gateway between the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific — only 85 kilometres wide, 50 metres deep. Three seafloor channels extend westward out of Norton Sound connecting directly to the Strait's eastern channel. Cold Arctic freshwater pushing south during peak melt entrains into those channels and concentrates in Norton Sound's basin. Freshwater fluxes through the Bering Strait have increased approximately 40% over the past two decades. More melt, more signal, more concentration.

That cold pool is now sitting against anomalously warm surrounding water. The thermal gradient is extreme for this time of year. And it is about to face a second consecutive year of El Niño pressure — because the La Niña that should reset the system may not come.

The El Niño Nobody Has Seen Before

June 2026 El Niño onset anomalies are already exceeding June 1997 and June 2015 — both years of Super El Niño. The Niño 3.4 index stands at +1.74°C. The eastern Pacific Niño 1+2 region is at +2.97°C — beyond any analog in the modern record at this stage of development. Brazilian meteorologist Bruno Capucin compared this June against all historical analogs and placed question marks on his 2026 panel. The event is in territory the analogs do not cover.

For Alaska, the implications begin immediately. Alaska is the state most directly influenced by El Niño's modification of large-scale Pacific atmospheric circulation. The summer temperature signal here is stronger than anywhere else in the United States. Even weak El Niño summers have averaged roughly one degree above normal statewide. The two largest wildfire years in Alaska's recorded history — 2004 and 2015 — both occurred during El Niño summers. A record-strength event means the fire weather environment this summer is in historically dangerous territory.

The La Niña Forecast: The Reset May Not Come

Climate models are currently projecting a La Niña transition for 2027. My forecast — documented here on June 26, 2026, ahead of the July checkpoint — is that this transition may not occur, or will be significantly abbreviated and weaker than models currently indicate.

The reason: NOAA Climate Prediction Center equatorial upper ocean heat data now shows a second warm Kelvin wave already generating near Indonesia — the same heat source region identified in this series since June 8. This second pulse is loading at source while the first delivery is still at peak in the eastern Pacific. The pipeline is being refilled before it has finished delivering.

The normal El Niño to La Niña sequence requires the eastern Pacific to cool, trade winds to reestablish, and an upwelling Kelvin wave to flush the warm anomaly. A second warm Kelvin wave recharging at source disrupts this sequence before it can begin. The western Pacific warm pool does not get the recovery window. The trade wind reversal that initiates La Niña cannot establish cleanly. The system stays loaded.

Every previous Super El Niño was followed by significant La Niña cooling. 1997-98 was followed by one of the strongest La Niña events on record. 2015-16 produced a moderate La Niña. The pattern has been consistent. But none of those events had a second Kelvin wave loading during peak. None began with onset anomalies that exceeded all analogs before the event had even peaked. 2026 is different in ways the models were not built to anticipate.

What a Missing La Niña Means for Alaska — Specifically

La Niña is Alaska's reset. It brings cooler temperatures, Bering Sea recovery, sea ice return, reduced wildfire pressure, and stabilisation of the marine environment that coastal communities depend on. Without it, the compounding begins.

  • Permafrost: Continuous warming through what should be a recovery period accelerates thaw beyond what engineering assumptions were built to handle. Infrastructure — roads, pipelines, building foundations, tailings containment — designed for cyclical stress faces compounding continuous load instead.
  • Wildfire: Two consecutive El Niño summers without La Niña relief means fuel moisture deficits compound year over year. The 2004 and 2015 fire seasons were single-event El Niño years. A sustained warm period is a different category of risk.
  • Bering Sea fisheries: Salmon runs already under pressure from marine heatwaves and shifting prey distribution depend on Bering Sea temperature recovery between El Niño cycles. Without La Niña, that recovery does not come. The cold Norton Sound anomaly I identified this morning — Arctic meltwater trapped in the Sound — sits against persistently warm surrounding water, creating a volatile thermal boundary that disrupts the marine environment along Alaska's western coast.
  • Coastal erosion: Sea ice provides Alaska's western coast its primary erosion buffer. El Niño reduces ice extent. La Niña restores it. A missing La Niña means a second consecutive winter of reduced ice protection on coastlines already losing ground measured in metres per year.
  • Subsistence communities: The Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Norton Sound coast communities have no economic buffer against failed salmon runs, reduced marine mammal access, or coastal erosion acceleration. These are not statistical risks. They are food security and habitability questions for communities that have lived on this coast for thousands of years.
  • Mining and resource logistics: Tailings containment integrity, river ice timing for winter road access, and coastal barge windows are all calibrated to assumptions about seasonal temperature cycles. A missing La Niña removes one of those cycles entirely.
Alaska does not experience El Niño and La Niña as abstract climate indices. It experiences them as ice, fire, fish, and ground stability. A missing La Niña is not a statistical anomaly. It is a second consecutive year of the same pressure on systems that were already at their limits — with no reset scheduled.

The Monitoring Blind Spot

One further concern that emerged from today's research: the Argo float network — the subsurface ocean monitoring system that provides the most reliable data on heat moving through the water column — is degrading in the Southern Ocean and high-latitude Pacific precisely as this event intensifies. US funding cuts have reduced float replacement rates below attrition. The biogeochemical Argo programme is on track to run out of funding. In the Bering Sea region, floats are flushed eastward by the Alaska Coastal Current before they can adequately profile conditions.

We are watching a potentially record El Niño develop — with direct consequences for Alaska's permafrost, fisheries, fire weather, and coastal communities — through a monitoring network that is contracting rather than expanding. The signal exists. The instruments to fully characterise it are degrading at the moment they are needed most.

On the Record — June 26, 2026

This forecast is documented here on June 26, 2026. The July checkpoint will bring the first data confirming or challenging the La Niña suppression forecast. The second Kelvin wave is generating now near Indonesia. The eastern Pacific anomalies are already beyond analog. The Norton Sound cold pool is visible on current SST maps.

My meteorologist's instinct says the La Niña is not coming when the models expect it — and may not come at all in meaningful form. For Alaska, that is not a forecast to wait on. The preparation window is now, before the peak, not after the models catch up.

The ocean has a furnace underneath it. Alaska is standing on top of the pipe.

THOMAS LAMB  ·  JUNE 26, 2026
CONVERGENCE SERIES — ALASKA
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE: CLAUDE, ANTHROPIC

Thomas Lamb  ·  June 26, 2026  ·  Convergence Series Update

The La Niña Forecast

On June 8 we documented the western Pacific warm pool — fed from below by the most tectonically active convergence zone on Earth — as the heat source for what is now confirmed as a record-onset El Niño. June 2026 anomalies are already exceeding what was observed in June 1997 and June 2015, both years of Super El Niño. The Niño 3.4 index stands at +1.74°C. The eastern Pacific Niño 1+2 region is at +2.97°C — beyond any analog in the modern record at this stage of development.

Today the picture extends further — and my meteorologist's instinct says this is the development that changes the long-range outlook fundamentally.

A Second Kelvin Wave Is Already Loading

NOAA Climate Prediction Center equatorial upper ocean heat data now shows a new warm Kelvin wave generating near Indonesia — the same heat source region identified in the original June 8 framework. This second pulse is loading at source while the first delivery is still at peak in the eastern Pacific. The pipeline is being refilled before it has finished delivering.

The first Kelvin wave — carrying subsurface temperatures 7.5°C above average in parts of the deep ocean — has already arrived at the South American coast, shutting down cold upwelling and driving the record surface anomalies now visible across the equatorial Pacific. A second warm pulse is expected to arrive in the eastern Pacific around August 2026, on top of what is already there.

The Forecast: La Niña May Not Occur — Or Will Be Short-Lived

Climate models are currently projecting a La Niña transition for 2027. My forecast, based on the Kelvin wave picture and the heat source dynamics documented in this series, is that this transition may not occur — or if it does, it will be significantly abbreviated and weaker than models currently indicate.

The mechanism is straightforward. The normal El Niño to La Niña sequence requires:

Eastern Pacific heat dissipates → trade winds reestablish → upwelling Kelvin wave flushes the warm anomaly → western Pacific cool anomaly develops → La Niña locks in.

A second warm Kelvin wave recharging at source before the first has dissipated disrupts this sequence at the first step. The western Pacific warm pool — already being recharged from below by sustained volcanic and hydrothermal activity along the Indonesian and Philippine arc — does not get the recovery window needed. The trade wind reversal that initiates La Niña cannot establish cleanly. The system stays loaded.

What Every Previous Super El Niño Did — And Why 2026 May Be Different

The 1997-98 Super El Niño was followed by one of the strongest La Niña events on record — 1998-99. The 2015-16 event was followed by a moderate La Niña. The pattern has been consistent: the bigger the El Niño, the sharper the rebound cooling.

But those events did not have a second Kelvin wave loading at the Indonesian source region during peak. They did not occur against a background of 14 years of continuous submarine volcanic activity at Heard Island adding heat to the Southern Ocean. They did not begin with onset anomalies that exceeded their own analogs before the event had even peaked.

The question marks that Brazilian meteorologist Bruno Capucin placed on his June 2026 comparison panel — against 1997, 2015, and 2023 — are appropriate. This event is already in territory those analogs do not cover.

The Implications If the Forecast Is Correct

A suppressed or absent La Niña means:

  • No relief for drought-affected regions that depend on La Niña rainfall — Australia, Southeast Asia, southern Africa, parts of South America
  • Sustained elevated global temperatures through 2027 with no La Niña cooling offset
  • Continued suppression of Atlantic hurricane activity followed by potential explosive rebound if the system eventually flips
  • Extended stress on food production systems already operating under the fertilizer crisis documented June 8
  • The 318 million people in crisis-level hunger before El Niño peaked — facing a second year without La Niña recovery

On the Record — June 26, 2026

This forecast is documented here on June 26, 2026, ahead of the July checkpoint established in earlier posts in this series. The data that will confirm or deny it is already in motion — the second Kelvin wave is generating now, the eastern Pacific anomalies are already beyond analog, and the La Niña model projections for 2027 will either verify or diverge against what I am forecasting today.

My meteorologist's instinct, built on the framework first published in 2004 and tracked through this convergence series, says the La Niña is not coming when the models expect it — and may not come at all in meaningful form.

The ocean has a furnace underneath it. It is still burning.

THOMAS LAMB  ·  JUNE 26, 2026
CONVERGENCE SERIES — UPDATE IV
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE: CLAUDE, ANTHROPIC