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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Alaska Policy Commentary · June 25, 2026

The Wall Built on Sand: How the Confidentiality Glenfarne Used to Block Alaska's Legislature Was Never as Airtight as Claimed — and What the Leaked Document Proves

Seven days ago this series identified two legal arguments that undermined Glenfarne's confidentiality claim. Today the Alaska Beacon confirmed the factual predicate. The Legislature accepted Glenfarne's marketing stamped "confidential" while one senator declined to read the actual contract because she didn't want "to be responsible for confidential information." The July 1 conference meets in six days. The legal arguments are still available. The window is closing.

By Tom Lamb · Post IX in the Alaska LNG Series · June 25, 2026

On June 18, this series published a post titled "The Confidentiality That Wasn't." It identified two legal arguments that suggested the confidentiality wall Glenfarne and AGDC had erected around their agreement was not as legally defensible as the Legislature had been told. The first was subject matter waiver — the doctrine that voluntary public disclosure of protected information destroys the confidentiality of that subject matter, regardless of what is stamped on the document. The second was Alaska's Public Records Act, AS 40.25.110 — which provides that AGDC's records are public records, and that a private confidentiality clause cannot override Alaska's statutory public disclosure requirements.

Seven days later, the Alaska Beacon has confirmed what that post argued. Multiple senators obtained a leaked copy of AGDC's internal analysis of the agreement — the "lead party decision support package" — and used it to rewrite the tax break legislation. Sen. Bert Stedman said the answers given by AGDC's consultant in public testimony were not "as direct and accurate as they should be." Sen. Bill Wielechowski said: "Thank God it did" — referring to the leak. And Sen. Kelly Merrick, a member of the Senate Finance Committee voting on a $16 billion permanent tax break, said she had not seen the document and did not want to see it because she did not want "to be responsible for confidential information."

One senator declined to read the contract governing Alaska's $16 billion commitment because it was labeled confidential. Meanwhile, the same committee accepted Glenfarne's self-prepared cost estimates — every slide stamped "STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" — in a public hearing, posted immediately on akleg.gov, as the answer to the cost question they had been asking for months.

The confidentiality was never equal. It was selective, performative, and — as this series argued seven days ago — legally compromised by the parties who were supposed to be protecting it.

"The wall built to prevent legislative oversight may have been built on sand from the beginning. AGDC never had the legal authority to enter a confidentiality agreement that placed its public records beyond the reach of Alaska's Public Records Act."

The Two Legal Arguments — Now Validated

The June 18 post identified two distinct legal arguments. Both are now confirmed by the factual record the Beacon has reported.

Argument One: Subject Matter Waiver Through Public Legislative Testimony. Under well-established contract and evidentiary law, voluntary public disclosure of confidential information destroys the confidentiality of that subject matter. You cannot selectively disclose parts of a protected communication in a public forum to advance your argument and then invoke confidentiality to prevent examination of the full document. The legal doctrine is called subject matter waiver — and Glenfarne and AGDC waived it progressively, in open hearings, across five months.

The Waiver Chain — How Confidentiality Was Progressively Compromised

February 2026 — Open hearing disclosure. AGDC's Matt Kissinger publicly described the governance structure — unanimous consent provisions, minority member approvals — in open Senate Resources testimony. Then refused to produce the document citing confidentiality. Subject matter publicly disclosed; document withheld.

May 2026 — Cost existence disclosed. Adam Prestidge acknowledged in open hearing that a cost estimate exists, that Glenfarne controls it, and described its commercial sensitivity. The existence and nature of withheld cost information was itself disclosed publicly.

June 3, 2026 — Cost figure disclosed in public hearing. Glenfarne presented slides marked "STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" in open Senate Finance session — including the $44.5–$54.5 billion figure. Posted immediately on akleg.gov. First public cost figure ever released by Glenfarne — on a slide stamped confidential, in a public hearing.

June 16-17, 2026 — Clawback conditions characterized publicly. Prestidge publicly stated "there is no scenario where we will ask the state for money." Kissinger alluded to a buyback provision without naming it or disclosing that Glenfarne sets the price. Substance of confidential clawback terms publicly characterized by Glenfarne's own president — incompletely and, as Stedman said, not with full accuracy.

June 18, 2026 — Draft agreement in senators' hands. The document itself reached multiple legislators. Senate floor session halted. Confidentiality wall no longer standing regardless of how the document was transmitted.

Each of those disclosures — made voluntarily, in open public legislative hearings, by parties to the confidentiality agreement — potentially constitutes a waiver of the protection over the subject matter disclosed. Glenfarne used the confidential information as a sword — disclosing what helped its argument, invoking confidentiality to block what didn't. That is precisely the conduct subject matter waiver is designed to prevent.

Argument Two: Alaska's Public Records Act. AGDC is not a private company. It is a public corporation of the State of Alaska. Its records are public records under AS 40.25.110. Every person has a right to inspect a public record in the state unless expressly exempted by statute. A private confidentiality clause in a contract between a public body and a private developer is not a statutory exemption. AGDC was never authorized by the Legislature to enter agreements that place its records beyond the reach of Alaska's public disclosure law. Alaska courts have consistently held that administrative decisions to keep records confidential cannot override the Legislature's explicit public disclosure requirements.

In plain terms: any Alaskan — not just a senator, not just a journalist — has the right to request the AGDC-Glenfarne agreement under AS 40.25.110. If AGDC refuses, the refusal is subject to challenge in Alaska Superior Court. The burden falls on AGDC to identify a specific statutory exemption — not a contractual confidentiality clause — justifying the denial.

What the Leaked Document Reveals — The Contractual Reality

The Beacon has now confirmed what the confidential document contains. This is the contractual reality the Legislature was voting around without seeing — while accepting Glenfarne's slide deck as disclosure:

The Contractual Reality vs. The Public Testimony

Buyback mechanism: If AGDC seeks to retake the project, Glenfarne proposes the buyback price — "based on the value Glenfarne has added to the company." If disputed, an independent investment bank determines the final amount. Alaska transferred its assets for $150 million. It may have to buy them back at a price set by Glenfarne. Prestidge testified: "There is no scenario where we will ask the state for money." The contract says otherwise.

Clawback milestones: Glenfarne must reach milestones — such as signing binding offtake agreements — to prove good faith. The specific milestones, timing, and consequences of missing them were in the confidential document. They were never voluntarily disclosed.

Equity dilution: Alaska's 25% stake dilutes on each subproject as investors are brought in. The state only keeps 25% if it invests more money — billions more — against a cost basis it cannot independently verify.

Undisclosed foreign partnerships: Enbridge on the import terminal. Hanwha Group and Inpex on the export terminal. In the confidential document for a year. Never voluntarily disclosed to the Legislature.

FID definition mismatch risk: The document contains AGDC and Glenfarne's specific definition of "final investment decision." If the Legislature's definition in the bill differs from that definition, any law governing FID milestones may be unenforceable. Stedman identified this risk from the leaked document. The House never saw it.

Sen. Stedman said directly after the June 16 hearing: "It's hard sitting at the table when you knew some of the answers weren't as direct and accurate as they should be." That is a sitting senator publicly accusing AGDC's consultant of giving the Legislature testimony that was misleading on a $16 billion decision. It has not been retracted or disputed.

The Two Definitions of Confidential

The Legislature's treatment of these two documents is the story of this entire debate in miniature.

Document	What It Contains	Legislature's Response
Glenfarne June 3 slide deck — stamped "STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL"	Glenfarne's own self-prepared cost estimates. No independent validation. Presented in public hearing, posted on akleg.gov.	Accepted as disclosure. Used as basis for $16 billion permanent tax concession.
AGDC "lead party decision support package" — leaked to senators	Actual contractual terms. Buyback mechanism. Clawback milestones. Glenfarne's price-setting power. Foreign partnerships. FID definition.	Sen. Merrick: "I don't care to see it. I don't want to be responsible for confidential information." House Finance: never saw it.

The Legislature accepted the marketing. It declined the contract. That is not a distinction between public and confidential information. It is a distinction between what Glenfarne wanted the Legislature to see and what it didn't — and the Legislature honored that distinction on a $16 billion permanent decision.

The Senate Protected Itself. The House Did Not.

The senators who read the leaked document acted. By a 14-6 vote, the Senate majority adopted an amendment requiring that if the project does not go forward, the developer must transfer all assets back to AGDC within six months at no cost to the state. By an identical 14-6 vote, it required disclosure of foreign company relationships.

Both amendments directly address provisions in the confidential document that senators found unacceptable. Both passed because a handful of senators read a leaked document that the House never saw, that most senators never saw, and that one senator on the Finance Committee explicitly declined to read.

The House and Senate conference meets July 1. The Governor and House have called the Senate's version unacceptable — preferring the House version, which was drafted without knowledge of the contractual terms the Senate's amendments address. Whether those amendments survive conference will determine whether Alaska has any protection against the buyback mechanism the leaked document reveals.

What Must Happen Before July 1

The legal arguments identified in this series on June 18 are still available. The factual predicate has now been confirmed. Six days remain before the conference. Three things must happen.

Every conferee must read the full document before the conference convenes. The House Finance co-chairs have not seen it. They are negotiating the terms of a $16 billion permanent tax break without knowing the contractual reality the Senate's amendments were designed to address. That is not a negotiation. It is a ratification of terms they have never examined.

A public records request must be filed. Under AS 40.25.110, any Alaskan has the right to demand the full AGDC-Glenfarne agreement. That right exists today. A denial triggers a right of action in Alaska Superior Court. The confidentiality clause in a private contract between two parties does not create a statutory exemption from Alaska's Public Records Act. AGDC was never authorized to enter an agreement that placed its public records beyond the reach of the law its own Legislature enacted.

The Senate's asset protection amendments must survive intact. The no-cost return of assets provision directly contradicts the buyback mechanism in the confidential document — the mechanism that could require Alaska to pay Glenfarne a price Glenfarne itself proposes to retake assets Alaska originally owned. Removing that amendment in conference, without the House having read the document that motivated it, would expose Alaska to a financial liability its own senators voted 14-6 to prevent.

The Series That Saw It Coming

This is the ninth post in a series that began May 19. The series identified the core problems before the special session started — the volumetric rate set without knowing costs, the absence of a mill rate framework, the collateral Alaska gave away for $150 million, the 2008 parallel, the financing gap, the Dalton Highway hidden costs, and the legal vulnerability of the confidentiality claim. The Beacon, the senators who found the leaked document, and Stedman's public accusation of misleading testimony have now confirmed the factual predicate for each of those arguments.

The Complete Series — Thomas Lamb Alaska LNG Analysis

Post I — May 19: Alaska Has Been Here Before — The statutory betrayal and why AS 43.82 was bypassed

Post II — May: Glenfarne's Shell Game — The contradictions between public statements and contractual reality

Post III — May: The Lever Nobody Is Using — The ROW conversion mechanism the Legislature has never discussed

Post IV — May: Stranded Gas — The producer safety nets built into existing statute

Post V — May: The Road Not Taken — AS 43.82 and the statutory pathway AGDC bypassed entirely

Post VI — May: The Securities Problem — Public company exposure and disclosure obligations

Post VII — May: 2029 — When the Bill Comes: Alaskans Get the Sticker Shock

Post VIII — June 18: The Confidentiality That Wasn't — Subject matter waiver and AS 40.25.110 (seven days before Beacon confirmation)

Post IX — June 25: The Wall Built on Sand — Full synthesis as the July 1 conference approaches

The Slides Are Separate Documents — Which Makes the Waiver Argument Stronger, Not Weaker

A precise legal question arises from the two-document structure: are the slides Glenfarne presented in the June 3 public hearing legally separate from the underlying AGDC-Glenfarne agreement? The answer is yes — and that separation actually strengthens the subject matter waiver argument rather than undermining it.

Under federal evidence law, subject matter waiver requires three conditions: the waiver must be intentional, the disclosed and undisclosed information must concern the same subject matter, and they ought in fairness to be considered together. A voluntary disclosure in a public hearing — even of a separate document like a slide deck — does not automatically waive confidentiality over every related document. Each document is treated separately.

But courts have consistently held that subject matter waiver applies when a party selectively discloses the favorable parts of a protected matter in a public proceeding while withholding the unfavorable parts. The rule exists specifically to prevent "cherry picking" — using confidential information as a sword to advance your argument while invoking confidentiality as a shield to block rebuttal. The separation between the slides and the agreement is not a defense against that doctrine. It is the definition of the offense.

The Cherry-Pick — What Glenfarne Disclosed vs. What It Withheld

Disclosed publicly in slides (favorable): Cost estimates of $44.5–$54.5 billion. Project economics supporting HB 381. LNG market opportunity. Employment projections. Carbon capture revenue. Energy security argument.

Withheld in confidential agreement (unfavorable): Buyback mechanism where Glenfarne sets the price. Clawback milestones and their adequacy. Equity dilution terms. Foreign company partnerships. FID definition mismatch risk. Profit-sharing formula.

Glenfarne presented to the Legislature exactly the information that supported its request for a $16 billion tax break. It withheld exactly the information that would allow the Legislature to evaluate the risks of granting it. That is not a coincidence. That is the structure of selective disclosure subject matter waiver is designed to prevent.

The Bio-Rad precedent is directly applicable. A company disclosed favorable conclusions from an investigation in public proceedings while withholding the underlying communications that would allow rebuttal. The court found broad subject matter waiver — because the party could not use privileged information offensively to advance its argument while invoking confidentiality defensively to prevent examination. The key question is not whether the slides and the agreement are the same document. It is whether Glenfarne used the slides to advance its position in a public proceeding while preventing the Legislature from examining the related agreement that would allow a complete and accurate picture. On that question, the answer is unambiguous.

The separation between the slides and the document is Glenfarne's method. Subject matter waiver is the law's response to exactly that method.

The Cost Figures and the Buyback Price Are the Same Subject Matter — Which Gives Alaska a Direct Legal Reason to Know the True Cost

The relationship between the disclosed cost figures and the withheld buyback mechanism is not merely thematic. It is mathematical. The two pieces of information are not related subjects — they are the same subject viewed from two directions.

Glenfarne presented cost figures of $44.5–$54.5 billion publicly to support its argument for a $16 billion tax break. The confidential agreement contains a buyback mechanism where Glenfarne proposes the repurchase price "based on the value Glenfarne has added to the company." That value is directly derived from — and inseparable from — the cost basis Glenfarne controls and selectively disclosed.

Here is the direct chain:

The Cost-Buyback Chain — One Subject, Two Sides

Step 1: Glenfarne publicly discloses project cost at $44.5–$54.5 billion to support the tax break argument. This is the favorable disclosure.

Step 2: The confidential agreement requires Alaska to pay Glenfarne a buyback price based on "value Glenfarne has added to the company" if AGDC seeks to retake the project.

Step 3: The value Glenfarne claims to have added is calculated from the same cost basis it presented publicly — development spending, engineering work, project advancement since March 2025.

Step 4: If the true cost is $70B+ rather than $44.5B, the "value added" Glenfarne could claim in a buyback is dramatically larger than Alaska can currently calculate from the publicly disclosed figures.

Step 5: Alaska cannot evaluate its financial exposure under the buyback mechanism without knowing the true, independently verified cost. The disclosed figure and the withheld contractual liability are not two subjects. They are one subject — project value — disclosed on the favorable side and withheld on the unfavorable side.

This relationship gives Alaska a direct, specific, legally grounded reason to demand the actual cost — not as a general transparency matter, and not merely to calibrate the tax rate. The state needs to know the true cost because it is a party to a contract whose financial liability to the state is calculated from that cost. It cannot evaluate what it may owe without knowing what the project is actually worth.

Prestidge testified under questioning: "There is no scenario where we will ask the state for money." The confidential agreement contains a mechanism where Alaska pays Glenfarne a price Glenfarne proposes, calculated from project value Glenfarne controls, determined by an investment bank Glenfarne names if disputed. That is not a scenario where Glenfarne asks. It is a scenario where Glenfarne invoices. The distinction Prestidge drew in public testimony does not exist in the contractual terms he declined to disclose.

The legal argument and the policy argument are now unified. Subject matter waiver gives Alaska the legal tool to demand the full agreement. The cost-buyback relationship gives Alaska the specific financial reason the true cost is not merely a transparency preference — it is a precondition to evaluating a contractual liability Alaska may be required to pay. And AS 40.25.110 gives any Alaskan the mechanism to file for it today, before the July 1 conference, in Alaska Superior Court if necessary.

The wall was built on sand. The legal arguments to bring it down have been available since before the special session began. Six days remain.

Alaska deserved to know all of this before the special session began. It was available — in statute, in public records law, in the legislative record of open hearings, in the financial structure of the deal itself. The information was not hidden. It was simply not assembled, not demanded, and not read — by a Legislature that accepted a slide deck stamped confidential in a public hearing while one of its members declined to read the actual contract because she didn't want to be responsible for what it contained.

Six days remain. The legal arguments are still available. The window is closing.

Tom Lamb · June 25, 2026 · Post IX · Alaska LNG Series · thomasalamb.blogspot.com

Note: This post discusses legal concepts in the context of public policy analysis. It is not legal advice. The author is an Alaska energy policy analyst, not an attorney. Readers seeking legal guidance should consult qualified Alaska counsel. Sources include AS 40.25.110, AS 43.56, AS 43.82, Alaska Beacon June 25 2026, Alaska Landmine June 18 2026, public record of Senate Resources and Senate Finance Committee hearings 2026.

Their Argument, Annotated — Why First & Fourteenth's 34-Page Brief Fails

Legal Analysis · Sullivan v. Division of Elections · 3AN-26-07485CI

Their Argument, Annotated — Why First & Fourteenth's 34-Page Brief Fails

Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco filed their brief on June 24, 2026. It is sophisticated, well-researched, and constitutionally wrong. Here is why, argument by argument.

Analysis · June 24, 2026 · Sullivan v. Division of Elections · First & Fourteenth PLLC

On June 24, 2026 — the same day the brief was dated — First & Fourteenth PLLC filed a 34-page brief on behalf of the Alaska Division of Elections defending Carol Beecher's June 15 removal of Daniel J. Sullivan from the August 18 primary ballot. Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco, both partners at First & Fourteenth and both alumni of Judge Timothy Tymkovich's Tenth Circuit chambers, signed the brief alongside Acting Attorney General Cori Mills and Civil Division Director Rachel L. Witty.

The brief is the work of skilled appellate lawyers. Murray has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Francisco has briefed 19 cases there. The arguments they make are not frivolous. They are, however, constitutionally foreclosed. Here is each argument — and the answer to it.

The Governing Precedent — U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)

The Constitution sets three qualifications for United States Senate — age 30, nine years citizenship, inhabitancy in the state at time of election. These qualifications are exclusive. States cannot add to them. A restriction that functions as an additional qualification — regardless of whether it is labeled a "manner" regulation — violates the Qualifications Clause.

Daniel J. Sullivan meets all three constitutional qualifications. That is not disputed. The Division removed him anyway. Everything else in this brief is an attempt to justify that removal without triggering Thornton. Every attempt fails.

01 Laches — Sullivan Waited Too Long To File Thin

Their Argument

Sullivan knew the grounds for his challenge by June 15 — the date of the removal. He waited until June 22 to file — seven days. This delay consumed nearly half the compressed period before the June 30 ballot printing deadline. Courts should deny last-minute relief even on constitutional grounds. This is a self-created election emergency laches exists to prevent.

The Answer

Seven days is not unreasonable delay for a private individual who just had his candidacy removed by a state agency without statutory authority. Sullivan needed to find counsel, retain Ballard Spahr, assemble the factual record, and file a 34-page constitutional brief. He did all of that in seven days.

The Division created this emergency by removing a qualified candidate on June 15 — fifteen days before ballots print. The compressed timeline is of the Division's own making. The laches doctrine does not protect a party that creates the time pressure it then cites as prejudice.

The emergency motion was granted unopposed. The court found the timeline sufficient to proceed. The Division's own brief requests a ruling before noon June 30 — confirming the court has time to decide. Laches fails on its own terms.

02 The Declaration Was Not Properly Filed Fails

Their Argument

Sullivan's declaration was not properly filed because he requested to appear on the ballot as "Sullivan, Dan" — identical to the incumbent — and subsequently asked to appear as "Dan S. Sullivan" — the incumbent's middle initial. His declaration did not suggest any practical means for the Division to differentiate him from Senator Sullivan. The declaration was filed in bad faith and is therefore not properly filed.

The Answer

The Declaration of Candidacy has two distinct parts. On the constitutional qualifications — age, citizenship, inhabitancy — the declaration is accurate and complete. Sullivan is who he says he is. Every constitutional requirement is met. On this basis alone Thornton forecloses removal.

On the ballot name request — Step 5 — the declaration was defective. Sullivan requested "Sullivan, Dan" — character for character identical to the incumbent's ballot name filed July 11, 2025. That defect is real. It gave the Division legitimate authority to initiate a cure process — which Beecher did on June 1. That is precisely where the Division's legitimate authority begins and ends.

The defective Step 5 was the entry point. The Division used it to open an intent investigation — gathering evidence of bad faith rather than requiring a corrected name submission. The "Dan S." email that followed was gathered through that investigation. The Division then used the results of the investigation it opened through the cure process to justify removal rather than cure. The defect justified rejection of the name request. It did not justify removal of the candidate. That is the constitutional line the Division crossed — and the precise point at which the cause and effect argument the Division builds fails legally even where it succeeds factually.

03 The Manner/Qualification Distinction — This Was A Permissible "Manner" Regulation Fails

Their Argument

The Elections Clause grants states broad authority to regulate the "Manner" of congressional elections. Thornton itself acknowledges that permissible manner regulations include anti-confusion and ballot-integrity measures. The Supreme Court has upheld signature requirements, filing fees, party-disaffiliation laws, and preliminary support requirements as permissible manner regulations. Sullivan's removal was an anti-confusion ballot integrity measure — not a qualification — and falls squarely within permissible manner regulation authority.

The Answer

This is Murray and Francisco's strongest argument and it fails for one precise reason: the distinction between a manner regulation and a qualification is not about the label — it is about the effect. Thornton makes this explicit. A restriction that functions as an additional qualification — that bars a constitutionally qualified candidate from the ballot — is an impermissible qualification regardless of what it is called.

Every permissible manner regulation First & Fourteenth cites regulates HOW elections are conducted — not WHETHER a qualified candidate may appear. Signature requirements, filing fees, petition requirements — all of these regulate the process by which a candidate gains ballot access. None of them remove a constitutionally qualified candidate who has already satisfied the process.

Sullivan paid the filing fee. He submitted the required declaration. He satisfied every procedural requirement Alaska law imposes at the point of filing. But the defective Step 5 created the process that ultimately removed him. Sullivan filed an identical name — that defect triggered the cure process. He then failed the cure process twice — not answering on June 3, asking for the incumbent's initial on June 8. The Division removed him because of a failed process Sullivan himself created through the defective Step 5 and compounded through his responses to the cure inquiry.

But the remedy for a failed cure process is assignment of a distinguishing name format — not removal from the ballot entirely. The Division had authority to say: your name will appear as "Daniel J. Sullivan." Full stop. It did not need Sullivan's cooperation to exercise that authority. Removing him entirely — rather than assigning a distinguishing format — crossed from ballot design authority into candidate removal. That is the constitutional line. Thornton forecloses it.

The anti-confusion cases First & Fourteenth cites — American Party of Texas, Jenness — address ballot design and voter information, not candidate removal. A state may regulate how candidates appear on a ballot to reduce confusion. It may not remove candidates entirely on the theory that their presence is confusing. One is manner regulation. The other is qualification.

04 Good Faith Filing Does Not Add A Constitutional Qualification Fails

Their Argument

Section D of the brief argues that requiring candidates to file in good faith does not add to constitutional qualifications because good faith is a process regulation — not a substantive requirement based on a candidate's traits, statuses, prior conduct, or political positions. It is a requirement about HOW a candidate files, not WHO may file.

The Answer

This argument proves too much. Under the Division's theory any requirement framed as a process regulation — however substantive its effect — would escape Thornton scrutiny. A state could require candidates to demonstrate "genuine commitment to serving" as a filing process requirement. It could require candidates to show "sincere intent to campaign" as a ballot design regulation. The label does not determine the constitutional analysis. The effect does.

The effect of the good faith requirement here is that a constitutionally qualified candidate was removed from the ballot. That is the addition of a fourth qualification by any functional analysis. Thornton does not permit it — regardless of whether the Division calls it a qualification, a manner regulation, or a process requirement.

Critically — the good faith requirement the Division applied does not exist in Alaska statute. It does not exist in 6 AAC 25.212. It does not exist in any Alaska regulation. The Alaska Legislative Counsel's June 17 memo concluded the removal was "likely not legally justified" in part because "the legislature has not imposed such a good faith requirement anywhere." A requirement that does not exist in law cannot be a permissible manner regulation.

05 State Court Precedents — Nebraska, Planas, None of the Above Fails

Their Argument

Courts in Nebraska (1930), Florida (2006), and Louisiana (1979) have upheld removal of candidates whose actions were designed to mislead voters. Sullivan's situation is analogous — a candidate who by all appearances deliberately sought to confuse voters rather than affirmatively seek office.

The Answer

Each of these cases is distinguishable from Sullivan's situation on its critical facts.

Nebraska · 1930 · Fred H. Johnson Candidate filed under a false identity to confuse voters

Candidate impersonated another candidate — using a name that was not his own legal name — to deceive voters about his identity.

Sullivan is filing under his actual legal name. Daniel J. Sullivan is who he is. He is not impersonating anyone. He shares a name with the incumbent through coincidence of birth — not fabrication.

Planas v. Planas · Fla. 2006 · 937 So.2d 745 · Case No. 3D06-2067 Florida common law — three doctrines Alaska has never adopted — decided without Thornton

Juan E. "J.P." Planas filed to challenge incumbent Juan Carlos "J.C." Planas for Florida House District 115. The appellees were J.C. Planas, the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections, and the Florida Secretary of State. The court upheld disqualification on three Florida common law grounds — not statute, not federal constitutional law.

Common Law Right to Names: J.P. Planas had never used that name in private or official affairs. Under common law a name is only legally recognized if actually used in daily life and business. He had no common law right to use it.

Good Faith Exception: Common law prohibits adopting a name for fraudulent purpose or to intentionally deceive. The court held "J.P." was engineered as a stratagem to confuse voters.

Tipsy Coachman Doctrine: The appellate court upheld disqualification on different grounds than the trial court — a common law appellate doctrine allowing affirmance on any correct legal basis even when the lower court's reasoning was wrong. The trial court's own reasoning was rejected.

This citation fails on every level. First — Sullivan's legal name is Daniel J. Sullivan. He has always used it. He transacts business under it. The common law name doctrine that doomed Planas does not apply — Sullivan had every common law right to use his own legal name in the original filing. The "Dan S." request in the cure process is where the Planas parallel narrows — but that request was made after filing, not in it.

Second — Planas was decided entirely on Florida common law. Three doctrines. No statute — Florida later had to pass legislation to codify what Planas established by common law. Alaska has adopted none of these Florida common law standards. The Alaska Legislative Counsel confirmed nothing in Alaska law regulates candidate name intent. Murray and Francisco are importing Florida common law into Alaska through a case citation — without any Alaska authority adopting those standards.

Third — the incumbent J.C. Planas was a named appellee with direct electoral standing. Senator Dan S. Sullivan has filed nothing. He is not a party. The standing that supported Planas does not exist here — and the citation itself highlights that absence.

Fourth — and most important — Planas never addressed Thornton. The federal constitutional qualifications framework was never analyzed. A Florida common law decision on Florida state ballot access cannot override binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent on constitutional qualifications for federal office.

Finally — J.C. Planas, the incumbent whose victory this citation protects, was subsequently ordered by a Miami-Dade court to pay legal expenses for filing a frivolous ethics complaint against a political rival — sanctioned for using the legal process for improper means. The precedent Murray and Francisco rely on was created by a litigant a Florida court later found acted in bad faith himself.

None of the Above v. Hardy · La. 1979 · 377 So.2d 385 Candidate legally changed his name to "None-Of-The-Above" after certification

Candidate changed his name specifically and deliberately to create confusion — admitted he had "no hope of being a serious candidate" and his sole purpose was to promote a voting option.

Sullivan did not change his name. He did not admit his purpose was confusion. He has maintained throughout that he is a genuine candidate who meets every constitutional requirement. His own admissions do not mirror Knox's. The cases are not analogous.

The Dispositive Distinction

The Nebraska and Louisiana cases are easily distinguished — both involved candidates who fabricated names or changed their names specifically to create confusion. Sullivan filed under his actual legal name. Those cases are not analogous.

Planas is the harder case. Sullivan's "Dan S. Sullivan" request — made during the cure process — mirrors Planas conduct closely. He requested a designation that was not his in order to appear more like the incumbent. The distinction is that Sullivan's underlying legal name is genuine — Daniel J. Sullivan — and the fabrication occurred in the cure process response rather than the original filing. That distinction narrows the Planas gap but does not close it entirely.

What closes it is Thornton. Planas was decided on state law grounds. It did not address the federal constitutional qualifications framework. None of these state court decisions — Nebraska 1930, Planas 2006, None of the Above 1979 — addressed U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. A state court applying state law cannot override binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent on constitutional qualifications for federal office. However compelling the Planas parallel — and it is compelling — Thornton is the governing authority. It forecloses removal of a constitutionally qualified candidate regardless of the factual record.

The Document That Defines The Case

The Declaration of Candidacy has two distinct parts that must be evaluated separately.

On the constitutional qualifications — the declaration is accurate, complete, and truthful in every respect. Sullivan is who he says he is. He is a United States citizen. He meets the age requirement. He is an inhabitant of Alaska — 439 Mitkof Highway, Petersburg, Alaska 99833. He paid the $100 filing fee. Every constitutional requirement is met. On this basis alone Thornton forecloses removal.

On the ballot name request — the declaration was defective. Step 5 requires the candidate to specify exactly how their name should appear on the ballot. Sullivan wrote: Sullivan, Dan. The incumbent's ballot name is: Sullivan, Dan. Character for character identical. Two candidates requesting the identical ballot name is a defect in Step 5 that the Division had legitimate authority to address.

The Step 5 Defect — Documented

Incumbent's Step 5 request — filed July 11, 2025: Sullivan, Dan
Challenger's Step 5 request — filed May 29, 2026: Sullivan, Dan
Identical. Not similar. Not close. Word for word the same. The Division had legitimate authority to reject this Step 5 as defective and require a corrected submission with a distinguishing name format.

The proper remedy for a defective Step 5 is rejection of that specific name request and an opportunity to cure — not removal of the candidate entirely. The Division had clear authority to reject "Sullivan, Dan" and require Sullivan to resubmit with a distinguishing format. Middle initial. Full legal name. City of residence. Any of these would have resolved the defect. The Division instead asked Sullivan how he wanted to appear. He failed that process twice. She removed him.

The defect was real. The remedy was available. The removal was not the remedy.

The Division Acknowledged The Defect — Then Used The Cure Process Against Sullivan

The Division's own conduct on June 1 implicitly acknowledged the Step 5 defect. By emailing both candidates asking how they wanted their names to appear — Beecher recognized the identical name problem and took the correct first step. Identify the defect. Seek a cure. That is exactly what the regulations contemplate for a defective Step 5 submission.

But something else happened on June 1. The NRSC letter arrived the same day. Beecher initiated the cure process and received a partisan demand for removal simultaneously. What followed was not a cure process. It was an investigation that used the cure inquiry as its vehicle — gathering evidence of intent rather than resolving the name defect.

The Division cannot have it both ways. Either the Step 5 defect was a curable deficiency — in which case Beecher acknowledged it as such on June 1 and Sullivan's failure to cure it required a corrected submission, not removal. Or the intent was the real issue all along — in which case the Step 5 defect was pretext and the removal was always about the NRSC's demand, not the ballot name request.

The timing makes Option B the more honest characterization. The cure process and the partisan pressure arrived on the same day. The Division initiated what looked like an administrative cure process while simultaneously receiving a demand for removal from the national party committee whose Senate incumbent was at stake. It then used Sullivan's responses to the cure inquiry as evidence of fraudulent intent — and removed him on that basis rather than completing the cure.

Initiated cure. Gathered evidence. Removed candidate. That sequence — on a timeline bookmarked by the NRSC letter — is the procedural story the July 20 document production needs to confirm. The retainer agreement for First & Fourteenth. The communications between the Division and the NRSC. The internal Division communications between June 1 and June 15. Those documents will show whether the cure process was ever intended to cure — or whether it was designed from the start to produce a record supporting removal.

The Division's Strongest Argument — Cause and Effect

The Division's most compelling factual argument is not any single act. It is a pattern across two separate submissions that it argues establishes intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Cause 1 — The Declaration. Sullivan filed Step 5 as "Sullivan, Dan" — character for character identical to the incumbent's ballot name. The Division identifies this as the first data point establishing a pattern of seeking name confusion.

Effect 1 — Division Initiates Cure. Beecher emails both candidates June 1 asking how they want their names to appear. The standard administrative response to an identical name problem. Sullivan is given a direct opportunity to provide a distinguishing format.

Cause 2 — The "Dan S." Response. When asked directly Sullivan asks to appear as "Dan S. Sullivan" — the incumbent's middle initial. Not his own initial "J." The incumbent's. On his second opportunity to distinguish himself he moved closer to the incumbent's identity — not further away.

Effect 2 — Removal. The Division argues the sequential conduct — identical name format on filing, incumbent's middle initial on second chance — establishes a pattern that confirms deliberate intent. Not one mistake. Two separate choices. Both pointing toward the incumbent's identity.

That argument has genuine force. It is the strongest factual case the Division has. Two opportunities. Two choices. Both in the wrong direction. The cause and effect sequence is documented in the administrative record and it is difficult to explain innocently.

But it still fails constitutionally. And it fails precisely.

Thornton forecloses removal of a constitutionally qualified candidate regardless of intent. Intent is not a constitutional qualification. Age, citizenship, and inhabitancy are the exclusive qualifications. Sullivan meets all three. The cause and effect argument — however compelling factually — operates entirely within the ballot design space. It establishes that the Division had legitimate authority to reject both name requests and assign "Daniel J. Sullivan" as the ballot listing over Sullivan's objection. It does not establish authority to remove Sullivan from the ballot entirely.

The Division can control the name on the ballot. It cannot control whether the name appears. The cause and effect pattern proves the Step 5 defect was not accidental. It does not expand the Division's remedial authority beyond ballot design into candidate removal. Thornton keeps it there. That is the constitutional line the Division crossed — and the line the court must draw.

The requirement the Division applied simply does not exist. Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office.
— Sullivan v. Division of Elections, Appellant's Brief, Page 10

What The Acting AG's Signature Means

The brief is signed by Acting Attorney General Cori Mills alongside First & Fourteenth's Murray and Francisco. The AG's office is now formally on record defending the removal. That raises the billing and retainer questions with new urgency. When was First & Fourteenth retained? By whom? Who authorized that retention? Who is paying their fees — the state or the RNC? The retainer agreement and billing records are public documents under AS 40.25.220(3) if paid with state funds. A public records request filed today should produce that answer.

The AG's presence also means the standard explanation for First & Fourteenth's involvement — that the AG declined to defend and the Division went outside — no longer holds. Both are here. The question of who initiated the First & Fourteenth relationship and on whose authority remains unanswered. July 20 is when those documents are due.

The Remedy The Division Already Had

The Division's entire argument rests on the premise that "Sullivan, Dan" created an unresolvable confusion problem requiring removal. Alaska's own regulatory framework disproves that premise.

The remedy was always available within the Division's own authority. Middle initials. Full legal names. City of residence. These are standard ballot design tools. The Division had every one of them before the NRSC letter arrived on June 1. It chose not to apply them.

More striking — 6 AAC 25.214(c) explicitly permits nicknames commonly known in the community to appear on the ballot. The NRSC adopted "Decoy Dan Sullivan" as their official label in their June 9 FEC complaint. Beecher used it in her own removal letter. It appeared in every outlet that covered this story — locally, statewide, and nationally. The standard under 6 AAC 25.214(c) is satisfied by the public record alone.

The Division removed Sullivan citing name confusion. The NRSC — whose letter triggered the removal — amplified "Decoy Dan Sullivan" into the most recognizable label in this race. That label satisfies Alaska's own nickname regulation. The Division built the remedy it refused to apply — through the very process it used to remove him.

Sullivan, Dan — the Division called confusing. Decoy Dan Sullivan — commonly known, legally eligible under Alaska regulation, unambiguous to any voter. The confusion argument was never the real issue. The name was always solvable. The remedy was always available. The removal was always something else.

The Question Sullivan Must Answer

Credibility requires acknowledging the strongest argument against Sullivan's own conduct. It is this: he had two documented chances to resolve the name question — and didn't.

On June 1 Director Beecher emailed Sullivan directly asking how he wanted his name to appear on the ballot. Sullivan responded June 3 arguing he met all legal requirements for filing. He did not answer the name question.

On June 8 Beecher emailed again — specifically asking about ballot name display. Sullivan's response was to ask to appear as "Dan S. Sullivan" — the incumbent's middle initial. Not his own middle initial "J." The incumbent's.

Sullivan knew his middle initial was J. He was asked directly — twice — how he wanted to appear. The first time he didn't answer. The second time he asked for the wrong initial. The Division's brief calls that response "bewildering." That characterization is not unreasonable.

The constitutional argument does not require Sullivan to have acted in good faith. Thornton protects constitutionally qualified candidates regardless of their motivations — that is the entire point of an exclusive qualifications framework. But Sullivan's conduct on the name question gave the Division its strongest factual argument and complicated what should have been a straightforward constitutional case.

The remedy for a bad faith name display request is to reject that specific request — list him as "Dan J. Sullivan" or "Daniel J. Sullivan" — not remove him from the ballot entirely. That distinction is the constitutional line. Beecher had authority over the first. She did not have authority over the second. Sullivan's conduct made that line harder to hold publicly. The constitutional principle holds it anyway.

The Third Chance — What The Court May Do

Courts in administrative appeals have equitable remedial authority that goes beyond simply affirming or reversing the agency below. Rather than ruling on the full constitutional question — which carries significant national implications for every state's ability to regulate Senate ballot access — the judge may fashion a narrower remedy that resolves this case without deciding Thornton.

The court could remand to the Division with specific instructions — order Sullivan to appear and provide his correct middle initial "J" as his ballot name request before June 30. A third chance to cure the deficiency his own conduct created. The Division would then be required to place him on the ballot as "Dan J. Sullivan" or "Daniel J. Sullivan."

But there is a cleaner version of that remedy — one that removes Sullivan's ability to harm himself further. The Division has authority under Alaska ballot regulations to determine how names appear on the ballot. It does not need a candidate's permission to assign a distinguishing format. The judge could order the Division to simply assign Sullivan the ballot listing "Dan J. Sullivan" — unilaterally, without asking Sullivan to choose again.

That raises an uncomfortable question about the original process. Beecher asked Sullivan how he wanted his name to appear — giving him the choice rather than assigning a format. The Division had authority to assign "Dan J. Sullivan" without asking. By giving Sullivan the choice instead — and then using his answer as evidence of fraudulent intent — the Division created the factual record it needed for removal through a process it was not required to follow. It gave Sullivan rope. He used it. Then it removed him for using it.

A remand ordering the Division to assign the ballot name — rather than ask Sullivan to choose again — resolves the confusion problem within the Division's clear regulatory authority, gets Sullivan on the ballot, and avoids the constitutional question entirely. That remedy is attractive to a court under time pressure. It also implicitly acknowledges that the Division's choice to ask rather than assign was the procedural step that created this case.

The cleanest ruling is still the constitutional one. Thornton forecloses the removal. The manner/qualification line is drawn. The precedent is set. But courts under deadline pressure on election cases have historically preferred the narrowest available remedy. Watch for a remand with assignment instructions as the most likely outcome before June 30.

The Verdict

First & Fourteenth filed a sophisticated 34-page brief by two of the most accomplished conservative election lawyers in the country. The laches argument is thin — seven days is not unreasonable delay for a private citizen retaining counsel after an unconstitutional removal. The manner regulation argument fails because removing a constitutionally qualified candidate is not regulating the manner of elections — it is imposing a fifth qualification Thornton forecloses. The good faith argument fails because the requirement doesn't exist in Alaska law. The state court precedents fail because all three involve fabricated names — not a candidate's actual legal name.

The declaration had two parts. The constitutional qualifications — accurate, complete, met in every respect. The Step 5 ballot name request — defective. Identical to the incumbent's. The Division had legitimate authority to reject that Step 5 and require a corrected submission. It did not have authority to remove Sullivan from the ballot entirely. The defect was real. The remedy was rejection and cure — not removal. The ruling comes before June 30. Thirty-four pages from First & Fourteenth have not changed what the Legislative Counsel established on June 17.

Thomas Lamb: Analyzing Politics That Control Our Lives

Saturday, June 27, 2026

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

The NGM Pattern — A Forecaster's Perspective

A Second Kelvin Wave Is Already Loading

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

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

The Implications If the Forecast Is Correct

Alaska — The State That Cannot Afford a Missing La Niña

On the Record — June 26, 2026

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

The Six Causation Layers

The Semi-Enclosed Basin Problem

The Norton Sound Mirror

What This Means Downstream

The 2004 Question — Now With Two Answers

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

The Signal Nobody Expected: Norton Sound

The El Niño Nobody Has Seen Before

The La Niña Forecast: The Reset May Not Come

What a Missing La Niña Means for Alaska — Specifically

The Monitoring Blind Spot

On the Record — June 26, 2026

The La Niña Forecast

A Second Kelvin Wave Is Already Loading

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

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

The Implications If the Forecast Is Correct

On the Record — June 26, 2026

Thursday, June 25, 2026

The Wall Built on Sand: How the Confidentiality Glenfarne Used to Block Alaska's Legislature Was Never as Airtight as Claimed — and What the Leaked Document Proves

The Two Legal Arguments — Now Validated

What the Leaked Document Reveals — The Contractual Reality

The Two Definitions of Confidential

The Senate Protected Itself. The House Did Not.

What Must Happen Before July 1

The Series That Saw It Coming

The Slides Are Separate Documents — Which Makes the Waiver Argument Stronger, Not Weaker

The Cost Figures and the Buyback Price Are the Same Subject Matter — Which Gives Alaska a Direct Legal Reason to Know the True Cost

The Document That Defines The Case

The Division Acknowledged The Defect — Then Used The Cure Process Against Sullivan

The Division's Strongest Argument — Cause and Effect

What The Acting AG's Signature Means

The Remedy The Division Already Had

The Question Sullivan Must Answer

The Third Chance — What The Court May Do

Get My Newsletter

About Me

Followers

List of Links

Blog Archive

Subscribe To

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

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

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