US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt
As Dr Roy Spencer points out: ‘You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming! (But, they did anyway.)’
A new paper in Nature: Scientific Reports by Santer et al entitled Tropospheric Warming Over the Past Two Decades begins with this:
After a recent Senate confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming. We test this claim here.
Now, exactly how does one scientifically test a claim of “leveling off of warming”?
First, the claim would have to have some unambiguous meaning which can be evaluated quantitatively. Does it mean that warming has decelerated in the last two decades, and is approaching zero? That would be my first interpretation of “leveling off”.
And by “two decades” did Pruitt mean exactly 20 years?
The wording is ambiguous. But the authors decided Pruitt meant “there has been zero warming” for exactly 20 years. They proceeded to evaluate this interpretation with a statistical analysis of the various satellite temperature datasets, as well as with climate models.
The result is a peer-reviewed study which took less than one month to sail through peer review.
Wow. If I only knew earlier that I could get peer-reviewed scientific papers by evaluating the silly climate claims made by politicians (Al Gore, Barack Obama, et al.) over the years.
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Would that be Ben Santer?
There is some very disturbing stuff in the Blees book, not least the possibility that, through the lies and misdirections of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, we may have lost the opportunity to solve the problem cheaply. History [m]ay well judge these guys
as much worse than Bush Jr.
On a side note, I get a ‘page not found’ whenever I click on drrspencer.com. Have to go to the google cache version.
[mod] test worked OK
That would be “from: Tom Wigley” cc’d to Santer.
Caution: Government-funded scientists at work!
clipe – from your ‘caution’ link:
Mike Hulme says ‘many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science’
Who knew 😉
ARCTIC SEA ICE BOUNCES BACK
Date: 26/05/17 Sunshine Hours
Arctic Sea Ice extent is 800,000 km2 higher than it was in 2016.
http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-bounces-back/
Warming levelling off?
.
Less than a month to get through peer review? Unbelievable.
I submitted a paper to a medical journal just under 2 months ago, Got the reply back yesterday.
Reviewer 1 was full of praise “I think it is a well conducted study and the results are interesting”.
Reviewer 2 was less charitable “Although these data are interesting, there are several concerns that preclude acceptance at this point”.
Basically I now have to tick a load of (largely irrelevant) boxes- my main concern is that by answering this nit-picking it will be very difficult to remain within the very tight word limit.
But hey this is not climate “science”, so it is not “pal” review.
NOAA : Hiding Critical Arctic Sea Ice Data [video in link]
Posted on May 25, 2017
Tony Heller
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/05/new-video-noaa-hiding-critical-arctic-sea-ice-data/
– – –
No correlation between long-term Arctic sea ice data and CO2 levels.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.