Andrew Orlowski: Tell us we’re all doomed, MPs beg climate scientists

Posted: January 31, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Cycles, Politics

Andrew Orlowski of the Register has written a lucid account of the Climate Change Committee hearing on the IPCC AR5 climate report. I’ve excerpted a highlight below, but do go and read the whole thing, it’s an excellent summary, and entertainingly written.

Excerpt from: Tell us we’re all doomed, MPs beg climate scientists
by Andrew Orlowski – The register 31-1-14

Lindzen tried to explain that the temperature hiatus really ought cause some soul-searching amongst the establishment’s climate modellers.

The longer this goes on the harder it will be to support a high climate sensitivity. It wasn’t predicted.

Nic Lewis’ own work concludes that CO2 has an impact on the climate – just one that’s lower than the scientific establishment’s most likely impact. It takes more accurate recent observational estimates of aerosols into account. He told MPs that the IPCC’s estimate of greenhouse gas climate sensitivity – the climate system’s response to an increase in (mainly) CO2 – is about three times higher than it should be.

This indicates the models are not to be relied on.

As he explains in his lucid written evidence for the enquiry (written for a layman with a basic grasp of maths) and reminded MPs, Lewis uses a different application of Bayesian maths.

“Most of the studies, but not all of them, use a Subjective Bayesian approach. Some use an Objective Bayesian approach, and some use non-Bayesian statistics. The Objective and non-Bayesian studies give very much the same answer. The Subjectives produces results depending on what you put in, as the Uniform Prior you choose bumps up the higher end,” said Lewis.

Some use an Expert Prior using older observational data, “and that has dominated their results.”

“Their studies are not statistically sound,” he added. “I don’t think there is the statistical expertise in Bayesian theory in climate science that there ought to be.”

How come the IPCC hadn’t based its conclusions on the most recent data, asked Peter Lilley MP (Con, Hitchin & Harpenden).

“By the time they realised the observations and models disagreed – so much of the report is built around model simulations – they couldn’t really write conclusions that say the models were wrong,” said Lewis.

Lindzen argued that the models failed to model accurately.

No models at present do an acceptable job on decadal oscillations, or multidecadal oscillations, and there may be longer periods we don’t know about.

MPs asked if it was possible to believe the models if ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) was closer to Lewis’ estimate than to the IPCC estimates.

“Is it possible to play it down and still be worried by anthropogenic global warming?” asked one MP.

”Not really,” said Lewis.

Comments
  1. Joe Public says:

    An excellent, sharp piece by Andrew.

    As acid as Simon Carr’s sketch “Unsettling the “Settled Science” of Climate Change” on Guido’s blog yesterday.

  2. ren says:

    Why not talk about the facts? Can be seen that the shift of the polar vortex causes a dramatic winter in America. Why no one is trying to explain this fact? What do scientists do? Whether no one not care about this fact?

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘ “Climate science is virtually a government monopoly,” Lindzen told the MPs’

    Government monopolies usually waste lots of money and end badly.

  4. Bob Weber says:

    Ren, good point. Facts and events don’t matter to the warmists, just their imaginary friends, I mean trends.

  5. w.w.wygart says:

    “By the time they realised the observations and models disagreed – so much of the report is built around model simulations – they couldn’t really write conclusions that say the models were wrong,” said Lewis.

    That would fall under the category of ‘reporting adverse results’, can’t have that now can we? this is [climate] science after all.

    W^3

  6. Andy Hurley says:

    Without wishing to sound like Kevin Keegan on steroids , “I would love it , love it ” If just one warmmongerest came out and repented , seriously , these guys are so far back in the closet ,they are in Narnia.