Author Archives: niclewis

Paper justifying AR4’s use of a uniform prior for estimating climate sensitivity shown to be faulty

This is a guest post by Nic Lewis.   In July 2004 the IPCC held a Working Group 1 (WG1) Workshop on climate sensitivity, as part of the work plan leading up to AR4. In one session, Myles Allen of Oxford university and a researcher in his group, David Frame, jointly gave a presentation entitled […]

Mann’s new paper recharacterizing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

A guest post by Nic Lewis   Michael Mann has had a paper on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) accepted by Geophysical Research Letters: “On forced temperature changes, internal variability, and the AMO”. The abstract and access to Supplementary Information is here . Mann has made a preprint of the paper available, here . More […]

Radiocarbon calibration and Bayesian inference

A guest post by Nic Lewis   On 1 April 2014 the Bishop Hill blog carried a guest post ‘Dating error’ by Doug Keenan, in which he set out his allegations of research misconduct by Oxford University professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey. Professor Bronk Ramsey is an expert on calibration of radiocarbon dating and author of […]

Does “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity” by Drew Shindell make sense?

A guest post by Nic Lewis  This new Nature Climate Change paper[i] by Drew Shindell claims that the lowest end of transient climate response (TCR) – below 1.3°C – in CMIP5 models is very unlikely, and that this suggests the lowest end of model equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates – modestly above 2°C – is also […]

Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its/the CMIP5 models’ TCR ranges?

A guest post by Nic Lewis Steve McIntyre pointed out some time ago, here, that almost all the global climate models around which much of the IPCC’s AR5 WGI report was centred had been warming faster than the real climate system over the last 35-odd years, in terms of the key metric of global mean […]

Non-centring in the Forest 2006 study

This is a cautionary tale, about a mystery that had an unexpected explanation. It’s not intended as a criticism of the scientists involved, and the problem involved, although potentially serious, actually had little impact on the results of the study concerned. However, I am hopeful that mathematically and computing orientated readers will find it of […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,184 other followers