More parliamentary statistics

Parliamentarians still seem to be showing an admirable interest in the nitty gritty of statistics as applied in the climate change field. Here's a question and answer exchange between Peter Lilley and Greg Barker:

Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment his Department has made of whether the decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice since reliable records began is statistically significant; and what statistical model his Department has used to conduct that assessment.

Barker: The Department has not commissioned any assessment of the statistical significance of long-term trends in Arctic sea-ice extent. Work undertaken under the Climate Programme at the Met Office Hadley Centre has assessed the physical reasons for the decrease in ice extent and used physically-based climate models to assess its future course ('Assessment of possibility and impact of rapid climate change in the Arctic':

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/HCTN_91.pdf

We note that the downward trend in Arctic sea-ice extent, taking account of the seasonal cycle, is now well-established from satellite observations since 1979 and has been reported as being statistically significant in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Given what we know about the amount of checking that doesn't go on in academic studies these days, particularly climate change, for policymakers to rely on the scientific literature is foolish in the extreme. In fact one could go so far as to characterise it as negligence.

Comments

[not banned yet]

Entropic Man,
Your reference seems to be but a repackaging of IPCC reports.

Jun 12, 2013 at 2:52 AM | Old Mike

Not surprising.
//
So why did you flag it up?

[Entropic Man]

sherlock1

Try here for a more detailed analysis of the current state of the Arctic.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/06/asi-2013-update-2-shaken-and-stirred.html

[Entropic Man]

Climate Dialogue tries to provide a neutral forum for discussion of particular climate change topics. Contribtors with different views are invited to write their views. Their first try, on Arctic ice, is also worth reading. This one was focused on the statistical analysis of long duration data sets, something which Peter Lilley just asked about in Parliament.

Any discussion of that nature will draw on the same pool of published papers, whether the forum is Climate Dialogue, AR4, a university seminar or a blog like this. I had hoped that commenters here would read it before going off half-cocked. It might reduce the Dunning–Kruger effect I encounter so often on Bishop Hill.

[not banned yet]

EM - I agree that the climate dialogue thread is worth a read. What did you learn from it? And how do you feel AR4 treated the issue of LTP? Do you think they accurately represented Koutsoyiannis' work and its implications?

[not banned yet]

Bump for EM - your expert comment is still eagerly awaited.

[not banned yet]

Bump 2 for EM

[not banned yet]

Bump 3 for EM