RealClimate has emerged from its latest bout of torpor to publish an article commenting on the recent Lewis and Curry climate sensitivity paper. It's written by Richard Millar, one of Myles Allen's post-docs, and the author seems to have adopted a much more businesslike tone than is normal at RC. Unfortunately, according to the first comment, which comes from Lewis himself, he hasn't got his facts right.
Richard Millar, you write
“They use the latest IPCC numbers for radiative forcing and global temperature changes, but not the latest IPCC ocean heat content data”.
The statement that Lewis and Curry (2014) does not use the latest IPCC ocean heat content data is simply untrue.
Section 3.2 of the paper explicitly states that it uses the climate system energy accumulation observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges shown in Box 3.1, Figure 1 of AR5, which extend to 2011, the final year of all the analyses carried out in the paper. The change in ocean heat content accounts for the bulk of the accumulation. Gregory Johnson is acknowledged in the paper for supplying the underlying data.
The bulk of Millar's case seems to be that the Lewis and Curry estimates are broadly similar to the 5-95% ranges of the IPCC's preferred estimates. However, as Nic points out in his comment, this obscures the fact that the energy budget estimates all have best estimates much nearer the 5% end than the 95% end.