Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2015
12

A climate of doubt

Open-access content 30th November 2015

The first task of the Climate Change Working Party should be to investigate the assumptions, derivation and validity of the climate models.

2


When I was studying to become an actuary, I was taught to obtain and assemble the data that would be required to create a model from which forecasts could be derived. As actuarial students, we also learnt that we would be lucky in that our predictions would, for the most part, be longterm and hence, should they be seen to be going awry, further data, which had evolved in the meantime, could be used improve our model and the ensuing forecasts. In those days, computer power was almost non-existent, and, consequently, models were designed to be comparatively simple. Today, we believe we can use the enormous computer power at our disposal to assemble and utilise vast amounts of data. We also believe our computers can perform the magic of transforming data, which might, at best, be accurate to one decimal place, into estimates that are accurate to as many as four or five decimal places. In doing this, we ignore the Eureka moment of Edward Lorenz, the father of chaos theory.

We believe we can use the same enormous computer power to combine as many as 40 different variables into a single complex model, despite the fact that we do not know the distribution of many of the parameters. We do not know whether they are linear or non-linear, cyclical or non-cyclical, random or chaotic, independent or correlated.

The first assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was based on 90 models. After the relatively short period of 24 years, global temperatures, as measured by satellite, have fallen significantly below the 95% confidence levels forecast by 88 of these models and, as measured by adjusted surface thermometers, by 86 of the models. Despite revisions based on the further data that had become available over the intervening years, few, if any, of the models used for the second and third IPCC assessments have been any more successful in their predictions.

The only prediction of any of the first four IPCC assessments that has turned out to be accurate is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to rise. Thus we have a situation where the driver has moved ahead, while the driven has, stubbornly, refused to follow. With similar results, any competent actuary might be expected to doubt the validity of his model. But, while many have modified their models, the Canutes of climate science still continue to believe that, through the continued burning of fossil fuel, man can and will alter natural balances and warm the planet.

In the past, the UK profession has been blamed for overestimating mortality and derided for its panic report on the AIDS epidemic. Perhaps the first task of the Climate Change Working Party should be to investigate the assumptions, derivation and validity of the climate models, which have, to date, failed so decisively. With their mathematical and statistical knowledge, actuaries are better qualified than most to perform this task.
This article appeared in our December 2015 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
12
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Actuarial Analyst - Pensions to Life

London (Central)
study support, package
Reference
119042

Reinsurance Technician

London (Central)
Negotiable
Reference
119041

Pricing Actuary/Analyst (Casualty)

London, England
£60000 - £80000 per annum
Reference
119040
See all jobs »
 
 
 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2020 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200