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
  • February 2016
02

No whitewash of green issues

Open-access content 1st February 2016

Mr Solomon Green’s letter of 11 November (The Actuary, December 2015, bit.ly/1RUVcJo) casts doubt on the competence of all those men and women working in the complex and important field of climate modelling.

Mr Solomon Green's letter of 11 November (The Actuary, December 2015, bit.ly/1RUVcJo) casts doubt on the competence of all those men and women working in the complex and important field of climate modelling.

While it is entirely proper that good actuaries can offer some level of impartial critical interrogation in fields in which they claim no expertise, it cannot be right that this can then morph into outright condemnation and ridicule of an entire profession.

It has taken considerable effort to restrain my language, so I will restrict my remarks to commenting on the seemingly widely held misapprehensions concerning the apparent undershoot in the rate of warming since approximately 2000 - the so-called 'global pause' or 'hiatus'. I emphasise rate, because the absolute temperatures tell us that most of the hottest years ever recorded have happened this century (see, for example, NASA data). It is not getting any cooler. But it may be true that the rate of increase since 2000 has flattened off.

As far as I understand it (see the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), there are always going to be temporary (decadal) variabilities. In recent years, this has been due primarily to a series of negative El Niño years together with a phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. There have also been a number of volcanic eruptions and other similar variable effects (Scripps Institution of Oceanography provides evidence for the El Niño effect).

But the energy imbalance caused by the greenhouse gases covering the planet is still in effect. Just because the surface temperatures 'only' increased at a reduced rate since 2000 doesn't mean that global warming did not continue. Excess energy doesn't just vanish. It melts ice, it causes evaporations and, in particular, it warms the deep oceans. This last is significant. Measurements down to 2,000m, 700m and 300m below sea level show a marked increase in oceanic warming since 2000, particularly at the deeper levels (Balmaseda et al, 2013).

Finally, the rate of increase may have flattened off. This was indeed what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its fifth assessment report. However, in recent years, scientists have been looking hard at the data used by the IPCC (TR Karl et al, Science, 2015). The network of the observation points used to collect this data are expanding and changing, particularly sea-surface temperatures, which rely in part on thousands of commercial ships. There has also been an increase in land-station data. In summary, to quote from the paper in Science, "newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data … do not support the notion of a global warming 'hiatus'… Indeed, based on our new analysis, the IPCC's statement … is no longer valid."

As actuaries, we know all models are wrong, but we can still conclude that some are still useful. However, it casts us in an appalling light if we start issuing blanket condemnations in ignorance of all the facts.

(Although I sit on the IFoA's Resource and Environment Board, and chair the IAA's Resource and Environment Working Group, this letter is written in a personal capacity and the views are my own.)


Kenneth Donaldson, Fellow

13 January 2016 


This article appeared in our February 2016 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
02
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Capital contractor

England, London
£700 - £1000 per day
Reference
118813

Senior Financial Risk Actuary

London, England
£55000 - £100000 per annum
Reference
118812

Pricing Technology Lead

England, London
£60000 - £70000 per annum
Reference
118811
See all jobs »
 
 

Most-Popular

 
 
 

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