The position at ClimateAudit is that error bars in MBH98 are incorrectly calculated and “pseudo science” and that no one knows how the error bars in MBH99 were calculated (not just Me, Jean S, UC but also von Storch) and these error bars are also “pseudo science”. Notwithstanding this view, UC has posted up MBH98-style error bars for the Loehle reconstruction as shown here:
We have a trade-off here, no error bars or wrong error bars. Not a good situation, no indication of accuracy or false indication of accuracy (which leads to discussion about reliability, or consistency in some fields). Here are the MBH98-style CIs for Loehle’s reconstruction Jean sent me:
Jean S had previously written:
I personally do not believe the Mannian error analysis is worth anything. However, since JEG seems to be insisting on those, I calculated the Mannian CIs for the Loehle reconstruction the following way:
1) I took the HadCRU global instrumental series and 30-year run mean filtered it (in order the target series to match the Loehle reconstruction)
2) stardardized the both series to the mean of 1864-1980
3) calculated RMSE (over the overlap 1864-1980) between the series (which gives the Mannian CI sigma).
I sent my files to UC for double checking, but here are the preliminary results:
RMSE=0.067, so that gives Mannian CIs as 2*sigma=0.13! BTW, R2=0.73 and the series are remarkably similar using the Mannian terminology.
Theres some skill for you, JEG. Have fun!
I suspect that I speak for Jean S and UC (both statistics professionals in respected universities) as well as myself when I say that the apparent inability of climate scientists to recognize and reject the pseudo-science of MBH error bars – worse, their embracing of these calculations as an advance in their science – does not increase our confidence in their judgment when we are asked to accept their judgment in other areas that we have not studied.