If you look at my next post, the standard error of the residuals is higher than the standard deviation of the temperature series being modeled. So one would conclude that there is no skill in the model.

But the statistics of MBH98 is really simplistic. These series have a lot of serial correlation. They also have low frequency red noise (at all scales up to ice ages) so the variance/standard deviation in a relatively short period like a 79 year calibration period would be an under-estimate. There’s a lot of research in econometrics on this.

Even on the data shown here, I don’t see how their reconstruction achieves a confidence interval below natural variation.

Regards, Steve

]]>Generally, it looks puzzling why an older period should be more accurate than a newer one, but on the other hand, it can probably happen, can’t it? More generally, I think that the error margin for the 15th century is many, many times higher than what they say – it’s enough to look at different papers that try to answer the same question.

]]>How did they report the error bars? Was it just the à?Æ’ or some function of the à?Æ’ (along the lines of 2 X à?Æ’)?

What were the error bars for the period 1900 to 1980? How do these compare to the error bars reported with the syrface insrument record?

]]>