and several JASA and NSF referees for helpful comments and suggestions. Author’s e-mail:
corresponding to (6) and (14) in the present paper, which have been corrected. Also, the Jan. 9, 2010 version had an error in its equation (8), corresponding to (9) in the present paper, which has been corrected. In calibration problems, an exogenous state variable and an endogenous response variabl...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.175.9460 http://econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Thompson6/Thompson6Calib.pdf |
| Summary: | corresponding to (6) and (14) in the present paper, which have been corrected. Also, the Jan. 9, 2010 version had an error in its equation (8), corresponding to (9) in the present paper, which has been corrected. In calibration problems, an exogenous state variable and an endogenous response variable or proxy are both observed in a set of calibration observations. We wish to make inferences about the unobserved state variable from an additional observation on the response variable under a diffuse prior. Hoadley (1970) had argued that an informative prior is required in order to obtain a proper posterior distribution. Hunter and Lamboy (1981) proposed a solution, but were sharply criticized at the time. This paper presents a new derivation of the Hunter-Lamboy posterior distribution under a diffuse prior that meets these objections. At the same time, it is shown that Hoadley’s approach was based on a subtle inconsistency in the application of Bayes ’ Rule. The reinstated Hunter-Lamboy posterior is applied to the problem of calibrating the ice core index of Thompson et al. (2003) to instrumental temperatures. It is found, contrary to the famous claim of Gore (2006), that this index is in fact uninformative about |
|---|