Long time readers will be familiar with the Yamal saga. Yamal is the name of a region which allegedly demonstrated proof of extreme recent warming in tree ring data. Recently, after years, Steve McIntyre was granted access to the total dataset site list.
Unsurprisingly for paleoclimatology, the results using all of the data are a little different.
the Air Vent 
Jeff, all I got was a list of sites. That was enough to emulate their calculation. They continue to withhold their own regional chronology.
Steve,
I didn’t mean to imply anything else. I read the PDF with the links before posting but have updated my remarks.
You know they are writing emails back and forth right now explaining how you don’t understand the nuances of RCS or how it should be applied regionally or by species! Anything to continue the HS relevance.
Jeff,
You already know that nobody without formal climate science training is not capable of understanding any of it, never mind the nuances. Those with formal climate science training who disagree with any part of the consensus positions are only shills of ‘big energy’. Have you not been paying attention?
I’m still of the naive opinion that even the deliberately deaf can accidentally learn.
Sorry, one too many negatives in that comment…
Jeff, you’re right that they will undoubtedly criticize my RCS emulation. Not that any of them have ever bothered presenting a technical article with equations or code so that the implementation is unambiguous.
BTW some fresh data at both yamal and Urals was used in Esper et al 2009 but hasn’t been archived. I’ve asked the various authors to archive the data or provide it to me, but they haven’t acknowledged my requests. I asked Rob Wilson to speak up on my behalf but he asked that I not involve him.
“I asked Rob Wilson to speak up on my behalf but he asked that I not involve him.”
That rather speaks to what is wrong in climate science.
“That rather speaks to what is wrong in climate science.”
Or it could speak to what is wrong with Steve McIntyre. Maybe Rob Wilson doesn’t think scientists at CRU are liars. Wouldn’t his response then make sense?
At this point it isn’t reasonable to think that CRU hasn’t manipulated the data dishonestly. Which is exactly what they are accused of by me – right here for the first time. It isn’t rational to hold a different opinion. The facts of the data were enough already. Emails which show the internal consternation over their methods simply confirm that those of us who have critiqued hide the decline for years before climategate did exactly what we said. Liar is a different definition entirely which I don’t agree with. In my opinion, they just talked themselves into being dishonest for the cause based on fuzzy reasoning and have yet to repent their sins.
On a different matter, Rob doesn’t need to be involved in it either way. Deciding not to help seems fine to me. If he presents his own data and his own work, why get involved in anything else. He’s a scientist not a cop.
“Maybe Rob Wilson doesn’t think scientists at CRU are liars. Wouldn’t his response then make sense?”
Nick, what does that have to do with asking someone to archive data?
#7 John, he wasn’t asking Rob Wilson to archive data AFAIK.
Nick,
No, he was asking Wilson to help with transparency for a field in which Wilson operates.
I repeat my question.
And to Wilson that might well look like an invitation to join in another round of CRU bashing. Which he preferred to stay out of.
Nick,
Is that what Rob has said or are you putting words into people’s mouths again?
“And to Wilson that might well look like an invitation to join in another round of CRU bashing. Which he preferred to stay out of.”
And that additionally speaks to what is wrong with climate science and its defenders. How could helping provide information used in a science publication lead to bashing. Do you approve of transparency in these matters and this instance, Nick?
No, he’s being asked to help lean on someone for an SM post. Which then leads to this. He doesn’t have to join in that.
So here we have Nick Stokes defending a lack of transparency because someone might get “bashed”, or because Anthony Watts writes a “mean” headline, or because A may not like B asking for something on behalf of C. Maybe a terrible screaming match would ensue? Or the opposite…the silent treatment?
What tender flowers these climate scientists be..
I thought I was done having to view these types of excuses when my youngest daughter graduated from high school.
John, you don’t read properly. I haven’t defended a lack of transparency. I’ve said that Rob Wilson doesn’t have to participate in a CRU-bashing exercise if he doesn’t want to. It’s not his data at issue.
Nick Stokes,
You have added nothing pf substance to Kenneth Fritsch’s statement of “That rather speaks to what is wrong in climate science.”
If climate scientists are unwilling to clean up the mess that is climate science, they can certainly avoid doing so because “they don’t want to”.
But there are consequences.
LOL. Spin much Nick?
LL,
How would you put it?
Asking someone to vouch for you is hardly the same thing as asking someone to use pressure to achieve an objective.
Well, vouch for isn’t quite right – maybe “support SM’s request” is less gravitational.
Obviously, Mr Condon, you are right about you being naive.
John,
I assume you mean regarding my “deliberately deaf” reply in #2. What they learn is different from learning at all. While repetition to the deliberately deaf won’t create open agreement, perhaps they will learn to not bring it up anymore.
Real scientists do not hold back data, but rather cherish having others looking at it and discussing it and the results derived from it. In fact that is what science is all about. Real scientists are not particular about who they might share the data with – not even someone they might perceive as an enemy.
Actually what we are discussing here has absolutely nothing to do with Nick’s defenses. SteveM is merely pointing to the obvious point that these scientists have not made the relevant data available to the public in general not just to the perceived enemy.
Note how Nick has attempted to spin this lack of transparency into an issue of a personality battle.
It would appear that the lack of transparency in these reconstructions, while sometimes getting lip service from the community in a very general context that more transparency is required, it is never really pushed in specific cases. I personally have supposed that that failure has to do with the community wanting to maintain the appearance of a consensus, a gathering of the wagons and maybe even a false sense of fellowship like we might see in a college fraternity.
Good point Kenneth. The much discussed issue of data archiving has nothing to do with an “SM post” or “CRU bashing”.
Kenneth – and when these researchers die, what happens to their tree-ring archives if they are not in a public record? Unless there is a specific request in mthe will for the archive to go somehwere, it will just be junked…just my supposition, to be rebutted by the experts and the faux-experts such as Nick. Graybill vanishes and real samples enter the mainstream.
“First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre’s FOI requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work.”
From RC. Dunno what to make of this, but to say we the internetz will be entertained today. For sure.
“First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre’s FOI requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work.”
The real situation is that reconstructions get published and refer to a rather extensive series of proxies that were available for use in the reconstruction. Without any formal a priori selection process based on reasonable physical considerations these publications carry the burden of revealing all the data available and the reasoning behind the proxies selected or excluded. Not revealing those proxies behind the excuse that it might be part of a future publication is pure and unadulterated obfuscation and allows for the withholding of that critical data in perpetuity. That answer above has nothing to do with proper science.
The humor of the whole situation is that the post selection process is an ad-hoc method to do the same thing the pre-selection process would do.
Jeff, I am not sure I understand what you mean about the post selection process, but, if you are referring to the Mann (08) selection process that used the calibration/validation period correlation to instrumental temperatures to select proxies, that is a selection called in-sample testing and it is statistically a bogus process for selectingt proxies for a reconstruction. I am not so sure that some skeptics see the fallacy in using such methods.
The only valid method is to select proxies a priori with a method that most would agree is based on reasonable physical criteria and then using all the proxy data regardless how the proxies correlate to the instrumental record. When Mann cuts and pastes proxies after the fact he make shambles out the statistics.
These violations of a proper selection process alone would make these reconstruction invalid. Unfortunately I see too many skeptics willing to engage Mann and others doing reconstructions on some peripheral grounds that ends in a pi–ing contest and misses the basic problems.
Kenneth,
By selection process, I mean that all regression methods are completely ignorant of what is noise and what is information. All calibration methods create the same problem, inverse, or standard. They are systematic weighting/de-weighting of information based on its likeness to temperature. In non-noisy data, you can get an acceptable result. In blatant noise, you can still make a ‘calibration’ look pretty in the calibration range yet have a zero confidence in the historic signal.
I agree with what you say and I think that the possibility of making a calibration and reconstruction out of noise is why those doing the reconstructions do not immediately see the folly of their selection methods. It is instructive to show ARFIMA (and particularly with fractional d values) and ARIMA series can provide segments with some rather nice looking trends over a lengthy period of time and pointing upward or downward. If you allow me to pick from these series and combine series into a reconstruction I can obtain a series ending trend from where it can be shown that no deterministic trend exists.
Steve and others who distributed information in the Climategate emails and documents in the fall of 2009 had absolutely no idea what they were exposing:
Literally sixty-four years (2009-1945 = 64 yrs) of a symbiotic relationship between
a.) Victorious leaders of the Second World War, and
b.) Glorious scientists wanting more research funds
The lock-step “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” responses of world leaders, editors, publishers and leaders of the scientific community followed the same “tell-tell trail” of seriously compromised government science since the end of World War II and led to these conclusions:
i. Leadership and science in naked apes is understandable
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-35
ii. Those generated today’s powder key of seething anger
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-55
iii. Leadership is needed for continued advancement of mankind .
See: The Brave New Climate Forum http://tinyurl.com/8xs55vp
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo