I’ve set up a new category at right entitled "Archiving" which cross-classifies many of the posts on data archiving and requests. A review from this time last year is here . Since then, I’ve had correspondence with Moberg and Nature, which has resulted in winkling out the other Moberg series (which I’ve yet to process); extensive correspondence with Science about Esper et al 2002 and Osborn and Briffa 2006, which has been fairly productive, but still not quite complete. I haven’t posted up or discussed all my correspondence by any means. It’s frustrating to look back and see exactly how much time has been consumed in quasi-litigation over data.
The NAS panel relied heavily on articles using unarchived data and I plan to send a letter to Ralph Cicerone, President of NAS, asking him to directly request unarchived data from the various authors. Here is a draft. If anyone can think of things that I’ve forgotten to mention or has other suggestions, I’d welcome them. I want to send the email out in a day or two while matters are still fresh. At that point, I’ll substitute any changes in the version posted here.
Dear Dr Cicerone,
I am currently in the process of analyzing the interesting report of the National Academies of Science panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions. The panel has, to a considerable extent, relied on studies for which data is unarchived and/or methods are insufficiently described to enable replication. In most cases, I have tried unsuccessfully to obtain this information. Now that the NAS has relied on this information, I request that you request that the information listed below be archived or, failing that, provided to you so that you can forward the information to me.
I apologize for involving you in this process. However, I have made diligent and unsuccessful efforts to obtain this information. I believe that a request from you would be appropriate given the recommendations of the NAS panel and might well be effective.
Yours truly, SM
1. Lonnie Thompson
For all ice cores and pits from Dunde, Guliya, Dasuopu, Puruogangri, Quelccaya, Huascaran and Sajama,
a) isotope and chemistry information by sample;
b) a detailed description of methods used to date ice cores;
c) a list of all organic samples together with radiocarbon dates for those samples that have been dated.
For most sites, Thompson has only archived decadal àŽⳏ18 data for a portion of the core, although much more information should be available. In Thompson’s case, the request to you is made in two capacities: because his results were used by the NAS panel and because his results have recently been published in PNAS.
2. Rosanne D’Arrigo
Rosanne D’Arrigo presented to the NAS panel in March and D’Arrigo et al 2006 was relied upon by the NAS panel. Could you please request the following information:
a) Site chronologies for all sites used in D’Arrigo et al 2006
b) If some of the measurement data exists at WDCP, exact data citations linking the regional groups in D’Arrigo et al 2006 to any archived measurement data. A considerable amount of the data in D’Arrigo et al 2006 appears to be unarchived, and, in such cases, can you request that the original measurement data be archived.
c) Any presently undocumented protocols used to make RCS chronologies from the measurement data.
3. Hegerl et al 2006
Gabrielle Hegerl presented to the NAS panel and Hegerl et al 2006 was relied upon by the panel. Can you request the following information:
a) Identification of the sites used in this study.
b) If the data versions used in Hegerl et al 2006 are currently archived, exact data citations complying with AGU data citation policies i.e. a data citation to a digital file not to a generic print publication.
c) If unarchived data versions are used, the digital versions as used, together with exact provenance.
d) source code, particularly including the step in which confidence intervals in Hegerl et al 2006 (Nature) are calculated.
4. Esper et al 2002
The NAS panel relied on Esper et al 2002. I have had prolonged correspondence with Science, resulting in their recently obtaining most, but not all, of Esper’s data and they seem to have concluded their efforts without finishing the job. Could you request the following from Esper:
a) the Tarvagatny Pass chronology version and measurement data version as used in Esper et al 2002;
b) Confirmation by Esper that the measurement data archived in May 2006 by Lisa Graumlich is the same data as that used in Esper et al 2002, or preferably, the measurement data for the two foxtail sites as used in Esper et al 2002
c) the measurement data as used by Esper for the two foxtail sites.
d) criteria used by Esper to distinguish between linear and nonlinear sites;
e) criteria used by Esper to decide on which cores to remove from a site data set.
f) source code or other detailed methodological information sufficient to produce the foxtail chronologies as used by Esper from the measurement data.
5. Osborn and Briffa
The NAS panel cited Osborn and Briffa 2006 and even illustrated the series used by Osborn and Briffa. In this case, Science has been relatively cooperative, but have been unsuccessful in obtaining full co-operation. Could you obtain the following information used in Briffa 2000 or Osborn and Briffa 2006:
a) measurement data for Tornetrask, Taimyr, Yamal and Jasper, used to source the chronologies used in Osborn and Briffa 2006;
b) reasons why Yamal data was used instead of updated Polar Urals data in Briffa (2000).
6. Michael Mann
In addition to Mann et al 1998, 1999, other articles by Mann (Rutherford et al 2005 and Mann and Jones 2003) were cited by the NAS panel. In respect to Rutherford et al 2005, could you please request the following:
a) Identification of the 387 MXD series used in this study together with WDCP identifications of archived series, where available, and digital versions of any unarchived versions.
In connection with Mann and Jones 2003:
b) What method was used to determine weights for each of the records? What are the weights for each record?
c) Digital versions of any unarchived series.
In connection with Mann et al 1998-1999,
d) Statistical reference for calculation of confidence intervals in MBH99, together with source code for this step;
e) Source code to calculate the number of principal components to retain in tree ring networks, sufficient to yield retentions observed in Vaganov AD1600 and Stahle /SWM AD1700 networks.
f) Source code sufficient to demonstrate the retention of tree ring sites according to the criteria set out in MBH Corrigendum of 2004.
7. Phil Jones
The NAS panel used CRU temperature data as a reference point. Both von Storch and I quoted Phil Jones’ notorious refusal to archive
a) supporting data, including station data;
b) detailed methodological information and/or source codes.