Here is a matlab file that reads the .rwm files, with descriptions for what it gathers from it.
According to sf2.txt in the leaked files, the units are .01 mm.

http://pastebin.com/f77433b10

Here is another matlab file that plots the data that the first function returns. It isn’t meant to signify anything in itself, It’s mainly for example.

http://pastebin.com/f6694e01e

Here is the (plotted) output for the entire 611 core Yamal history…

Happy hunting,

Chris

Re: the Tiljander (Lake Korttajarvi) varve proxies. A reasonably-well-infomed reader (e.g. me) isn’t able to figure out how Mann et al (PNAS, 2008) used the ‘screened’ long-term proxies (pictured in Fig. S9). The procedures involved in the assembly of the paleotemperature reconstructions (e.g. Fig. S8a) are only opaquely described in the Supplemental Information. I’m not talking about the specifics of the statistical approaches, which I wouldn’t expect to appreciate without a good deal of background reading. I mean general conceptual approaches such as weighting, and their implementations.

During the back-and-forth at Stoat and lately at RealClimate, it became clear that even the best-informed of the many ardent defenders of Mann et al (2008) don’t understand these issues any better than I do–at best. It’s been mostly a matter of cheering the home team, with a bit of hubris added to the mix. It’s not evident that PNAS’ peer-reviewers and editors had any insight into the severe and fairly obvious methodological issues that plague this aspect of Mann et al. Perhaps they lacked interest.

Gavin Schmidt’s recent justification in the comments at RealClimate of Mann et al’s use of the proxies is copied at the Air Vent.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7619#comment-364239

I have largely been watching this from a distance and only decided to get involved when I thought Steve was in danger of appearing to lose the argument due to the oppositions ignorance of the details and mechanism plus Steve’s own belief they were just doing it all to annoy him. Steve wrote his original posts for his own CA audience and whilst they explained the issues well enough at the time it was not expected to be a battleground. The more recent posts were too preoccupied with snarking at the oppositions ignorance rather than clarifying / explaining why the issues were significant.

Whilst we know from previous experience and Climategate that they are quite prepared to act in ways that will annoy him I dont believe they would do this from what is likely to be a losing position. I still believe it is more plausible that the original reply by Mann and William Cs early involvement were through ignorance rather than malice. I am waiting to see if they will eventually own up or will continue to bluff. Gavin Schmidt was doing some bluffing in a recent response to AMAC at RC.

The interaction between several blogs has been a great source of interest and entertainment for me. I have been following the timeline of events quite closely and as far as I can establish early September this year was the first time that awareness of the error was acknowledged by Kaufmans group. Mike Mann was only copied on the 3rd of the Kaufman emails exposed by Climategate. I have also seen a comment by Mike Mann in one of the emails that he rarely reads CA so would have been reliant on someone like Gavin notifying him. This issue turned up a few weeks after the original paper so Gavin may have missed it or not understood the significance. In many respects it seems a rather unlikely battleground issue so may not have been passed on.

I still remain of the view that the error and its impact is not properly documented anywhere in a manner that is accessable to the impartial outsider. Gavin Schmidt will direct people to Stoat where it is not adequatly described despite the valient efforts of AMAC. If someone then comes looking at CA they may struggle to find it amongst the huge number of threads. They may not recognise the Saturday Night Live thread as relevent. Possibly they may recognise the Upside Down Mann thread but in Steve’s shoes I wouldn’t have left it to chance. If you go to Stoat and other blogs such as Grumbine you will still see people in ignorance insisting that the proxies were not used upside down or the issue does not matter.

However this is now all overtaken by and is a much lower priority than the multiple issues raised by Climategate and where amonngst other things we can observe real evidence of collusion. I expect Steve is suffering from information overload at present and this issue should now be very low down his list.

Chris

# fil = filename of rwm file expected to be in default directory
# result is in the same format as Steve was using in the earlier yamal work:
# gives data frame with four variables: is, age,year, rw

read.rwm = function(fil) {
datlin = readLines(fil)
dn = length(datlin)
id = NULL
age = NULL
year = NULL
rw = NULL
#read data
lin = 1
beg.seq = 1+3*(0:25)
end.seq = beg.seq + 2
while (lin < dn) {
cor.age = as.numeric(substr(datlin[lin],5,8))
styr = as.numeric(substr(datlin[lin],14,18))
cor.id = substr(datlin[lin],22,27)
lin = lin+1
rws = rep(NA,cor.age)
nlin = floor((25+cor.age)/26)
linlens = c(rep(26,nlin-1),cor.age-26*(nlin-1));k=1
for (i in 1:nlin) {beg = beg.seq[1:linlens[i]]; en = end.seq[1:linlens[i]]
for (j in 1:linlens[i]) {rws[k] = as.numeric(substr(datlin[lin],beg[j],en[j]));k=k+1}
lin = lin+1}
id = c(id,rep(cor.id,cor.age))
age = c(age,1:cor.age)
year = c(year,styr:(styr+cor.age-1))
rw = c(rw,rws)}
data.frame(id,age,year,rw)}

#Example useage:
#newyam = read.rwm(“yamal.rwm”)

This script expects the file to have no extraneous lines in it. I have a second script which allows for that and also produces some extra descriptive information about the data (id, core age, start year and end year).

Seems like Briffa’s claim of having done-all-the-work-so-why-should-I-show-it-to-you is completely BS. All of the painstaking work of chroning the 611 trees was done by the Russians and sent to him as a single file.