Anders Moberg sent a courteous response on the Lauritzen issue mentioned in More Moberg and Brandon Whitcher sent some comments on end effects in waveslim. Update Sep 7-8: I’ve been blown off totally so far by Moberg and Lauritzen in trying to obtain the digital data underlying the discrepant graphs.
Moberg said that he used a pers. comm. version of a series from Lauritzen which ended in 1938. He agreed that Figure 11 of the Lauritzen article ended in the 19th century. He referred me to Lauritzen for particulars on the differing versions (which I’ve done.) He also referred me to Lauritzen for the differing version. I think that he should provide the version that he used and have re-submitted this request. So the issue is not between differing digitizations, but between different versions. It will be interesting to see what the explanation is and how robust the results are to differing versions of this series.
I also asked Moberg about the identifications of two bristlecone series used in Moberg et al , identified as Methuselah Walk and White Mountain Master and whether these were ca535 and ca506 respsectively and to confirm that Indian Garden was nv515. Since ca535 and ca506 are both from the same site (ca506 is also Methesulah Walk, but is from an earlier study ending in 1962), I asked why he used the same site twice (acknowledging that this wouldn’t affect results very much). Moberg said that he was aware that the series were from the same site, but thought that the studies used different trees.
I also asked for a digital version of the Indigirka series, which I’ve been unable to locate. Moberg explained that somebody he knew got it from someone else and that he can’t give me a copy. He referred me to the guy who gave him the series. That’s one of the problems with paleoclimate. You try to work through a study. Then some of the data is tied up, so you always end up picking up and putting down files. AGU has a data citation policy (which they don’t enforce in paleocliamte) discouraging the use of grey versions and not permitting it to be "cited". Authros get around this by citing the print versions. Then you get into situations like Lauritzen where the cited print version differs from the grey version. This happens all the time with Mann and Jones. I know most of the different versions now (and to check). Anyway I’ve written away for the Indigirka series and, if I get nowhere with anybody, will write to Nature. My current prediction: 6 months from now, I will not have the Indigirka series from anybody.
Lastly, Brandon Whitcher, the author of the waveslim package and a wavelet expert, wrote back about end effects. Whitcher said that one of the assumptions of wavelet (and Fourier) analysis was that the underlying process was periodic and that the waveslim package had an option in which the end data could be reflected. In a follow-up comment, Greg F. pointed out that Moberg had padded his series with 350 years of data equal to the mean of the last 50 years of data (front and back). Mats Holmstrom pointed out that Moberg’s wavelet method is nothing more than a lowpass filter, a point with which I obviously agree. Thus, one can check alternative methods which may be less problematic with end effects. Intuitively, if one is trying to draw conclusions about the relationship of the closing values of a series to values elsewhere, a methodology which is tricky on end effects would seem like a poor choice.
I have some other work that I have to do for a couple of days, but I’ve found the feedback for this, shall we say, online seminar on Moberg to be very helpful.
Update (10.48 EDT): More updates from your on-the-beat reporter. Moberg says that he doesn’t have either of the two series (Inidigirka or Lauritzen) requested, that I should ask the Russian coauthors, who do have the data. I asked him to ask them for me, which he agreed to do.
Lauritzen said that, according to his recollection, Figure 11 showed the 5-year running mean, while he sent the full original dataset to Moberg. I wrote back to Lauritzen asking for the data as provided to Moberg. He has now refused saying "These are unpublished data, and they come with co-authorship." I would have thought that Lauritzen et al  and/or Moberg et al  constituted publication, but, hey… [snide comment self-deleted]. What a goofy system these guys have. Now I’m going to have grind Nature about this. It’s not as though I’m just looking for non-archived stuff – I was trying to see how Moberg worked and got stuck at this point.
Also I don’t think that this explains it. Now I’m wondering about what the differences between the two datasets really is – it looks to me like the step-version in Lauritzen Figure 11 corresponds to the Nature version.
First, Lauritzen Figure 10 has a legend denoting a series as the 5-year running mean. I’ve shown below as Figure 1, a blown-up excerpt from this Figure showing the Figure in question.
Figure 1. Blown Up Excerpt from Lauritzen et al 1999 Figure 10, labelled 5 year running mean.
Now if we look at Lauritzen Figure 11, we see two versions – the line version visually corresponds to the 5-year running mean version of Lauritzen Figure 10, if you allow for scale dilations. So we can identify the linear version of Figure 11 as the 5-year running mean (even though there is no legend in Figure 11 explicitly saying this.)
Figure 2. Lauritzen Figure 11. The linear version is the 5-year running mean. The step-version is a more "original" version.
Now let’s look at the Nature representation of this series, which I’ve flipped and dilated to more or less match the Lauritzen figures. It sure looks to me like the Nature series matches the step-version of Lauritzen Figure 11, if you do line connections instead of steps. (I’ve tweaked the graphics in my editor so that everything is lined up and this is clearer than online where I’ve not figured out how to line up and tweak the picture sizes. I may resample the graphics a little later.)
Figure 3. Flipped version from Moberg et al [Nature 2005] Supplementary Figure 1.
That said, I don’t see how 5-year running mean answer from Lauritzen is responsive to the problem of the 1938 end of the Moberg data set.