Sunday, December 11, 2011


From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
To: Scott Rutherford <>
Subject: Re: EOS text
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:26:07 -0400
Cc: phil Jones <>, Keith Briffa <>,

HI Scott,
I concur w/ your assessment--keeping the figure the way it is now is preferable in my
At 02:23 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:

Dear All,
I agree that figure 1 is very busy, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing in this case
because we aren't trying to highlight differences between reconstructions/models or
single out one or two from the rest. I think the current figure illustrates the range of
reconstructions, the range of models and how well they agree (similar to one of our
original ideas of a "cloud of reconstructions").
If we put the models into a separate panel we will need a curve common to both panels
that people can use as a reference. If we go with the two panel figure I suggest that
the second panel include the models, the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction with
uncertainties and the instrumental record.
I'll leave it to the group to decide.
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

I don't really like the idea of changing the figure dramatically at this point.
If we have to, I suggest the following options:
1) Take out one of the model simulation results--e.g. Gerber et al w/ the lower
2) If we want to adopt Kevin's two panel strategy, then show the model results along w/
the gray-shaded uncertainty region from the top (reconstructions) panel. And show the
instrumental record in both panels.
Anyway, up to you guys...
At 10:59 AM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Thanks for the great work.
Some reactions.
1) Fig. 1 is very busy and perhaps unduly crowded. My reaction is to take the model
results out and put them in a separate panel. The separate panel would fit along side
the key. But better below the main figure.
Can we change "gridded and arealy weighted" to "gridded, area-weighted..".)
What is "optimal borehole",? Should "optimal" be in quotes?
2) Fig. 2: Can we please add a country to each name for those that don't have them?
Increased spacing between them would be nice.
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day. Scott has also
redrawn Fig 1.
Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1 hour ago, but not
latest email.
Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim needs to space the
out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of references. Getting these
making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so, then I'll submit on
Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and tomorrow.
We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript. We still need
to work
on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck - you've got 2 days to say yes/no !
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137



No comments:

Post a Comment