To: Tim Osborn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: MWP figure
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:12:37 -0600
Cc: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>, Eystein Jansen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Hi Tim - Decisions, decisions... thanks so much
for taking the initiative. I think - for the
reason you state, we should go for the one that
includes the 20th century. We make clear that
these are not reconstructed temp, but normalized
anomalies - this keeps us out of some trouble.
But, I think the main message is that we're
looking at this issue from every angle. And,
we're letting others see the issue from every
angle. It adds punch.
this means that the MWP box needs to talk about
the period around 1400 - can you make sure that's
on Keith's radar screen. I believe that
historians talk about the Medieval Period going
to at least 1450, so what the heck...
I you can adjust the caption to work, and then
send both it and the final fig to �yvind, me and
Eystein that would be good - make sure Keith is
ok with it all first, too.
Thanks Tim! Best, Peck
>there is a period around 1400 AD when the proxy
>records we've used in this MWP figure do
>indicate a warm period - and all records show
>positive anomalies at the same time. Thus it
>couldn't/shouldn't be dismissed in the same way
>as the MWP, as a period of disparate regional
>behaviour, albeit with more records showing
>warming than cooling. For 1400, all indicate
>warming but with smaller magnitude than the 20th
>century. If the figure were extended to cover
>the 15th century, then it would also seem
>necessary to extend it to the present so that
>the 1400 period could be compared with the 20th
>I've attached 3 versions of the figure.
>850-1350 as originally sent.
>850-1500 showing warm anomaly in 1400, but
>cannot tell how warm relative to present-day.
>850-2000 showing 1400 was not as anomalous as present-day.
>Take your pick, Peck!
>Tim and Keith
>At 21:57 05/08/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you're not going to
>>kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon
>>today, and she impressed me with the need to
>>make several points if we can.
>>One issue (other to come in a subsequent email)
>>is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to
>>include the 15th century. I don't read the
>>blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics
>>are making hay of their being a global warm
>>event around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it
>>is our obligation to weigh in on issues like
>>this, so.... can we extend the fig to extend up
>>Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday.
>>>Dear Eystein, Peck and Keith,
>>>I spotted a minor error in the MWP figure
>>>(reference period was 1001-2000 but should
>>>have been 1001-1980 because some series stop
>>>in 1980) and a typo in the legend, so here is
>>>a revised MWP figure with these things
>>>corrected and a slight adjustment to line
>>>thicknesses and font sizes.
>>>As before I've included .ps, .pdf and .gif
>>>versions because I'm not sure what you prefer.
>>>I've also drafted a caption - see attached
>>>.doc file. Feel free to modify as necessary.
>>>I think it covers the necessary details
>>>including normalisation period, but perhaps it
>>>is a bit "wordy" and unnecessarily repeats
>>>things already in the MWB box text?
>>>I'm still working on SH figure/caption.
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mwpbox8502000.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (00091133)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mwpbox8501500.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (00091134)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipccar4_mwpbox 2.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (00091135)
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>phone: +44 1603 592089
>fax: +44 1603 507784
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795