To: Eystein Jansen <email@example.com>, Jonathan Overpeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: MWP paper / possible figure / data
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:03:29 +0000
Cc: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>
Dear Eystein and Peck,
sorry for the overlong silence at this end. We *are* working on the
revised figures, etc. and thanks for the CLIMBER and BERN EMIC data -
Keith and I must look at this and see how best to show it.
In the meantime, I just wanted to forward to you a paper that we have
coming out in Science next Friday - see the *uncorrected* page proofs
attached. Please treat this in confidence and for IPCC purposes only
- I'm sure you're aware of their strict embargo policy.
The reason we thought it worth forwarding was because it is useful
for comparing implied MWP and 20th century NH temperatures and thus
might be appropriate for use in the IPCC "MWP box". The approach is
similar to that which Susan Solomon seemed to be keen on - looking at
individual series, but simply counting how many simultaneously imply
warmth or cold conditions. There's also the possibility that one of
its figures (perhaps panel 3B) might be useful in the "MWP box". If
you have time for a quick read, please tell us what you think.
Eystein - you were also wanting some regional proxy series and I
thought I'd send you the data shown in Fig 1 of this paper, because
I'm preparing a file to accompany the paper anyway and this will kill
two birds with one stone. Are these data what you were hoping
for? I'll send them later today if they are.
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\osborn_uncorrectedproofs.pdf"
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK