To: Jonathan Overpeck <email@example.com>, Keith Briffa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon Jul 17 16:25:59 2006
Cc: Eystein Jansen <email@example.com>, "Ricardo Villalba" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, joos <email@example.com>
I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures out to you probably
tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & Mann and suggested by
Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it published properly? I've seen the last 700
years of the Law Dome 18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
1300 AD? That period appears in:
Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and southwest Pacific regions
since 1300 AD
CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in Fig
4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all are too small. You can
figure out the best size by reducing figs to likely page size minus margins. We guess
the captions need to be bigger by a couple increments at least.
1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to determine if S. African
boreholes need to be removed.
I think Henry said they were published and could stay
1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates it's still not
I think Henry said they could stay.
2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is investigating, but perhaps
Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie
on this too, as she seems to know these data at least a little
Already discussed above.
3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - probably better to
use bold fonts
You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to small size, the non-bold
actually read more clearly than the bold, I think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's
not possible to completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide might be
scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure size, so will make a good guess.
Should be ok.
1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The first is 100% Tim's
fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing 6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in?
1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 and 12 - please use
ok, as discussed above.
2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the addition of a new forcings
panel "a" on top of the existing panel e (which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim
and Fortunat have to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for Fortunat to give Tim
data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a figure that matches the other figs he's
doing. PLEASE NOTE that this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to
be more compact to permit its inclusion.