Wednesday, December 21, 2011

1153186426.txt

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:33:46 -0600
Cc: "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@cea.fr>

<x-flowed>
Hi Tim et al (especially Valerie) - again, sorry for the confusion,
but hopefully the emails sent and forwarded from Valerie and me this
evening helps figure this out. I think we're going with borehole for
Law Dome, but you guys need to confirm it's the way to go. I'm cc'ing
to Valerie in the hope she can try to provide more guidance in this -
with a confirmation that it's the best way to go and will stand up to
criticism. If we have multiple conflicting temp recons from Law Dome,
and one can't be shown from the literature as being the best, then we
should state that, and show neither - just an idea. BUT, I think
Valerie was pretty sure the borehole was best. She should be more
available in a day or so.

Thanks all, cheers, Peck

>Hi all,
>
>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
>
>and
>
>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:
>>Figure 6.10.
>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>
>yes
>
>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>
>yes
>
>>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>
>yes
>
>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>color) in the bottom panel
>
>yes
>
>>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.
>
>yes
>
>>Figure 6.11.
>>
>>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
>
>>Figure 6.12
>>
>>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>it's still not published.
>
>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.
>
>>Figure 6.13
>>
>>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 bold fonts.
>
>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.
>
>done.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone: +44 1603 592089
>fax: +44 1603 507784
>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006


--
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
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment