Wednesday, December 21, 2011


From: Jonathan Overpeck <>
To: Fortunat Joos <>
Subject: Re: new fig 6.14
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:26 -0600
Cc:, Keith Briffa <>, Eystein Jansen <>

Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my
computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding
got cleared up.

Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab
at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can

1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc,
higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his
usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's
ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a
chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really
would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or
whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the
more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and
also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting
the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This
last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw
data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the
TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks
that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the
caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated
for plotting purposes" or something like that.

2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all
of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim.
Otherwise, it will be too confusing.

3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the
scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in
order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed
forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to
have them all proportional in this fig.

Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the
ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's
mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok -
we get serious play in the TS.

Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you
want to provide some options, that's fine.

Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as
brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report.

thanks all! best, Peck
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

No comments:

Post a Comment