Wednesday, January 18, 2012

2020.txt

cc: rahmstorfatXYZxyzan-klima.de, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:56:19 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: some figures at last!
to: Fortunat Joos <joosatXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch>

<x-flowed>
Hi all - I commented on the reference period issue in my previous
email, and hope we can resolve it today, or tomorrow at the latest?
Tim and Keith should help convince Fortunat that their choice is
strong.

Tim - can you make the other changes suggested by Fortunat?

Thanks, peck

>Hi,
>
>I have now found the time to look over the figures. First
>congratulations to this effort. Looks great! A tremendous job - I
>assume many hours of work.
>
>I have, however, a few points
>
>1) The instrumental record - our best piece of information is
>missing in panel e. Please add to the EMIC panel.
>
>2) I am not very enthusiastic to normalize model results with
>respect to 1500-1899. The EMIC panel is to illustrate two points -
>the difference between low and high solar forcing and with/without
>anthropogenic forcing.
>
>I think panel e (EMIC panel) would be more informative in this
>respect if all runs with anthropogenic forcing and the proxies are
>normalized as in panel b) (19061-1990) and the runs without anth.
>forcing start at the same point as the ones with anth. forcing
>
>I have no strong opinion on panel d.
>
>3) Please change Bern2.5c to Bern2.5CC
>
>Thanks for considering this.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Fortunat
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include
>>proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see,
>>Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes.
>>
>>See Tim's email below for more background info.
>>
>>We need fast feedback from you both, specifically:
>>
>>1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures
>>and we need your eyes to look at them carefully
>>
>>2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second
>>figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/
>>the other panels pretty well.
>>
>>3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat
>>start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on
>>the new EMIC panel.
>>
>>4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para,
>>that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our
>>assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm
>>not sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question
>>heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like
>>"What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of
>>past solar variability?"
>>
>>Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me,
>>Eystein, Keith and Tim.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>,
>>> Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>
>>>From: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>>>Subject: some figures at last!
>>>Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>
>>>Dear Peck and Eystein,
>>>
>>>the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures.
>>>
>>>First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear
>>>time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line,
>>>Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping
>>>regions of temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Second, is the forcings and models. Stendel ECHAM simulation
>>>added (1500-2000). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in
>>>GRL from Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1000-1990). Reconstruction
>>>"envelope" replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature
>>>reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors. Those runs
>>>that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are
>>>dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4,
>>>N2O, CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling).
>>>The ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium
>>>initial conditions is dashed. Finally, the extra panel with the
>>>new EMIC runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading
>>>of overlapping temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views
>>>- can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of
>>>course).
>>>
>>>Best wishes and sorry this is late. Am I right in thinking that
>>>the only other possible-TS figure is the location maps? Still
>>>working on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media
>>>etc. attention re. Science paper).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>>e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.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
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
> Climate and Environmental Physics,
> Physics Institute, University of Bern
> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42
> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/


--
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