Sunday, April 8, 2012


cc: Eystein Jansen <>
date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:42:40 -0600
from: Jonathan Overpeck <>
subject: First draft of FOD - figures
to: Keith Briffa <>,

Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein is going to chat with you tomorrow, and my
goal is to get as much as I can to you guys today and tomorrow.

First, off the figures are great (!) - that was tough job, and I'm
very impressed. Of course, I can already start to sense what the
debates will be, but we can address that in the text. Here are some
comments with respect to the figures - some are relevant to the

1) they really are great

2) is the instrumental series on the first fig (top and bottom) the
same as featured in chapter 3? Need to say that.

3) rather than clogging up the caption with all the notes on each
curve, how about a table for each of the two figures. Then you can
include some more info on each recon - e.g., number of sites, types
of proxies??) I'm thinking mainly that the captions are not pretty,
but you may be able to include more summary info on each curve also

4) should we make all the series in their original and modified for
the figure form available on a www site so that reviewers can play
with the data and make sure they get their two cents in before this
thing is all said and published? The WDC-A is ready to help w/
posting of data and figs (see below).

5) I like the expanding time axis, but I'd be prepared to have a
second one with a linear axis. In fact, I'd put it up on the www page
at the same time with the data. The more we do to help others
understand, the better?

6) Also, it would be good to see both the data and the figure w/o the
Gaussian-weighted filtering. What do doe these look like, can we make
them available as suggested above. At the least, I'd like to see the
fig w/o the filtering, even though I know it will be a mess. How
about a series of time series plots (same x and y axes as the big fig
1) - in each you show both the filtered and unfiltered series. I know
this is a pain for Tim, but we really have to make sure we're not
missing anything in the data. And also - that we anticipate what
others will do, ask us to do, or squawk about.

7) On the forcing fig (fig 2) - why don't we see all the different
experiment curves (e.g., dotted red) in the forcing plots a, b and c?
Need to say why in the caption - and if they have the same forcing,
so you can't see it on the plot, need to say it. This could be much
easier in a table that indicates "same as X").

8) On fig 2 - does the recalulated envelop of reconstructed temps
also include instrumental temps? Think so, but you should say it in
the caption. Why doesn't the envelop go up to present? Can it? Might
look better, and be more consistent w/ fig 1. If the envelop can't go
to present, then maybe include the instrumental curve as in Fig 1.

9) reminders for the text (I'll think about these as I read a second
time for editing) -

9a) need to explain why the recons don't continue going up w/
instrumental data at the end (post 1990?) - might what to mention
something in caption, if you can shift all the other stuff to a table.

9b) there will be lots of discussion (during and post AR4 drafting)
about what recon series (Fig 1) should or should not be believed.
Thus, I think it is critical for us to same more about each recon -
that is to INCLUDE what you wrote in blue, and perhaps to enhance.
Need to really convince the reader that while not one recon is alone
the truth (and hence Fig 1), they all have important strengths and
weaknesses. But, the former outweigh the latter, so we've included

9c) I'm sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal
editorial - they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve - with the
good old MWP and LIA etc (Lamb view? - I don't have the FAR w/ me).
The way to handle the hocky stick might best be to put it in an
historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show
your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then -
after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our
understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of
the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR) to the current view, and while
doing so, play down the controversy (s) - especially the hockey
stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news
is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will
hopefully get the point that it doesn't matter...

10) lastly (almost), I'm sorry to ask again, but I still want to know
what is wrong with Tom Crowley's latest plot with all the recons
shown together back through the Med W Period? I need to send you my
edits on the MWP box, but it seem to me that Tom's fig could go in
that box - to help make the point that - sorry, guys - the MWP wasn't
much compared to the recent GLOBAL warming...

11) lastly (promise) - don't foget that Eystein and I think we can
get a page or two extra for your section in the end. This means you
can do all the above, and I can help (next) with the modes and
extremes sections, and we can get it all in.

Great job!

Thanks, 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