Friday, April 27, 2012

3571.txt

cc: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:19:22 +0100
from: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.JansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>
subject: Re: Figures - urgent
to: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
I am in agreement with Keith, Peck, - that will
be the best updated fig. Thanks again Tim for the
stamina!

Eystein



At 10:19 -0700 17-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi - I agree w/ Keith. Makes sense to show all
>the data, and I should have said "just like" 3B,
>sorry.
>
>Look forward to seeing this one and the new caption too. Thanks!
>best, peck
>
>>I suggest we go with the new (second one
>>attached in Tim's message) , with the section
>>from the Science paper under it.
>>Keith
>>
>>At 17:00 17/02/2006, Tim Osborn wrote:
>>>Hi Peck and Eystein,
>>>
>>>just working on this MWP box fig update. Just
>>>trying to clarify what is wanted.
>>>
>>>The old MWP box fig had 8 series on it. 7 of
>>>these were straight from our recent Science
>>>paper anyway, and the 8th was the average of 2
>>>more from the Science paper. The other 5 in
>>>the paper (making a total of 7+2+5 = 14
>>>series) were not used in the old MWP box fig,
>>>as they are too short to cover the MWP period.
>>>
>>>(1) Are you asking me to use exactly the 14
>>>series from the Science paper, overlaid like
>>>in the old MWP fig or, if space permits,
>>>plotted like fig 1 in our Science paper. And
>>>then add below the exact fig 3B of our paper
>>>(you say "3b-like" which implied maybe some
>>>changes).
>>>
>>>(2) Or do you want to stick with the original
>>>8 series, and then have the exact fig 3B from
>>>our paper, which wouldn't correspond exactly
>>>to the 8 series above because it would be
>>>based on the 14.
>>>
>>>(3) Or do you want to stick with the original
>>>8 series, and then show a panel similar to our
>>>fig 3B, but *recalculated* using just the 8
>>>series shown?
>>>
>>>So many questions! ;-)
>>>
>>>I attached the original MWP fig (8 series),
>>>plus a new one from option (1) above (14
>>>series, looks a bit of a mess, also I removed
>>>the "composite mean" which might have been
>>>agreed in New Zealand?).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>At 05:28 02/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>Hi Tim and Keith - I have some feedback on
>>>>the MWP box fig, but would to first ask that
>>>>you update us (me and Eystein) about the
>>>>status of your other figs. We have a
>>>>particularly urgent need to see those that
>>>>are likely to be elevated to the TS (Tech
>>>>Summary) - a big deal for paleo. Can you
>>>>promise us these by the end of this week,
>>>>Monday at the latest? Again, see my emails of
>>>>Dec for details.
>>>>
>>>>It would be great to see a new MWP box fig
>>>>asap too, but this isn't as high priority as
>>>>the TS figs. Eystein and I agree with both
>>>>Susan and Martin that it would be good to see
>>>>a new MWP box fig that was a hybrid of the
>>>>old fig concept and the new Fig 3b from your
>>>>Science paper. It would be good to have two
>>>>versions - if space allows, we go with the
>>>>first, otherwise the 2nd:
>>>>
>>>>Both would have your 3b-like plot, and both
>>>>would have all the normalized time series
>>>>that were used to create the 3b plot (i.e.,
>>>>those in Fig. 1 of your paper).
>>>>
>>>>Version 1 - has all the input series stacked
>>>>on top of each other as in your Fig. 1, with
>>>>the summary Fig 3b-like plot below.
>>>>
>>>>Version 2 - is the same, but the input series
>>>>are all on the same axis like in the FOD MWP
>>>>box fig.
>>>>
>>>>Now, if you think Version 1 plus caption
>>>>would be smaller than Version 2 plus caption,
>>>>no need for Version 2. Ditto if Version 1
>>>>plus caption was only a little bigger than V
>>>>2 plus caption.
>>>>
>>>>Again, thanks for getting all of your new
>>>>figs to us asap, particularly those targeted
>>>>for TS consideration.
>>>>
>>>>Many 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
>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>
>--
>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/


--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All�gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment