Wednesday, May 2, 2012


cc: Keith Briffa <>,
date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:39:13 +0200
from: Eystein Jansen <>
subject: Re: Your spaghetti figure
to: Jonathan Overpeck <>

if what Tom writes is correct, then I would
think it is not necessary to have a separate
paper. But we need to be sure so as not to break
any of the regulations since this will be one of
the most scrutinized sections of the whole 4AR. I
guess it is now up to how Keith and Tim takes the
MWP box further and what ends up in the figure.


At 21:35 -0600 17-07-05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Tom - thx for the quick response. It sounds
>like you don't need to do the extra pub. Keith
>and Eystein, do you agree? Tom can help make
>sure everything is ok, and should probably be a
>Contributing Author for the effort. Is that
>appropriate, all? Tom has already given us lots
>of useful review comments, and I suspect (am I
>right, Tom) that would be willing to review some
>more, in addition to helping make sure Keith and
>Tim get the figure we're thinking about right?
>Of course, if we run into a methodological or
>space problem, the fig might still not make it,
>but Keith, Eystein and I talked and have agreed
>that it would be good to hammer home that
>available data do not support the concept of a
>single (or multiple) globally synchronous (e.g.,
>to the degree that the late 20th century is)
>warm events during anyone's definition of
>Medieval times. We also agreed that this fig
>would focus on that issue only, and not Medieval
>warmth vs 20th century. This amplitude issue is
>dealt with in the main "temps of the last 2K"
>figs that Tim and Keith produced. But, given all
>the misunderstanding and misrepresenting that is
>going on wrt to the Medieval Warm Period, we
>concluded that it's worth the extra space to
>address the issue in more than one way - hence
>the decision to try to do something along the
>lines of your figure.
>It's in Keith and Tim's hands for the next step - they're working away.
>Thanks again to all, best, peck
>Thx, peck
>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck <>:
>>Jonathan, can do, but I am wondering if we need to - seven of the curves have
>>been processed in the way we describe in the
>>Hegerl et al paper to nature that
>>gabi sent you - s.d.s even listed in
>>supplementary file. the only exception is
>>the Alberta record, which Lockhart (sp?)
>>extended recently to about 900 - that
>>is published too - so each of the records has
>>gone through some peer-processing
>>- so should the figure itself, based on those data, still require an extra
>>reference? if so I will still do it, but I
>>wonder if it is needed. please get
>>back to me soon on this, tom
>>> Hi Tom - Looks like we (Keith) is going to try to come up w/ a new
>>> version of your figure for our MWP Box. We're banking on Susan giving
>>> us the extra space for this and a couple other things, but I
>>> recommend you do that quick EOS paper you mentioned. Still ok?
>>> Many thanks.
>>> 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
>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

Eystein Jansen
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All�gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330

No comments:

Post a Comment