Friday, May 11, 2012

4140.txt

cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardoatXYZxyz.cricyt.edu.ar>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:16:00 +0200
from: Fortunat Joos <joosatXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch>
subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
to: David Rind <drindatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov>

<x-flowed>
Hi,

What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 and not
just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).

The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the
evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in general
much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6 statement covering the
whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely to the next sentence on
line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if chapter 2
indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I
wanted to hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting.

Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed
out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress!

Regards, Fortunat

David Rind wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
>
> Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to
> keep is:
>
> P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the first
> paragraph (lines 2-7).
>
>
> All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
>
> Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and
> Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to
> keep what's there, adding just a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also
> Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still
> includes the solar and volcanic forcing).
>
> David
>
>
> At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>
>> Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even
>> if they live in Europe.
>>
>> Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be
>> making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that we
>> can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic forcing down
>> to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not cover
>> that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)?
>>
>> Many thanks, Peck
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> [It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner!
>>> (regardless of the time difference).]
>>>
>>> What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to
>>> Gavin's comment - that we would basically cross-reference chap 2,
>>> where the primary discussion would occur. It's consistent with
>>> chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed over
>>> time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and
>>> volcanic forcing. Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that
>>> existed in Chapter 6 on these issues to complement their discussion,
>>> if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make
>>> the proper cross-references.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David
>>>> Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we kept things
>>>> covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and volcanic discussions
>>>> in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So,
>>>> Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work
>>>> this efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at
>>>> work sooner.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks... Best, Peck
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.6.3.1 Solar forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics. I
>>>>> checked
>>>>> Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD)
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin suggests
>>>>> that only
>>>>> the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and
>>>>> leave the
>>>>> most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
>>>>> section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the
>>>>> sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricardo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7 Natural Forcings
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1 Solar Variability
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by
>>>>> volcanic
>>>>> aerosols
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>>>>> To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>; "Keith Briffa"
>>>>> <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>>>>> Cc: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>; "Ricardo Villalba"
>>>>> <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>; "joos" <joosatXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>>>>>> out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>>>>>> Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it
>>>>>> published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome
>>>>>> 18O
>>>>>> record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
>>>>>> 1300 AD? That period appears in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>>>>>> A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate
>>>>>> variability
>>>>>> ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>>>>>> Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>>>>>> southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>>>>>> CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>> >Figure 6.10.
>>>>>> >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle
>>>>>> panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>>>>> >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>>>>> >color) in the bottom panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>>>>> >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>>> >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>>>>> >bigger by a couple increments at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Figure 6.11.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>>>>> >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Figure 6.12
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>>>>> >it's still not published.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Henry said they could stay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>>>>> >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>>>>> >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>>>>> >she seems to know these data at least a little
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already discussed above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>>>>> >probably better to use bold fonts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to
>>>>>> small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>>>>>> think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to
>>>>>> completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>>>>>> might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure
>>>>>> size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Figure 6.13
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>>>>> >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>>>>> >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>>>>> >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old
>>>>>> ECHO-G
>>>>>
>>>>> in?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>>>>> >and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, as discussed above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>>>>> >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>>>>> >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat
>>>>>> have to
>>>>>> >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>>>>> >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>>>>> >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>>>>>> >compact to permit its inclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>>>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>>
>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>
>
>

--

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/

</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment