Monday, May 21, 2012

4494.txt

cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>, "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" <valerie.massonatXYZxyz.fr>, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:00:41 -0600
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
subject: Re: figure issues
to: "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardoatXYZxyz.cricyt.edu.ar>

<x-flowed>
Hi Ricardo and gang - the email I just forwarded
to you is what Valerie sent to us back in June -
you'll need to read all the papers to make sure,
but I think the borehold recon is the reliable
one, or at least that is what Valerie is
suggesting. BUT, please read all she sent to make
sure we get this one right.

Thanks! Peck

>Dear All,
>
>Please, find attached a PowerPoint File comparing the Law Dome and Tasmania
>temperature reconstructions. This figure is from Jones and Mann (2004)
>Review in Geophysics. However, there is not information in this paper
>indicating how the quantitative reconstruction from Low Dome was developed.
>Jones and Mann (2004) just indicated that for a 24-year common period
>between temperature and Low Dome isotopic records the correlation is r =
>0.46. For some periods in the past, temperature variations at Low Dome are
>3 or more time warmer than present (and Tasmania too), which makes this
>record suspicious and happy to the skeptics (McIntyre) who push to include
>it in the assessment. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original
>references. I guess Valerie mentioned a new reconstruction using the Low
>Dome isotope records. Is that true?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ricardo
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
>To: <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>; <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>; "Ricardo
>Villalba" <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>; "Eystein Jansen"
><eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>; "Valerie Masson-Delmotte"
><valerie.masson@cea.fr>
>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 AM
>Subject: Re: figure issues
>
>
>> Thanks Tim - Valerie is doing field work until Wed, but indicated
>> that she should be checking email some. I can't remember what the Law
>> dome temp recon was, but I think it was a quantitative recon. Maybe
>> Eystein, Keith or Ricardo remembers.
>>
>> Please still refer to Osborn and Briffa - it's important to include
>> the points you did in the paper.
>>
>> Thank again, Peck
>>
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >(1) I'm happy to add an appropriate Law Dome record (presumably O18?) to
>> >the SH figure. I just need the data from Valerie.
>> >
>> >(2) I agree that dropping the panel from Osborn & Briffa will help on
>> >various fronts, including saving space and avoiding criticisms of IPCC
>> >authors pushing their own newly published work. No problem at all. The
>> >text in the MWP will need only very minor changes (basically just drop
>the
>> >call-out to the figure panel that will no longer be there, and check it
>> >still makes sense). Ok, Keith?
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >
>> >Tim
>> >
>> >On Sat, July 15, 2006 12:20 am, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>> >> Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on
>> >> these issues yet:
>> >>
>> >> 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on
>> >> feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and
>> >> corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add
>> >> the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have
>> >> everything needed for this figure revision?
>> >>
>> >> 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about
>> >> our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the
>> >> bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from
>> >> me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have
>> >> become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for
>> >> what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which
>> >> conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!),
>> >> and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully
>> >> avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig,
>> >> and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly
> > >> vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen
>> >> to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers
>> >> focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I
>> >> think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming
>> >> we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show
>> >> the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion,
>> >> but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to
>> >> issue like divergence etc.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be
>> >> included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now.
>> >>
>> >> Does this make sense?
>> >>
>> >> 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/
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:low dome.ppt (SLD3/�IC�) (00141914)


--
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