Sunday, June 17, 2012


date: Thu Apr 20 17:48:47 2000
from: Tim Osborn <>
subject: Re: overheads
to: Craig Wallace <>

At 15:30 06/04/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Those with * in
>the list below I am not sure of (i.e. whether they are needed or not)
>1: Introduction-who am I, what am I presenting on

Probably want an overhead stating the overall rationale, i.e., climate change may affect the timing, magnitude & shape of the seasonal cycle, and we want to know what the models predict and whether these changes have begun to occur in the real world. Could also here mention the Mann GRL paper, and that these results update it by a few years, use an ensemble of model runs, and use model runs that include sulphate aerosols as well as GHGs.

>2: Overview of the data-sets used
Fine. May need one for obs & one for model - see what fits.

>3: Wilks' method for calculating sine wave (*)
Fine. Keep this ready as an optional extra!

>4: Results-

First show the 1961-90 means: obs, mod and diff for amplitude.
same for phase
Need to think about what you will say about the differences, bearing in mind model & observational deficiences (e.g. interpolation over southern hemisphere sea ice areas).

Then go on to the changes through time.

> a: Global results, phs and amp on one overhead (*)
Definitely keep global optional.

> b: NH results, " "

> c: SH results, " "

> d: Scatterplots of mean hemispheric temps vs. amplitude, NH and SH on one
>overhead (to explain SH
> sulfate effect)
Yes, but need to be sure you can explain the point of the scatterplots concisely. Might even be worth writing the explanation down.

> e: Visualised gridded amplitude results, 1909-1938 and 1969-1998 window
>plots on one overhead
> f: Visualised gridded phase results, 1909-1938 and 1969-1998 plots on one
Yes. e & f should also include the difference (i.e., the change between the two periods).

> g: Visualised plot of three 20 year windows to capture W Greenland
>mid-century fall in amplitude (*)
Keep optional.

> h: frozen grid results to resolve spatial coverage related bias (*)
Probably no time to do this.
>5: Summarising overhead
Definitely. Might also want to spell out that this is the first stages of the project and state a couple of things that you plan to do in the next couple of years.

>Please let me know if you think this is too much or too little and where.
Just about right. Certainly not too little. If there's too much when you do the practise seminar then you can easily chop something.

Have a good Easter.


No comments:

Post a Comment