From	Jonathan T. Overpeck	Date	Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:42:40 -0600
To	Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn
CC	Eystein Jansen
Subject	First draft of FOD - figures
Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein is going to chat with you tomorrow, and my goal is to get as much as I can to you guys today and tomorrow. First, off the figures are great (!) - that was tough job, and I'm very impressed. Of course, I can already start to sense what the debates will be, but we can address that in the text. Here are some comments with respect to the figures - some are relevant to the text... 1) they really are great 2) is the instrumental series on the first fig (top and bottom) the same as featured in chapter 3? Need to say that. 3) rather than clogging up the caption with all the notes on each curve, how about a table for each of the two figures. Then you can include some more info on each recon - e.g., number of sites, types of proxies??) I'm thinking mainly that the captions are not pretty, but you may be able to include more summary info on each curve also 4) should we make all the series in their original and modified for the figure form available on a www site so that reviewers can play with the data and make sure they get their two cents in before this thing is all said and published? The WDC-A is ready to help w/ posting of data and figs (see below). 5) I like the expanding time axis, but I'd be prepared to have a second one with a linear axis. In fact, I'd put it up on the www page at the same time with the data. The more we do to help others understand, the better? 6) Also, it would be good to see both the data and the figure w/o the Gaussian-weighted filtering. What do doe these look like, can we make them available as suggested above. At the least, I'd like to see the fig w/o the filtering, even though I know it will be a mess. How about a series of time series plots (same x and y axes as the big fig 1) - in each you show both the filtered and unfiltered series. I know this is a pain for Tim, but we really have to make sure we're not missing anything in the data. And also - that we anticipate what others will do, ask us to do, or squawk about. 7) On the forcing fig (fig 2) - why don't we see all the different experiment curves (e.g., dotted red) in the forcing plots a, b and c? Need to say why in the caption - and if they have the same forcing, so you can't see it on the plot, need to say it. This could be much easier in a table that indicates "same as X"). 8) On fig 2 - does the recalulated envelop of reconstructed temps also include instrumental temps? Think so, but you should say it in the caption. Why doesn't the envelop go up to present? Can it? Might look better, and be more consistent w/ fig 1. If the envelop can't go to present, then maybe include the instrumental curve as in Fig 1. 9) reminders for the text (I'll think about these as I read a second time for editing) - 9a) need to explain why the recons don't continue going up w/ instrumental data at the end (post 1990?) - might what to mention something in caption, if you can shift all the other stuff to a table. 9b) there will be lots of discussion (during and post AR4 drafting) about what recon series (Fig 1) should or should not be believed. Thus, I think it is critical for us to same more about each recon - that is to INCLUDE what you wrote in blue, and perhaps to enhance. Need to really convince the reader that while not one recon is alone the truth (and hence Fig 1), they all have important strengths and weaknesses. But, the former outweigh the latter, so we've included them. 9c) I'm sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal editorial - they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve - with the good old MWP and LIA etc (Lamb view? - I don't have the FAR w/ me). The way to handle the hocky stick might best be to put it in an historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then - after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR) to the current view, and while doing so, play down the controversy (s) - especially the hockey stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will hopefully get the point that it doesn't matter... 10) lastly (almost), I'm sorry to ask again, but I still want to know what is wrong with Tom Crowley's latest plot with all the recons shown together back through the Med W Period? I need to send you my edits on the MWP box, but it seem to me that Tom's fig could go in that box - to help make the point that - sorry, guys - the MWP wasn't much compared to the recent GLOBAL warming... 11) lastly (promise) - don't foget that Eystein and I think we can get a page or two extra for your section in the end. This means you can do all the above, and I can help (next) with the modes and extremes sections, and we can get it all in. Great job! 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/