From	Jonathan T. Overpeck	Date	Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:23:24 -0600
To	Tom Crowley
CC	Keith Briffa, Eystein Jansen
Subject	Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP
Tom - thanks. Good points regarding regional labeling. Defn stick to Tibetan Plateau! best, peck >Keith, if you can find more I see no problem - it seems that a lot >of the data you used was via Cook and colleagues - I was unable to >locate a full length record from Quebec in that time series, but >maybe you are relying on something else - if so can I have it!? > >other suggestions: provide a more general label to sites - eg, >mangazeyek (sp)/yamal could be listed as polar urals - taimyr >central Siberia. > >China shoudl be relabeled as east Asia as it does include some >information from Japan and the Tibetan Plateau (L. Thompson) and we >don't want to get into some political to-do by calling Tibet >"Chinese". > >that's all I can think of for present, good sailing, tom > >Keith Briffa wrote: > >>Hi all >>think this is resolved now (virtually) - >> >>We use series that total to Tom/Gabi composite , and we can cite >>this as an example of the scatter of regional records "in a typical >>reconstruction". This avoids very difficult issue of what is the >>best way to aggregate certain data sets - we are simply >>illustrating the point with one published (by then) data set. >>The issue of the composite is then not an issue either , because it >>is not a new (unpublished) composite that we were concerned about - >>though I still believe it is a distraction to put the composite in. >>It would be best to use data from 800 or 850 at least , and go to >>1500 (?) and presumably normalise over the whole period of data >>shown. OK? Even though you guys all wish to go with the reduced >>period (ie not up the present) , but my own instinct is that this >>might later come back to haunt us - but will take your lead. >>I agree the look of the Figure should match the others. >>So, if Tom will send the data sets (his regional curves) , Tim will >>plot and send back asap for scrutiny. Thanks Tom and thanks for >>your help with this - further comments on latest version of 6.5 >>(last 2000 years) still welcome , though will be incorporating a >>few changes in response to David and Fortunat input , and SH bit >>(from Ricardo and Ed) still to go in and regional section to be >>revised (after input from Peck et al.) >>cheers >>Keith >>. >> >> >> At 21:42 19/07/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>>Hi Keith and Tim: Just got off the phone with Eystein, and >>>hopefully he will sleep ok knowing that we have a plan for the MWP >>>fig and Tom... >>> >>>Please ask questions if we don't cover all the key points, but >>>here's what we think: >>> >>>1) the MWP fig should span the MWP only, and should emphasize >>>variation in regional amplitude (we agree that we must be clear >>>that this fig is not a reconstruction) - that is, it is best to >>>use time series representing regions, assuming that the regional >>>series do represent a region ok with one or more input series. We >>>want to avoid a regional bias if we can - this is what got us into >>>all the MWP misunderstanding in the first place, perhaps (e.g., >>>nice MWP in Europe/Atlantic region - must be global) >>> >>>2) If you guys could agree on the series and the interval, that'd >>>be great. We agree it would be good to start before 1000 and end >>>before the Renaissance (15th century?). If you want more feedback >>>on these issues, we're happy to provide, but it seems logical that >>>you pick series and intervals so that each series covers the >>>entire interval selected. >>> >>>3) Don't use the Chesapeak record - it is likely biased by salinity >>> >>>4) We'd like Keith and Tim to draft the final figure so that it >>>matches the look and style of the other two figs they have made. >>>Hope this is doable. Tom, does Keith have all the data? Thanks for >>>sending if not. >>> >>>5) We agree that Tom should NOT be a CA given that he was >>>officially one of the ZOD reviewers. Of course, this doesn't >>>represent a real conflict, but we need to avoid even the >>>appearance of conflict. We greatly appreciate all the feedback >>>that Tom is providing! Is this plan ok w/ you Tom? We think you're >>>cool with it, but just want to check one more time. >>> >>>That... it is. Please let us know if there are any more questions. >>>Keith - feel free to try and get Eystein on his cell doing your >>>work hours if you want quick feedback. Or we can do this by email >>>- he's not in a very email friendly place right now, but the >>>fishing appears to be ok. >>> >>>Again, thanks to you both for all the discussion and thought that >>>has gone into this figure. >>> >>>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 >>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >>-- >>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- 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/