| From | Keith Briffa | Date | Thu Jul 21 08:53:21 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| To | Tim Osborn | ||
| Subject | Fwd: Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP | ||
| Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:53:34 -0400 From: Tom Crowley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Keith Briffa CC: Jonathan Overpeck Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO 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 The issue of the composite is then not an issue either , because it is not a new (unpublished) composite that we were concerned about - though I still believe it is a distraction to put the composite in.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 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]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 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ References 1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ 2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ | |||