From	Jonathan T. Overpeck	Date	Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:26 -0600
To	Fortunat Joos
CC	Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, Eystein Jansen
Subject	Re: new fig 6.14
Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding got cleared up. Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can clarify. 1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc, higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated for plotting purposes" or something like that. 2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim. Otherwise, it will be too confusing. 3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to have them all proportional in this fig. Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok - we get serious play in the TS. Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you want to provide some options, that's fine. Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report. thanks all! 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/