From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:33:20 -0600
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>

<x-flowed>
Hi Tim - Thanks. If you don't mind, let's see 
what the new grey in panel c,  and also the 5-95% 
range on a. Also, another alternative to the grey 
and red could be some other color that is just 
less bright - perhaps blue?

Agree there is no reason to switch the reviewed 
panel c uncertainty approach. It argues a bit 
that we leave panel a as is too. I'm unsure what 
is best, so maybe see what Keith thinks too - and 
discuss more with Phil - he is right that most 
are trying to go with 5-95 where possible.

Thanks again.

>Hi again,
>
>I still have the red option built into the 
>program, so can easily revert to it.  Of course 
>the grey has the advantage of consistency with 
>the model and EMIC panels, which really must be 
>grey so that all the coloured lines indicating 
>the simulated temperatures will show up (red 
>isn't really an option for the reconstruction 
>shading in those figures).  I'll see if I can 
>make it clearer yet keep it in grey.
>
>On a different note, Phil Jones just popped in 
>and said why are we using "+-2SE" shading in the 
>top instrumental panel when it has apparently 
>been decided to show the smaller 5-95% range (he 
>says this is only 0.8225 times the +-2SE range) 
>in all IPCC WG1 figures.  Shall I change this? 
>If I do, then the brown and orange curves will 
>fall outside this narrower range more often than 
>they fall outside the current wider SE range.
>
>The grey shading in panel (c) is also computed 
>from the overlap of the +-1 SE and +-2 SE ranges 
>of individual reconstructions, but I guess this 
>can stay unchanged, rather than needing to be 
>recalculated using the overlap of the ?-?% and 
>5-95% ranges?
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 16:05 19/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim - thanks! Now I can see why you went 
>>with the red rather than grey in the bottom 
>>panel - it's hard to see. I'd like to float the 
>>idea with everyone on the email that we 
>>consider going back to red, or try something 
>>else. All else is good (thanks) perhaps make 
>>the bottom/top axis labels bigger still? (both 
>>numbers and "Year").
>>
>>Thx again, Peck
>>
>>>Hi Peck et al.,
>>>
>>>revised fig 6.10 is attached.
>>>
>>>At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>Figure 6.10.
>>>>
>>>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>
>>>It was already shaded.  Your poor old eyes must be failing you ;-)
>>>
>>>Ok, so it *was* rather pale!  I've made it a bit darker.
>>>
>>>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>3. replace the red shaded region in the 
>>>>bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in 
>>>>Fig 6.13
>>>
>>>Done - how does it look now?  I had to outline 
>>>the instrumental series with a narrow white 
>>>band to ensure it could be seen against the 
>>>very dark grey shading.
>>>
>>>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the 
>>>>grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom 
>>>>panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and 
>>>>axis labeling - all are too small. You can 
>>>>figure out the best size by reducing figs to 
>>>>likely page size minus margins. We guess the 
>>>>captions need to be bigger by a couple 
>>>>increments at least.
>>>
>>>Increased the axis numbering/labelling by a couple of points.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00141E77)
>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>>>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>>>web:      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>>>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>>>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>
>>
>>--
>>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/
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006


-- 
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/
</x-flowed>

