From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>
Subject: Re: CLA feedback on Tom and the MWP
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:23:24 -0600
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>

<x-flowed>
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is not a new (unpublished) composite that we were concerned about - 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/
</x-flowed>

