From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon Jul 24 15:58:18 2006
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Fortunat Joos <joos@climate.unibe.ch>

   Hi Peck et al.,
   I've increased the axis labelling font size by another pt in all plots.
   I attach two versions of 6.10, one in the grey (same as before except for bigger axis
   labelling) and one in brown.  Brown looks like some old curry stain (or worse!).  Note that
   conversion from postscript to PDF or GIF tends to alter the colours, which alter again on
   different printers compared with the screen.  So there's not much point in me playing
   around much more with the colours.
   Also attached are new versions of 6.13 and 6.14.  Both have the bigger axis fonts and the
   matching grey shading as 6.10.
   6.13 has thicker lines for all models, so they show up better on the new darker grey
   shading.
   6.14 now has the EMIC forcing shown without any smoothing.  I have used a vertical scale
   for the volcanoes which is half that of the solar and anthropogenic forcings.  Only one
   spike (1258) hits the bottom of the plot with this choice of scaling, and only a couple
   overlap the solar forcing lines.  What do you think now (Fortunat too)?  Oh, and I also
   start now at 1000 rather than 900 AD.
   Cheers
   Tim
   At 17:06 22/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

     Hi Tim - this looks pretty nice, and I appreciate your chugging through to make the
     switch to 5-95%. I'd still be keen to see what the fig looks like in some more modest
     color than the old red. Grey could be the final choice, but it's not too much of a
     hassle, could you try a color version that is a bit more sharp?
     Also, it would be nice to make the x-axis labels (numbers and "Year") as large as makes
     sense - they still seem too small.
     Sorry to be nitpicky, but this figure is going to be a major one of the whole report, so
     it makes sense to get it as perfect as we can.
     Thanks! best, peck

     Hi Peck and Eystein,
     what do you think of the attached new version of 6.10?  Keith and I have spent some time
     examining various options and think that this one looks clearer (less smudgy) while
     still being a good representation of the data and in grey.
     I spoke with Phil and Keith and the 5-95% range seems preferable for consistency with
     other chapters.
     So:
     (1) I now use 5-95% range in panel (a).
     (2) Panel (b) has no further changes to it.
     (3) Panel (c) is now also based on the overlap of the 5-95% ranges of the individual
     reconstructions, rather than on the +-2 standard error ranges (extra weight is still
     given for temperatures that fall within the +-1 SE range). I also applied some week
     smoothing prior to plotting.  I also now plot using just 10 grey shades, in 10% steps,
     rather than the 20 shades in 5% steps that I used previously (in the last version, I
     changed the scale bar to have 10 steps of 10%, but I had still plotted the data using 20
     steps of 5%).
     Hope you like it,
     Tim
     At 17:33 20/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

     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:      [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [2]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
     [3]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
     [4]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:      [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [6]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
     [7]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
     [8]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

     Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (001427F4)
     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:      [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [10]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
     [11]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
     [12]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

References

   1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
   2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
   3. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
   4. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
   5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
   6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
   7. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
   8. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
   9. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
  10. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
  11. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
  12. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

