From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>
Subject: Re: Figures - urgent
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:00:44 +0000

<x-flowed>
Hi Peck and Eystein,

just working on this MWP box fig update. Just trying to clarify what is wanted.

The old MWP box fig had 8 series on it.  7 of these were straight 
from our recent Science paper anyway, and the 8th was the average of 
2 more from the Science paper.  The other 5 in the paper (making a 
total of 7+2+5 = 14 series) were not used in the old MWP box fig, as 
they are too short to cover the MWP period.

(1) Are you asking me to use exactly the 14 series from the Science 
paper, overlaid like in the old MWP fig or, if space permits, plotted 
like fig 1 in our Science paper.  And then add below the exact fig 3B 
of our paper (you say "3b-like" which implied maybe some changes).

(2) Or do you want to stick with the original 8 series, and then have 
the exact fig 3B from our paper, which wouldn't correspond exactly to 
the 8 series above because it would be based on the 14.

(3) Or do you want to stick with the original 8 series, and then show 
a panel similar to our fig 3B, but *recalculated* using just the 8 
series shown?

So many questions! ;-)

I attached the original MWP fig (8 series), plus a new one from 
option (1) above (14 series, looks a bit of a mess, also I removed 
the "composite mean" which might have been agreed in New Zealand?).

Cheers

Tim

At 05:28 02/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Tim and Keith - I have some feedback on the MWP box fig, but 
>would to first ask that you update us (me and Eystein) about the 
>status of your other figs. We have a particularly urgent need to see 
>those that are likely to be elevated to the TS (Tech Summary) - a 
>big deal for paleo. Can you promise us these by the end of this 
>week, Monday at the latest? Again, see my emails of Dec for details.
>
>It would be great to see a new MWP box fig asap too, but this isn't 
>as high priority as the TS figs. Eystein and I agree with both Susan 
>and Martin that it would be good to see a new MWP box fig that was a 
>hybrid of the old fig concept and the new Fig 3b from your Science 
>paper. It would be good to have two versions - if space allows, we 
>go with the first, otherwise the 2nd:
>
>Both would have your 3b-like plot, and both would have all the 
>normalized time series that were used to create the 3b plot (i.e., 
>those in Fig. 1 of your paper).
>
>Version 1 - has all the input series stacked on top of each other as 
>in your Fig. 1, with the summary Fig 3b-like plot below.
>
>Version 2 - is the same, but the input series are all on the same 
>axis like in the FOD MWP box fig.
>
>Now, if you think Version 1 plus caption would be smaller than 
>Version 2 plus caption, no need for Version 2. Ditto if Version 1 
>plus caption was only a little bigger than V 2 plus caption.
>
>Again, thanks for getting all of your new figs to us asap, 
>particularly those targeted for TS consideration.
>
>Many thanks, 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/

</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipccar4_mwpbox4.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipccar4_mwpbox_a.pdf"
<x-flowed>
Dr Timothy J Osborn
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
</x-flowed>

