cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Ricardo Villalba , Eystein Jansen , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:16:00 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment to: David Rind Hi, What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 and not just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7). The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in general much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6 statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I wanted to hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting. Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress! Regards, Fortunat David Rind wrote: > Jonathan, > > > Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to > keep is: > > P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the first > paragraph (lines 2-7). > > > All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56. > > Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and > Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to > keep what's there, adding just a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also > Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still > includes the solar and volcanic forcing). > > David > > > At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >> Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even >> if they live in Europe. >> >> Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be >> making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that we >> can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic forcing down >> to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not cover >> that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)? >> >> Many thanks, Peck >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> [It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner! >>> (regardless of the time difference).] >>> >>> What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to >>> Gavin's comment - that we would basically cross-reference chap 2, >>> where the primary discussion would occur. It's consistent with >>> chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed over >>> time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and >>> volcanic forcing. Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that >>> existed in Chapter 6 on these issues to complement their discussion, >>> if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make >>> the proper cross-references. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David >>>> Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we kept things >>>> covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and volcanic discussions >>>> in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, >>>> Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work >>>> this efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at >>>> work sooner. >>>> >>>> Thanks... Best, Peck >>>> >>>>> Hi all! >>>>> >>>>> In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections >>>>> >>>>> 6.6.3.1 Solar forcing >>>>> >>>>> 6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing >>>>> >>>>> largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics. I >>>>> checked >>>>> Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) >>>>> discussion >>>>> mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin suggests >>>>> that only >>>>> the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and >>>>> leave the >>>>> most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our >>>>> section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the >>>>> sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Ricardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7 Natural Forcings >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1 Solar Variability >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by >>>>> volcanic >>>>> aerosols >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Tim Osborn" >>>>> To: "Jonathan Overpeck" ; "Keith Briffa" >>>>> >>>>> Cc: "Eystein Jansen" ; "Ricardo Villalba" >>>>> ; "joos" >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures >>>>>> out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & >>>>>> Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it >>>>>> published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome >>>>>> 18O >>>>>> record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since >>>>>> 1300 AD? That period appears in: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al. >>>>>> A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate >>>>>> variability >>>>>> ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al. >>>>>> Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and >>>>>> southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD >>>>>> CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>> >Figure 6.10. >>>>>> >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle >>>>>> panel >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the >>>>>> >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13 >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally >>>>>> >color) in the bottom panel >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >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. >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.11. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to >>>>>> >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Henry said they were published and could stay >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.12 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates >>>>>> >it's still not published. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Henry said they could stay. >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is >>>>>> >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's >>>>>> >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as >>>>>> >she seems to know these data at least a little >>>>>> >>>>>> Already discussed above. >>>>>> >>>>>> >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - >>>>>> >probably better to use bold fonts >>>>>> >>>>>> You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to >>>>>> small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I >>>>>> think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to >>>>>> completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide >>>>>> might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure >>>>>> size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.13 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The >>>>>> >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing >>>>>> >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being: >>>>>> >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old >>>>>> ECHO-G >>>>> >>>>> in? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 >>>>>> >and 12 - please use bold fonts. >>>>>> >>>>>> ok, as discussed above. >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the >>>>>> >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e >>>>>> >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat >>>>>> have to >>>>>> >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) >>>>>> and >>>>>> >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for >>>>>> >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a >>>>>> >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that >>>>>> this >>>>>> >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more >>>>>> >compact to permit its inclusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >>> >>> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ > > > -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/