cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:26:12 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Figure 1 to: Phil Jones , Scott Rutherford Hi Phil, Still here, heading out tomorrow but put the "vacation" message up already. Your/Keith's/Tim's suggestions all sound good to me. Re last sentence, penultimate paragraph: Re-reading it I can see that it does potentially could be interpreted in the wrong way--its meant simply to say that you can't criticize the conclusions of relative warmth of the 80s/90s w/ records that don't contain or resolve the latter 20th century, as SB03 do--but it sounds like a criticism of such records, and that's not what we want it to be. Feel free to agree on an appropriate re-wording that still conveys the point we are trying to convey... Re, Figure #1--all sounds reasonable too. I'd only differ on a few minor things. Scott and I have experimented a lot w/ line types/thicknesses, etc. I take it none of you are partially color blind? Out finding has been that using too thin coloured lines makes them indistinguishable to many people. The thicker coloured lines are easier to make out, for people who have trouble distinguishing fine colour differences. So I'd lobby for the thicker lines, using thin lines in a few cases to draw further distinctions (with this many curves, we need to use colour, thickness, and line pattern type as much as posslbe, to distinguish). You guys should decide mutually what is best (I really will be off tomorrow), but I would encourage sticking w/ the thick lines where possible, using a few thin lines to create contrast when necessary. I think we can change the colour of the thin gray line to make it more distinct against the grey background--I didn't really like that choice either. I think a different colour would fix this... The scaling should be clarifed in the caption. I believe (Scott?) that we've scaled the 1856-1980 trends to be equal to those of the instrumental annual full NH mean record, after setting the means equal over the same interval 1856-1980. One can also scale the variance (as you and I did in our submitted GRL article) and the result is basically the same... The only exception is Brifffa et al MXD, where the 1856-1940 period is used instead (because it starts to diverge downward about 1940 relative to the NH annual mean record). We also don't show it after 1940. I agree this has to be made very clear in the caption, and Scott should be able to help you guys make sure the caption is accurate. Thin black line to show reference period (zero) mean is a good idea too. I'll be online through tomorrow morning in case you guys need any more feedback from me. By the why, Phil: I told Peck to get in touch w/ you about signing on. cheers, mike At 12:21 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: Scott (and Mike if he's still there), The three of us have been through the text, Fig 1 and decided what to put in Fig 2. Tim is doing Fig 2 (9 long series - we'll send when we have it). I'm modifying the text slightly - adding in refs that are missing (mostly with Fig 2) and generally tidying up. Keith is working on the final sentence of the penultimate para. We all agree with this, but it could be misinterpreted - so trying to avoid this. WRT Fig 1. There are quite a few changes we think would improve things and make it more consistent, all to the labelling. 1. Add et al to Bauer and Gerber (twice). 2. Years only in for Mann et al., so this is the only one where refs would be ambiguous. 3. So, Briffa et al 2000 becomes Briffa and Osborn 1999 4. Briffa et al, 2001 becomes Briffa et al . 5 Remove Long instrumental - the orange line from the plot and key. It isn't explained in the caption, nor in the text. 6. As the grey line may not be seen under the grey shading, we think that all lines should be as thin as the grey one. Some are thicker than others - can all be the same thinness. 7. Back to key, change Optimal borehole (Mann et al, 2003) to Mann et al. 2003 (Optimal borehole) for consistency with the others. 8 . Most important is the SCALING. Needs to be clear which are scaled (to annual) and which aren't. Text in caption is ambiguous. So can you tell us which is scaled (to annual) and which aren't. If they are scaled then key should say - scaled 1856-1980 as with Jones et al . Does this apply to Briffa and Osborn and to Briffa et al (the grey and orange lines). 9. Whilst on scaling are all scaled or regressed? Scaling we think of as giving the same mean and variance. Regression does this also but which has been used. 10. Finally, Figure would look good with a thin black line along the zero line from 0 to 2000. Call me or Tim if anything you don't follow. Try Mike as well. I sent him an email earlier today and he'd already put his reply message up for the next 4-5 weeks. Cheers Phil At 12:25 09/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote: Mike and Phil, Attached is figure 1. The format is Adobe Illustrator with an embedded PDF. You can view it in Acrobat. Let me know if you have questions. Regards, Scott ______________________________________________ Scott Rutherford Marine Research Scientist Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu phone: (401) 874-6599 fax: (401) 874-6811 snail mail: South Ferry Road Narragansett, RI 02882 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml