cc: "Keith Briffa" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Ricardo Villalba" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:25:40 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: figure issues to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Thanks Tim - Valerie is doing field work until Wed, but indicated that she should be checking email some. I can't remember what the Law dome temp recon was, but I think it was a quantitative recon. Maybe Eystein, Keith or Ricardo remembers. Please still refer to Osborn and Briffa - it's important to include the points you did in the paper. Thank again, Peck >Hi all, > >(1) I'm happy to add an appropriate Law Dome record (presumably O18?) to >the SH figure. I just need the data from Valerie. > >(2) I agree that dropping the panel from Osborn & Briffa will help on >various fronts, including saving space and avoiding criticisms of IPCC >authors pushing their own newly published work. No problem at all. The >text in the MWP will need only very minor changes (basically just drop the >call-out to the figure panel that will no longer be there, and check it >still makes sense). Ok, Keith? > >Cheers > >Tim > >On Sat, July 15, 2006 12:20 am, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on >> these issues yet: >> >> 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on >> feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and >> corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add >> the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have >> everything needed for this figure revision? >> >> 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about >> our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the >> bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from >> me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have >> become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for >> what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which >> conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!), >> and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully >> avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig, >> and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly >> vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen >> to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers >> focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I >> think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming >> we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show >> the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion, >> but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to >> issue like divergence etc. >> >> Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be >> included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now. >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> 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/ >> -- 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/