cc:  "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" <valerie.masson@cea.fr>
date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:25:40 -0600
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: figure issues
to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
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/
</x-flowed>
