date: Mon Jul 18 15:42:46 2005
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Re: updated MWP figure
to: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

     Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:10:43 -0600
     To: tcrowley@eos.duke.edu
     From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
     Subject: Fwd: Re: updated MWP figure
     Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,
      Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>
     Hi Tom -- thanks for the extra effort. I'm pushing others on the author team to think
     hard about such a figure (space may end up being the hardest part), and I should have
     something to discuss w/ you soon. Thanks for being willing to shift priorities if
     needed.
     FYI - I just got reviews back from an EOS piece that took over a 1.5 months to get. And
     of course, they want some edits. Not the speedy venue we once knew a loved, although I
     bet if you really keep it short and sweet it might go faster.
     Best, more soon, peck

     X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
     Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:13:49 -0400
     From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>
     X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
     To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
     Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>
     Subject: Re: updated MWP figure
     Hi Jonathan,
     let me answer the last question first - there are actually not many records that go back
     that far and I have used, I think, every one except Quelcaya, which being from the
     southern tropics makes for a lonely but potential future inclusion (which makes no
     difference on the conclusion).
     several of the sites include multiple time series - e.g.,  western U.S. time series, w.
     Siberia time series,  e. Asia, and w. Greenland.  I did not want to overweight any site
     though because of the need for a geographic balance -- note that there are four sites
     each in the w. hemisphere and e. hemisphere, and that the distribution of sites in each
     hemisphere represents a good scatter.
     for almost all of these sites the references are easily imaginable based on the location
     of the site, but they can be provided if you are interested in including the figure.
     can you think of any long sites I have not included?  right now I cannot.....
     in the overlap interval of 1500-1850 our composite has highly significant correlations
     with the Mann, Jones, and Briffa reconstructions that contain much more data -- thereby
     suggesting that use of only long time series provides a "reasonable" estimate of the
     last 1100 years.
     I have not submitted this for publication but if you are interested in including this in
     ipcc I can knock off a tutorial note to eos on short notice.....
     I am attaching the figure in several different alternate formats - cannot easily do the
     two you suggest from my mac, but again I can get that done with more work if you are
     interested  - let me know where to go next - note that I originally sent this along fyi,
     only to be used if you thought the figure was worthwhile -- if not I will just reorder
     the priority of writing it up as a note,
     tom
     Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

     Hi Tom - thanks for sending this plot. I'm a bit late in responding since we were moving
     to (and still into) our sabbatical digs in SW CO.
     Would you be willing to provide more on this plot in order for me to understand it
     better? I personally like the plot quite a bit, but between the space restrictions and
     other's assessment, whether we use it or not will take some real thinking.
     For example, it would help to have
     1) a higher resolution version - eps or ai?
     2) a caption or text that would spell out which records are included, and their origins
     (references)
     3) a bibliography for those refs.
     4) perhaps, you have a paper with this included? If so, can you send a prerprint?
     5) some discussion of why you used the series  (sites) you did, and not others - more
     specifically, what's wrong with others?
     If you don't mind helping here, I'll promise to get it in the mix for serious
     discussion. Of course, it's already in the mix since Eystein forwarded to Keith, and you
     Tim, but I want to weigh in as informed as possible. Trying to keep track of a lot, so
     your help is much appreciated.
     Thanks! Peck

     Hello,
     I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
     warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal std.
     dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four are from
     the w. hemisphere, four from the east.  I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites
     and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
     this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and also
     why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
     clustering of the individual sites.
     use or lose as you wish, tom

     --
     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
     [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
     [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

   --
   Professor Keith Briffa,
   Climatic Research Unit
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

   Phone: +44-1603-593909
   Fax: +44-1603-507784
   [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

