date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:04:39 +0000
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: new fig
to: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>

>Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:49:06 -0700
>To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
>From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: new fig
>Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Keith and Tim - I do like what you did, and I 
>could figure it out. That said, Eystein's 
>response highlights the importance of my 
>suggestion to start early on the caption so we 
>can get it perfect. The presentation is not 
>intuitive, so we have to educate. BUT, there is 
>no doubt in my mind that this is more appealing than the FOD approach.
>
>thanks, peck
>
>>Eystein
>>the shading represents overlaps of the 
>>uncertainty estimate envelopes surrounding each 
>>of the 10 reconstructions . If one 
>>reconstruction curve is envisaged , it has 1 
>>and 2 standard error bounds above and below 
>>each smoothed value. We are trying to represent 
>>the most likely temperature based on all 
>>reconstructions. SO if their inner (most likely 
>>) 1 standard error bands all overlap , we want 
>>to show a high score . If only the outer 
>>uncertainty bands overlap between a small 
>>number of reconstructions, we need to say it is 
>>unlikely that this is the likely temperature - 
>>so a small score. Hence we allocate 2 points to 
>>all areas within the 1 standard error range of 
>>each reconstruction, and 1 point for the area 
>>between 1 and 2 standard errors. Then we 
>>overlap all reconstructions and count the total 
>>score. They go from maximum (20) WHERE THE PLUS 
>>AND MINUS 1 STANDARD ERROR Envelopes  (i.e.   a 
>>66 percent chance that the "real" value lies in 
>>this band) OVERLAP FOR ALL RECONSTRUCTIONS 
>>(each of the possible 10 gets a score of 2 in 
>>this area)  to 0 , where no reconstruction uncertainty envelopes overlap.
>>If only the 1 standard error  envelopes overlap 
>>for each of 2 reconstructions , the score is 2, 
>>and if the inner uncertainty band overlaps with 
>>the outer uncertainty band of only 1 other 
>>reconstruction , the score is 3 and so on. 
>>Hence the high scores show where most 
>>reconstructions most likely estimate ranges 
>>overlap. This gives prominence to the middle 
>>estimate of the most abundant reconstructions, 
>>and less emphasis on those estimates based on 
>>only a few or even 1 reconstruction. Hence the 
>>scores are low where there are few 
>>reconstructions, and low where the confidence 
>>in the reconstructions is low. Now you can see 
>>that the most likely estimates for the MWP  are 
>>lower than those for the recent period  - this 
>>is better than showing the total uncertainty 
>>range which is controlled by outliers - such as Moberg's curve.
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 14:40 03/02/2006, you wrote:
>>>Hi Keith, could you just explain the values 
>>>reflecting the colour shading n the lower panel?
>>>Eystein
>>>
>>>>Peck and Eystein
>>>>we are having trouble to express the real 
>>>>message of the reconstructions - being 
>>>>scientifically sound in representing 
>>>>uncertainty , while still getting the crux of 
>>>>the information across clearly. It is not 
>>>>right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing 
>>>>this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a 
>>>>total range as before) allows the uncertainty 
>>>>to swamp the magnitude of the changes through 
>>>>time .  We have settled on this version 
>>>>(attached) of the Figure which we hoe you 
>>>>will agree gets the message over but with the 
>>>>rigor required for such an important document.
>>>>
>>>>We have added a box to show the "probability 
>>>>surface" for the most likely estimate of past 
>>>>temperatures based on all published data. By 
>>>>overlapping all reconstructions and giving a 
>>>>score of 2 to all areas within the 1 standard 
>>>>error range of the estimates for each 
>>>>reconstruction , and a score of 1 for the 
>>>>area between 1 and 2 standard errors, you 
>>>>build up a composite picture of the most 
>>>>likely or "concensus"  path that temperatures 
>>>>took over the last 1200 years (note - now 
>>>>with a linear time axis). This still shows 
>>>>the outlier ranges , preserving all the 
>>>>information, but you see the central most 
>>>>likely area well , and the comparison of past 
>>>>and recent temperature levels is not as 
>>>>influenced by the outlier estimates. What do 
>>>>you think? We have experimented with 
>>>>different versions of the shading and this 
>>>>one shows up quite well  - but we may have to 
>>>>use some all grey version as the background 
>>>>to the overlay of the model results.
>>>>We have also experimented with changing the 
>>>>normalisation base for the 
>>>>model/reconstruction Figure , but using the 
>>>>same short modern period as for the first 
>>>>Figure is not satisfactory - more on this 
>>>>later. We have added in Oerlemans curve as 
>>>>many insisted - but we only have the GLOBAL 
>>>>curve - can you get the separate North and 
>>>>Southern Hemisphere curves (with uncertainty) 
>>>>. I do not see that the new model runs from 
>>>>Germany/Switzerland will fit easily in the 
>>>>existing Figure and need to be separate! I am 
>>>>really struggling with the text also - really need more time!!!! More later
>>>>Keith
>>>>
>>>>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
>>>>>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000
>>>>>To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
>>>>>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
>>>>>Subject: new fig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>>University of East Anglia
>>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>>
>>>>Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:ipcc_nhrecon_new1.pdf (PDF /IC) (00A6614D)
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>Eystein Jansen
>>>Professor/Director
>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>>Allgaten 55
>>>N-5007 Bergen
>>>NORWAY
>>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
>>>Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
>>>Fax:    +47-55-584330
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>
>--
>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/

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

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 

</x-flowed>
