cc: <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>, "'Maurizio Maugeri'" <maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it>, <johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at>, "'michele'" <m.brunetti@isac.cnr.it>
date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:51:40 +0200
from: "Reinhard Boehm" <Reinhard.Boehm@zamg.ac.at>
subject: AW: AW: EI-paper
to: "'David Frank'" <david.frank@wsl.ch>

   Hi David,


   Thanks fort he compliment, but there is still something to do, before the draft is
   finished. Nevertheless thank you also for your comments.


   As to the author's question you were mentioning earlier, I am aware that we should include
   somebody else, and I am also not afraid of having many authors (I think you know our list
   of the Auer et al, 2007 HISTALP-paper), but let us postpone the question till I see clearer
   how intensively the proxies will be described in section 2. I have mentioned them shortly
   already now in the introduction and I am playing with the idea to only add one or two
   comparative figures with all those mentioned proxy series and cancel the planned section
   two. In this case I would not include too many additional co-authors, just mentioning the
   sources for the figure.

   In case we really write a longer section two, then I expect to receive something like one
   page of text from each new co.


   But let me decide on that after having finished all the sections except section two, look
   how long it then is and then decide on doing a longer section two (with several additional
   cos then) or not. Regarding you and Johann, the story is different. You were the two which
   really started the thing going with your two papers - therefore it is no question og having
   you two in the team.

   And I also have a little "Hintergedanken" that you might be so kind to perform a perfect
   language trimming at the end to make my Austro-English a bit better than I can do. Is this
   allright?


   Best regards


   Reinhard


   P.S.: I hope you all agree that I would prefer to send the paper to Climatic Change. This
   makes my situation easier, because I have promised Rudolf Brazdil several months ago to
   write something about the early instrumental period for a special issue devoted to the
   Millennium project. So using our paper for this makes sense I think and helps me with my
   time problems, and it has finally kicked me to postpone other things and really start
   writing our paper now.

   By the way, Phil, Rudolf is rather optimistic that an online version of the paper will not
   have the usual "Climatic Change" delays. This relies also on keeping our own deadline
   (early July), but I see no problem on that.

   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

   Von: David Frank [mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch]
   Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 07:04
   An: Reinhard Boehm
   Betreff: Re: AW: EI-paper


   Hi Reinhard,


   That is a big jump between having an outline and a draft in a short amount of time! (I wish
   i could do this too...)


   Included in the text are a some minor comments/suggestions. Most of these go in the
   direction of trying to help a reader who is not aware of the EI problem, realize more
   quickly how/why this might be a problem.


   I still like the idea to include the modelling aspect as part of a composite figure with
   proxy evidence.


   Best wishes,
   David



     Dear Maurizio, dear all


     Find attached yesterday's new version of the paper. It contains a rather detailed
     "Introduction" which already shortly discusses the proxy evidence. This may serve, as
     You Maurizio and also Phil claimed for, to keep the proxy section short enough and thus
     leave more place for the core of the paper.

     What would be nice for the (still missing) proxy section would be (one?) comparative
     Figure showing several (all?) proxi records together. But the problem is that not all of
     them are really reconstructed temperatures - so what to do with things like "dust
     content", delta 18O, S?

     Finally I want to draw your attention on the short section in the introduction on
     natural forcings and on respective modelling results. I am still in favour of at least
     mentioning this, although the majority of you seems not really to like it. Maybe you
     change your mind having had a look at the examples shown in the second attached file (I
     hope the German captions are not too enigmatic for some of you, I took the examples from
     my new book which is in German).


     Best regards


     Reinhard



   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

     Von: Maurizio Maugeri [mailto:maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it]
     Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 18:42
     An: Reinhard Boehm
     Betreff: Re: EI-paper


     Dear Reinhard,


     I agree with you. The paper will probably benefit of an additional section on "the
     evidence for the ei problem". Anyway I suggest a not-too-long section and I'm not so in
     favour of including a part on the models. I think that we should concentrate on the main
     focus of the paper (the correction of the EI series) and so I suggest to considere
     the section on "the evidence for the ei problem" as a section that clearly explains why
     we have to concern with a bias in the EI records. But can model data help us to do that?


     Ciao


     Maurizio



     ----- Original Message -----

     From: [1]Reinhard Boehm

     To: [2]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [3]'michele' ; [4]'Phil Jones' ; [5]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at
     ; [6]'David Frank'

     Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:22 PM

     Subject: EI-paper


     Friends,


     Find attached my proposal for the structure of our common paper. Please comment on it, I
     am going to start writing then soon. Please comment particularly on the section about
     "evidence for the ei-problemS". For this I have already received several contributions
     (of about 1 page each) from the proxy-people. The intention of this section is to
     illustrate existing systematic biases instrumental vs. proxy or not. I think this is a
     necessary section, but it increases of course the length of the paper. I am in favour of
     doing it, but I would like to hear your comments. Of course then we have to increase
     also the number of co-authors by the following persons: Karin Koinig (lake sediments,
     Univ. Innsbruck), Dietmar Wagenbach (Icecores, Univ. Heidelberg) and Jrg Lutherbacher
     (Grapeharvest Swiss plateau, Univ. Bern). I also would like to ask Eduardo Zorita (GKSS)
     to send the GAR-section of their ERIK-model runs, which would add another independent
     information. For your information I have attached two of his historic model runs he sent
     me some months ago for my "Heie Luft"-Book. What you see on the attached file is
     JJAS-average over continental Europe. If GAR is not too different from it, this would
     again be a hint towards our new corrected datasets.

     Looking forward to your comments


     Best regards


     Reinhard

     Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-06-16.doc (WDBN/IC) (002044E6)
     Attachment converted: MacDave:FORCING-MODELLING-EXAMPLES.doc (WDBN/IC) (002044E7)

