cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:16:00 +0200
from: Fortunat Joos <joos@climate.unibe.ch>
subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
to: David Rind <drind@giss.nasa.gov>

<x-flowed>
Hi,

What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 and not 
just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).

The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the 
evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in general 
much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6 statement covering the 
whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely to the next sentence on 
line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if chapter 2 
indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I 
wanted to hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting.

Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed 
out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress!

Regards, Fortunat

David Rind wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> 
> Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to 
> keep is:
> 
> P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the first 
> paragraph (lines 2-7).
> 
> 
> All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
> 
> Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and 
> Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to 
> keep what's there, adding just a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also  
> Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still 
> includes the solar and volcanic forcing).
> 
> David
> 
> 
> At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
> 
>> Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even 
>> if they live in Europe.
>>
>> Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be 
>> making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that we 
>> can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic forcing down 
>> to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not cover 
>> that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)?
>>
>> Many thanks, Peck
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> [It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner! 
>>> (regardless of the time difference).]
>>>
>>> What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to 
>>> Gavin's comment - that we would basically cross-reference chap 2, 
>>> where the primary discussion would occur. It's consistent with 
>>> chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed over 
>>> time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and 
>>> volcanic forcing. Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that 
>>> existed in Chapter 6 on these issues to complement their discussion, 
>>> if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make 
>>> the proper cross-references.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David 
>>>> Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we kept things 
>>>> covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and volcanic discussions 
>>>> in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, 
>>>> Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work 
>>>> this efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at 
>>>> work sooner.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks... Best, Peck
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.6.3.1   Solar forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.6.3.2   Volcanic forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics.  I 
>>>>> checked
>>>>> Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) 
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings.  Gavin suggests 
>>>>> that only
>>>>> the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and 
>>>>> leave the
>>>>> most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
>>>>> section following his advice.  Please, find below the outline of the
>>>>> sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricardo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7 Natural Forcings
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1 Solar Variability
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by 
>>>>> volcanic
>>>>> aerosols
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
>>>>> To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>; "Keith Briffa"
>>>>> <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
>>>>> Cc: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>; "Ricardo Villalba"
>>>>> <ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>; "joos" <joos@climate.unibe.ch>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>>>>>>  out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>>>>>>  Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not.  Is it
>>>>>>  published properly?  I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 
>>>>>> 18O
>>>>>>  record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
>>>>>>  1300 AD?  That period appears in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>>>>>>  A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate 
>>>>>> variability
>>>>>>  ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>>>>>>  Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>>>>>>  southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>>>>>>  CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>  >Figure 6.10.
>>>>>>  >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle 
>>>>>> panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>>>>>  >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>>>>>  >color) in the bottom panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>>>>>  >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>>>  >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>>>>>  >bigger by a couple increments at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >Figure 6.11.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>>>>>  >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>>>>>
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>>>  >Figure 6.12
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>>>>>  >it's still not published.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I think Henry said they could stay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>>>>>  >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>>>>>  >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>>>>>  >she seems to know these data at least a little
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Already discussed above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>>>>>  >probably better to use bold fonts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold.  When reduced to
>>>>>>  small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>>>>>>  think, so I'll standardise on non-bold.  It's not possible to
>>>>>>  completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>>>>>>  might be scaled by different amounts.  I don't know final figure
>>>>>>  size, so will make a good guess.  Should be ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >Figure 6.13
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>>>>>  >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>>>>>  >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>>>>>  >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old 
>>>>>> ECHO-G
>>>>>
>>>>> in?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>>>>>  >and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ok, as discussed above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>>>>>  >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>>>>>  >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat 
>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>  >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>  >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>>>>>  >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>>>>>  >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that 
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>  >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>>>>>>  >compact to permit its inclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>>>>>  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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>>>>>  **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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/
> 
> 
> 

-- 

   Climate and Environmental Physics,
   Physics Institute, University of Bern
   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
   Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/

</x-flowed>
