Overpeck: "ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT?"

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! - Email 3167

     5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just because the reviewer
     is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of impartiality if he has now
     been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure - still
     happy to provide advice  [Crowley]

My own position on this is that you are an "unofficial" referee, who has (and still is) making a significant contribution - I see no conflict [Briffa]
---
What we worry very much about, however, is that we should not produce a Figure that then
conflicts with the picture of proxy evidence for Hemispheric mean warmth as a
whole,shown in the main Chapter Figure. By showing a composite (as Tom has done) and
scaling against another (30-90degrees N) temperature record - this is just what is done. [briffa]

     ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - CAN'T HAVE CONFLICT. [overpeck]...

WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE ONLY SHOW THE SERIES FOR THE MWP, SINCE THE COMPARISON TO THE 20TH CENTURY IS DONE WELL (AND BEST?) IN THE TEXT FIGS (WHICH I'M ATTACHING JUST IN CASE TOM DOESN'T HAVE, ALONG WITH THE TEXT - IF YOU HAVE TIME, TOM, PLEASE READ COMMENT ON ANYTHING YOU WISH, BUT CERTAINLY THE LAST 2000 YEARS BIT - ASSUME YOU'LL BE DOING THIS AT THE REVIEW STAGE ANYHOW...) ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY [overpeck]