articles/ceaice/comments_todo.txt

27-Jul-2008, PH:
---------------

o 
Can we agree on coherent terminology of
Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA).

o 
Export numbers for free-slip, noslip are not consistent with what I have.
Also, do we want to refer to annual mean, or rather integrated annual transport?

o
You've removed a lot of "basic" descriptions which I think need to be
mentioned first before looking at pecularities

o
Figure 5:
Could you refine zonal grid to 10deg. spacing.
(e.g. by slightly diminishing label size).

o 
Figure 6: good, but a bit messy as it is now.
I suggest to
* remove bottom row (ice strength)
* increase size of remaining plots,
* add more separation between the rows,
* add another 1-Jul line (in addition to the 1-Jan) line (for better orientation)
Furthermore, an extra Figure which contains same type of Hovmueller plots for
* current bottom row (ice strength)
* row with ice concentration
* row with ice thickness
* row with snow thickness
* row with SST
(main reason is that ice strenght vs. precip. "correlations" don't fully hold up)
Finally, would be nice to have a picture
of the zonal section.


1	27-Jul-2008, PH:
2	---------------
3
4	o
5	Can we agree on coherent terminology of
6	Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA).
7
8	o
9	Export numbers for free-slip, noslip are not consistent with what I have.
10	Also, do we want to refer to annual mean, or rather integrated annual transport?
11
12	o
13	You've removed a lot of "basic" descriptions which I think need to be
14	mentioned first before looking at pecularities
15
16	o
17	Figure 5:
18	Could you refine zonal grid to 10deg. spacing.
19	(e.g. by slightly diminishing label size).
20
21	o
22	Figure 6: good, but a bit messy as it is now.
23	I suggest to
24	* remove bottom row (ice strength)
25	* increase size of remaining plots,
26	* add more separation between the rows,
27	* add another 1-Jul line (in addition to the 1-Jan) line (for better orientation)
28	Furthermore, an extra Figure which contains same type of Hovmueller plots for
29	* current bottom row (ice strength)
30	* row with ice concentration
31	* row with ice thickness
32	* row with snow thickness
33	* row with SST
34	(main reason is that ice strenght vs. precip. "correlations" don't fully hold up)
35	Finally, would be nice to have a picture
36	of the zonal section.
37
38