FULL TEXT Search

The measurements demonstrate that the human emissions mix with the air (which is not surprising) and do not “provide evidence” of anything else except that they can be used (with poor resolution) to partition carbon fluxes. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-59)] TS-174 A 7:14 7:24 Do you need to say at the start of this bullet that ~30% of our atmospheric emissions are Text is now substantially revised and taken up by the biosphere?

By no stretch of the imagination can production and comparison of such “projections” be said to be “significant progress has been made in understanding past, recent and future climate change”. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-37)] TS-33 A 3:4 3:4 TS Comment: Replace the phrase “These advances have arisen from:” Rejected - see ch 1 regarding advances with in modelling and projections for the past “These studies include acquisition of:”.

The possible reasons recent variability are covered in the text. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-54)] TS-151 A 6:45 6:45 Add at end "Its concentration has now been constsnt for five years, and seems likely to fall" Rejected - no basis given for expecting [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-1911)] a fall.

[Govt. of United Kingdom (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2022-100)] SPM- A 3:28 3:28 Figure SPM-1 only goes back to 6 ka BC, but is used to illustrate/justify Figure timescale and text revised to match.

[Richard Betts (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 21-19)] 11-1307 A 79:12 79:12 Cross-reference to Chapter 2 land use section?

[Richard Hindmarsh (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 106-3)] 4-262 A 24:20 24:20 "GRACE data indicate loss of 139 ± 73 Gt a-1 between April, 2002 and July, 2005".

The lack of variability in someplaces is a fascinating topic, and deserves mention as given. [Richard B. Alley (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 4-24)] Confidential, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Ch10: Batch AB (06/15/06) Page 154 of 188

[Richard Allan (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 3-40)] 3-594 A 35:36 35:39 Suggest reducing to "...and a reduction in DTR (Dai et al., 2006).

The information is buried in here, but some sort of summarisation is needed. [Richard Hindmarsh (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 106-11)] 4-226 A 20:8 There remains a question of how much comment should be put in about the modelling.

summarize box 3.2 [Richard Allan (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 3-50)] 3-631 A 40:0 Box 3.2: recent results from Gedney et al. (2006; Nature) suggest that increased CO2 may Noted, but those results are based on have reduced evapotranspiration since some plants may reduce the sizes of their pores and residuals and do not account adequately this appears detectable in the river-run off records. for likely data problems in precip and [Richard Allan (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 3-53)] streamflow. 3-632 A 40:6 How do these changes in cloud fit in with Section 3.4.3 which deals with cloud changes?