FULL TEXT Search

the amplitude ot the diurnal radiative forcing [Joanna House] 7-591 A 14:46 14:47 The presence or absence of clouds is a key factor that has a significant effect on the Accepted - point made clearer in nighttime surface temperature. revision. [Andrew Lacis] 7-592 A 14:49 15:2 The DTR-aerosols connection should be in section 7.5.3.2. The DTR-deforestation In part rejected. To describe connection has to stay here, and both section should of course interact for the reader to get mechanisms of change over land, it is a consistent picture of what causes DTR changes. necessary to describe what is the [Pierre Friedlingstein] change of driver.

The climate system simply hasn't had time to respond to the accumulated GHG radiative forcing. [Andrew Lacis] 9-350 A 13:5 13:23 These two paragraphs discuss and distinguish "bottom-up" and "top-down" estimates accepted (better, "forward" and "inverse" calculations) of radiative forcing.

All this has to be accounted for in the observed temperature record, as of course it has been in many climate change simulations conducted with climate GCMs that include all of the relevant physics and climate forcings. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1316 A 63:12 Replace “probablity” with “chances” Why? [Vincent Gray] 9-1317 A 63:14 63:14 "Unlikely": this is too weak when compared with the findings in the rest of the chapter.

Accepted ...rewritten [Patrick Hamill] 2-660 A 13:5 13:5 Should read "In TAR the…" Accepted [Eleanor Highwood] 2-661 A 13:5 13:6 The fact that reasons for the decrease in atmospheric methane's growth rate were not Accepted and removed understood in TAR would not appear to be particularly noteworthy. [Andrew Lacis] 2-662 A 13:5 13:6 Sentence should read: "In the TAR… were not understood". This inserts "the" and uses Accepted past tense.

But perhaps a Accepted significant fraction could more properly be moved to Chapter 7. [Andrew Lacis] 2-2691 B 13:14 13:14 in ANTHROPOGENIC methane emissions Accepted [Olivier Boucher] 2-672 A 13:14 13:20 The wording `whereas' implies that these two papers give opposing views when they are Accepted saying essentially the same thing.

Refer to scetion [Tim Bates] 2.4 for action. 2-747 A 15:42 15:52 There is some unnecessary repetition here. Not really repetition since one refers to [Andrew Lacis] cross-sections and the other to RF. However the more relevant topic is RF so text shortened. Also cross-reference to section 2.10.1 added. 2-748 A 15:48 15:52 These lines seem to be a restatement of lines 42-45 See 2-747 reply.

For estimating RF for stratospheric water vapor changes based on more precise raditive transfer modeling, Oinas et al. (1991) provide an accurate parameterized formula that gives 0.2 W/m2 forcing for a 1 ppmv change in stratospheric water vapor compared to the 0.29 W/m2 obtained by Forster and Shine (2002). [Andrew Lacis] 2-965 A 23:18 22:19 Such a large difference (5-10 times) should be explained or commented. Noted. No longer there [Eugene Rozanov] 2-966 A 23:18 23:18 "these two estimates" - these two estimates hardly seem to be independent ones, for a Noted. reworded point that gets quite some attention [Keith Shine] 2-967 A 23:19 23:20 Some clarification would be helpful to reconcile this statement with those made on page Noted. reworded 2-22, lines 39-40 and page 2-23, lines 2-3 from a conclusion standpoint.

[Theodore Anderson] 2-1526 A 37:13 37:17 This is where sea salt aerosols make a significant contribution. Noted [Andrew Lacis] 2-1527 A 37:13 37:19 In other words, a very difficult scientific challenge. Noted [Jerry Mahlman] 2-1528 A 37:16 37:17 The references (Tang, 1997; McInnes et al.,1998; Ming and Russell, 2002).are not Taken into account.

Accepted [Patrick Hamill] 2-1822 A 51:51 51:57 It should be explained more clearly how a change in total irradiance of 0.5 W/m2 Accepted. Text rewritten. becomes a RF of 01.12 W/m2. [Andrew Lacis] 2-1823 A 51:51 51:51 Ensure that all possibilities are referenced, including the highest. Noted. The text includes a high [Stephen McIntyre] estimate. 2-2753 B 51:53 51:53 I don't see why accounting for the 11 yr cycle increases the secular trend unless there is a Noted.

Batch From To Comment Notes [Hartmut Grassl] 2-1991 A 59:1 correct: "atmospheric" to "atmosphere" Accepted [Hartmut Grassl] 2-1992 A 59:1 replace "there" by "their" Accepted [Joanna Haigh] 2-1993 A 59:5 59:5 The efficacy of climate forcings also depends on the time scale over which they are Accepted - text added allowed to operate (Hansen et al., 2005). [Andrew Lacis] 2-1994 A 59:7 59:7 "more representative" -> "better predictor" … and with the important caveat that this is Accepted - reworded the case in models!