FULL TEXT Search

The rest of the global mean temperature response is due to the sum total of the different feedback process contributions which few would claim to have an accuracy that is within 25%. [Andrew Lacis] 2-1945 A 57:30 57:31 I agree that this linearity argument makes sense. Noted [Jerry Mahlman] 2-1946 A 57:30 57:32 This statement is not true for the evaluation of the aerosol indirect effect by Rotstayn and Accepted - clairfiaction added Penner (J.

Note for example the +/- 2% solar flux and CFC + O3 experiments described by Hansen et al. (1997). [Andrew Lacis] 2-1957 A 58:21 58:23 But this misses the important point for policy makers and engineers. Policy makers and Accepted engineers can only act on future effects.

[Michael MacCracken] 6-1602 A 39:28 39:30 Word inclusion used twice… Accepted [Andrew Lacis] 6-1603 A 39:28 39:31 A more local-scale modelling study by Midgely et al., poublished in GCB alongside the Noted Harriosn and Prentice work, also showed a major response of vegetation structure to the glacial-interglacial CO2 shift.

While Rejected - polemics with no the point is appropriate, it should be more subtly presented. constructive suggestion for change [Andrew Lacis] 6-1718 A 66:24 66:24 Change "of" to "over" Accepted [Michael MacCracken] 6-1719 A 67:0 Table 6.1. Note on ocean cooling at LGM in North Atlantic: may also need to recall that Noted, but space liimitations apply there is lots of differences between data reconstructions.

This is referenced in Chapter 8. is given by Hansen et al. (1997). [Andrew Lacis] 10-552 A 18:30 18:37 The comments on the sign and uncertainity in cloud feedback are much better handelled Noted. We wish to show the new in Chapter 8.

documented GHG increases, and the radiative consequences of these GHG changes (together with some inferred aerosol changes) fully account for the observed trends of global temperature increase. [Andrew Lacis] 9-518 A 22:27 22:50 Once again, the subject matter would seem to come under the purview of chapter 6, where Taken into account, but minimum a more detailed discussion is already provided.

Batch From To Comment Notes could even be a section on "specific progress that needs to be made beyond what is understood at the time of the current report". [Andrew Lacis] 2-274 A 4:31 4:31 Comments like "medium level of scientific understanding" or "low level of scientific Rejected but clarified understanding" are a fuzzy form of non-information and should be avoided.

If the equilibrium temperature change is smaller than Delta-T-zero, the feedbacks are negative. [Andrew Lacis] 2-415 A 8:25 8:29 In principle, the preparation of fossil fuels for burning at specified geographic locations Noted. Text clarified could be considered climate forcings at their basic non-radiative level, assuming then that Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Chapter 2: Batch AB (11/16/05) Page 67 of 386

But, renmarkably, the global mean surface temperature in January (with more incident solar energy) is actually several degrees colder than it is during July. [Andrew Lacis] 2-2345 A 94:26 :29 This definition is imprecise and erroneous. Radiative forcing is a change in an energy flux Accepted.

bogus in the light of this evidence, and, as usual, no discussion of the contradiction is included. [Andrew Lacis] 6-867 A 17:37 18:12 I am surprised that there is no mention at all of possible tropical mechanisms, speculative Accepted.