FULL TEXT Search

Much less confidence is warranted for regional climate changes since the modeling and understanding of regional climate change is still rather primitive. [Andrew Lacis] 9-319 A 12:8 Obvious overlaps with Chapter 2. There is a need for a "box" relating key material in Put in a table and explicity mention Ch.

Mixing the two processes does not lead to improved understanding of either changes, so this statement is not physical problem. applicable. However, header has been [Andrew Lacis] changed to not set these two concepts against each other, and physical properties havebeen better explained. 9-1199 A 57:23 Should the title of this section be: "Transient climate response vs. equilibrium climate Title has been revised.

Jones] 9-1219 A 58:51 58:55 This is probably more a case of reverse engineering than actual information on climate We agree and have drastically sensitivity. shortened the description of this result. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1220 A 58:51 Section 9.6.2.2: this section suffers from too many different numbers, which make the We disagree that numbers are a section unreadable.

In any case, it is hardly a scientifically credible description to be attached to observational data. [Andrew Lacis] 9-75 A 3:4 3:7 Very well said. I am pleased that you, and IPCC, are still making good use of my Noted.

[Michael MacCracken] 9-1071 A 51:18 52:49 This discussion should be moved to Chapter 4. Discussed with Chapter 4 (Phillip [Andrew Lacis] Mote). We will reduce description of observed changes and concentrate more on their understanding. 9-1072 A 51:18 Section 9.5.4.

[Michael MacCracken] 9-1233 A 59:20 60:3 It would be highly desirable if a GCM with the same model physics would be able to Not clear why the reviewer thinks this model both current climate and the climate of the LGM. is not the case. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1234 A 59:21 59:21 Change "gases" to "gas concentrations" Text edited. [Michael MacCracken] 9-1235 A 59:21 59:24 Ice sheets are a feedback, not a forcing in the forcing definition.

While the simplified model approach can produce useful results and insights, strong caveats need to be expressed. [Andrew Lacis] 9-361 A 13:33 Insert “fairly” before “well known” Not accepted [Vincent Gray] 9-362 A 13:39 13:39 Columns and lines of table 9.2.1 do not contain the identification of what is reported, so Caption revised.

More relevant may be formulating the question in terms of inter- annual variability of current climate versus past climates. [Andrew Lacis] 9-500 A 20:50 20:50 Change "zone" to "zones" done [Michael MacCracken] 9-501 A 21:0 9.3.3 Seems to overlap substantially with chapter 6.

Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. [Andrew Lacis] 9-68 A 3:1 The abstract is overall OK. However, I believe you should state the objectives of the We feel that the ES is not the place to chapter, and explain the difference between "observation" and "detection".

That is why the equilibirum temperature response for doubled CO2 is about 2.7 degrees C, instead of 1.2 to 1.3 degrees C, where the latter is the equilibrium global mean temperature response if there are no feedback effects operating. [Andrew Lacis] 9-200 A 5:21 5:22 I think the summary needs to include a statement that the best estimate of climate Accepted.